Silicon Valley Billionaire Wants You Off His Stretch of the California Coastline | Hacker News Reader

Silicon Valley Billionaire Wants You Off His Stretch of the California Coastline

gizmodo.com

35 pointssrameshc19 comments

> Khosla’s appeal with the Supreme Court argues that he shouldn’t have to get a permit to lock the public access gates, claiming the California Coastal Act is a violation of his constitutional rights. The California Coastal Act was enacted in 1976 to ensure the public had access to the California shoreline.

So this guy wants to outlaw easements, basically because he's rich so he shouldn't have to share? Seems like he has more money than sense.

Immigrants like me are deeply appreciative of the laws and commitment to set aside public spaces in America. It's one of those things that "Makes America Great".

So it is embarrassing to see a fellow immigrant who finds success in this nation and lets that get to his head. I find it sad how quickly too much wealth makes you quickly forget your humble roots.

It really just depends on who exactly the "public" is that is inhabiting the "public spaces". I'm sure this Khosla fellow wouldn't mind his property being used by beautiful surfer girls in bikinis who don't leave litter behind. Maybe he just wants trashy people to stay away from his property.

What difference does this make?

California is undergoing a demographic transition.

It's not his property though, it is public property that is adjacent to his that he doesn't own.

No he can't prevent people from going to that beach, by boat and isn't asking for that. It is the easement that he doesn't want.

The easements are a matter of public policy to ensure beach access. If he doesn't want to deal with that, he shouldn't have bought beach real estate in California.

I in no way have disagreed. Why post this here?

Private property is another thing that "Makes America Great."

> Private property is another thing that "Makes America Great."

Not when its taken to this degree.

This is such a joke. The fact that he can waste our government’s money and time on bs like this is infuriating. He’s just a wealthy person who has nothing to do with his time other than yell at people to get off his lawn. I’m just glad the CA Supreme Court declined to hear the case, here’s to hoping the US Supreme Court does the same.

For all the money he's made and the good he's done, it's gotta sting that he'll be remembered as much for this beach dispute than anything he's ever accomplished.

Pity California did not follow Oregon ... when the governor wanted to claim the shore for the public, he found his only powers of property sequestration were for building roads, so he made the whole coast a highway:

In 1911, governor Oswald West was elected on the promise to reclaim Oregon's beaches as public land. Though the legislature favored the privatization of these lands, West was able to make an argument for public ownership based on the need for transportation, and in 1913, the Oregon legislature declared the entire length of the ocean shore from the Columbia to California as a state highway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Coast#1860%E2%80%93pres...

I have a feeling the billionaire problem will only get worse with time.

Right, and money often buys power in government as well so we cannot rely on the judicial system to curb these abuses of the law and due process.

Is this significantly different from the Seadrift HOA gates blocking off access to the Stinson Beach peninsula? Is that case exempt because it's still technically walkable between mean high and low tides?

> Is this significantly different from the Seadrift HOA gates blocking off access to the Stinson Beach peninsula? Is that case exempt because it's still technically walkable between mean high and low tides?

Seadrift, IIRC, is different because property that had access closed off prior to the adoption of the law requiring access, and Sesdrift’s closed access preceded the law by ~25 years.

(ISTR there are also an issue caused by the State DoJ, with a Republican AG at the time, abandoning enforcement and forcing the Coastal Commission to accept a settlement with Seadrift that significantly limited public use rights compared to the law’s facial requirements.)

Previous discussion from 2014: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8365061

Reply on news.ycombinator.com