Hacker News Reader

Comment by aqme28 | Hacker News Reader

> as Khosla mentioned the beach is unprofitable to run, should CA be footing that bill? Could they sublease the property to an entrepreneur that thinks they could make the beachside facilities profitable? It is entirely unreasonable (even given the excessive wealth of Khosla) for him to be forced to maintain an unprofitable entity like that and all the facility liability that goes along with it.

Does he need to maintain those facilities? Could he just unblock access and move on? This feels like a cheap excuse.

View on HN

Seemingly (IANAL) he could, in fact, do that. I think his concern would be if he's not properly maintaining it, now the beach near his house is going to fill up with trash, maybe overnight campers, etc. So he's either got to foot the bill to keep it looking nice, or end up with a garbage beach.

So it's definitely a sticky situation. Personally, I'd just open it up, I think people generally treat beaches OK in Cali, but I can imagine his concern.

As another commenter mentions, it seems like a very reasonable expectation that the state would maintain it.

> it seems like a very reasonable expectation that the state would maintain it

As a matter of principle I'm inclined to agree. However many (possibly most?) US cities require the property owner to maintain the sidewalk fronting their property; this situation might be similar.

> So he's either got to foot the bill to keep it looking nice, or end up with a garbage beach.

Seems like a perfectly fine tradeoff to me. The beach belongs to the public, and not all beaches are well-maintained. If he wants to keep the views on this beach (that he does not own) nice, he can pay to maintain them. Pretty sure running the beach for the next 100 years would be a drop in the bucket for him anyway.

If I were him, I would be very thankful for what I have (as I am am anyway) and would share my success with others. In this case it would mean opening it up and footing the bill for the maintenance of the beach. Why not? Does he really need more money pragmatically? It seems like the good will, feeling of joy coming from helping your local community in which you live, and leaving the world better than you found it would be more than enough return for the investment. I'm a "working stiff" and happily contribute to the upkeep, cleanliness and worthy volunteer organizations in the community I live and get far more from such than it takes from me.

Edited- spelling error.

Charity is commendable. But if you are being forced by law to do something, it is not charity.

So he's either got to foot the bill to keep it looking nice, or end up with a garbage beach.

AFAICT, nothing about this has changed since his purchase of the property, and therefore should have been a consideration before purchase. Arguments to the contrary, such as the owner is currently making, reminds me of people who move next to an existing motorsports raceway and complain about the noise (which has been documented to have actually happened in several locations).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com