Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Liberal_in_LA

(44,397 posts)
Sat Dec 6, 2014, 05:46 PM Dec 2014

judge rules that billionaire cant block public from beach

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Judge-orders-billionaire-to-open-gate-to-Martins-5938974.php

After a surf session, Morgan Williams of San Francisco climbs over a locked gate that blocks the only public access to Martins Beach in in San Mateo County in May.


Billionaire Vinod Khosla Can't Block Surfers From Martin's Beach, Judge...


The billionaire owner of a Peninsula beach was ordered Friday by a San Mateo County judge to open the gates to the sandy haven, which he insists is his exclusive property.

Judge Barbara Mallach issued her final order in the contentious case, specifically telling venture capitalist Vinod Khosla that he had to reopen the gate to popular Martins Beach, a crescent-shaped inlet 5 miles south of Half Moon Bay.

Khosla, who closed the gate four years ago, was told by the court in July that his failure to obtain a permit before blocking access to Martins Beach was illegal. Khosla, however, argued in legal briefs after the trial that he did not believe he had to open the gate until after he had made an application to the Coastal Commission and he had been told by commission authorities to do so. The gate has been closed since the trial ended five months ago, but surfers and other beachgoers have been walking around it.
Mallach said in her final judgment Friday that Khosla was wrong and that he had to immediately open the gate, said Joe Cotchett, lead attorney for the Surfrider Foundation, which filed a lawsuit demanding public access.
“It has been a long struggle, but the public access has been preserved thanks to our judicial system,” Cotchett said.
Khosla paid $32.5 million in 2008 for the property, which includes 45 leased cabins along the coastal cliffs. He closed the only public access gate in September 2010, citing the high cost of maintenance and liability insurance. Surfrider sued last year, arguing that the sandy shoreline had been open to all comers since at least 1918 and belonged to the public.
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
judge rules that billionaire cant block public from beach (Original Post) Liberal_in_LA Dec 2014 OP
Dollar to a donut 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #1
Can't believe the 1% class with beach front property still insist on trying to add it to Cleita Dec 2014 #2
k&r Starry Messenger Dec 2014 #3
Good for the Surfrider Foundation! mountain grammy Dec 2014 #4
Did he claim that "property" Politicalboi Dec 2014 #5
I clearly approve this ruling, but I bet the vast majority of the beach visitors are 1%ers too. onehandle Dec 2014 #6
After laying down $32 mil, this cock employs the incredulous argument that-- slumcamper Dec 2014 #7
Welcome to DU, slumcamper! calimary Dec 2014 #8
 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
1. Dollar to a donut
Sat Dec 6, 2014, 05:57 PM
Dec 2014

The billionaire appeals this ruling to SCOTUS and wins there, "becau$e he can".

I'm not saying this will happen for sure, but it wouldn't surprise
me in the least if it went down that way.

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
2. Can't believe the 1% class with beach front property still insist on trying to add it to
Sat Dec 6, 2014, 06:01 PM
Dec 2014

their already high priced digs illegally. The law is clear. The beach fronts all along the State of California belong to the state and therefore the people of California.

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
6. I clearly approve this ruling, but I bet the vast majority of the beach visitors are 1%ers too.
Sat Dec 6, 2014, 07:09 PM
Dec 2014

Millionaires vs. a Billionaire.

Palo Alto and San Francisco are minutes away.

slumcamper

(1,606 posts)
7. After laying down $32 mil, this cock employs the incredulous argument that--
Sat Dec 6, 2014, 07:58 PM
Dec 2014

the cost of liability insurance is too high? Were I not rendered so mute I would laugh out loud! WTF. For a billionaire to justify his mean-spiritedness on that basis takes some big cajones.

So the public interest has--at this stage--ostensibly triumphed over the predilection of the individual. Ayn Rand must be seething. Alas, beware, for the conservative court of last appeal, as currently constituted, would likely overturn this ruling and grant the right of individual property owners to gate and control access to any and all public areas.

The road to progress is long and arduous, and the forces against the forward march of history are entrenched and engaged in perpetual fight. There is never time to applaud even the smallest victory. Instead, prepare for the next battle.

Love u all!

calimary

(81,255 posts)
8. Welcome to DU, slumcamper!
Sat Dec 6, 2014, 09:54 PM
Dec 2014

Glad you're here! That last paragraph of yours is pure gold!

"The road to progress is long and arduous, and the forces against the forward march of history are entrenched and engaged in perpetual fight. There is never time to applaud even the smallest victory. Instead, prepare for the next battle."

As Mad-Eye Moody warned Harry Potter - "CONSTANT VIGILANCE!!!!!" We can NEVER let down our guard. Look what's happened since everyone went back to sleep after Roe v Wade. Now, it's on life support, because the opposition did not sleep. Willfully. They WOULD not sleep - and they tried to think up every and any kind of assault that would weaken it, limit it, chip away at it, close in on it, and otherwise obstruct it, til it's almost literally on the ropes. All those voices I've heard who've lamented - "but I thought this was SETTLED!" They realize too late that whether it was settled law or not (and it was and still is), the opponents refused to accept that and fought to change it. We under-estimated or just plainly didn't expect the strength or relentlessness of the opposition. Sure didn't anticipate or plan for it! And look where we are now. The fight is never over! For any fight to be over, you need both sides to agree that it's over. OVER. Unfortunately, in cases like a woman's right to choose - AND ALSO gay rights, AND, as we've all painfully seen - the right to vote, and the rights of minorities. The rights of the haves versus the have nots - with the haves aggressively asserting that their rights trump all others.

There ARE people, at this very moment in this so-called modern, First-World country, who believe the right to vote should only belong to white male property owners. The assumption being that those who own property are vested in the system, and have a personal stake in it. They have skin in the game and those of us who don't are simply lazy moochers who don't deserve all these special rights, too. And that the elites and the haves should be that way because they're blessed and favored by God. After all, God wants you to be rich! And if you just keep on voting for the GOP (aka God's Party), you too will be rich someday!

We can NEVER let down our guard. We can NEVER assume that the war is won. Because as long as there's really adamant and relentless and non-conceding opposition, it really never is.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»judge rules that billiona...