Posted on 08/19/2017 9:00:55 AM PDT by ptsal
why doesn’t the sheriff remove the lock and then arrest the guy if he re-locks it.
California doesn’t have to pay this imported jackass anything. The public access path is already there, he put that gate up to block it.
Article states prior owners allowed access to the public.
I’m sorry. But if he owns all the property up to the beach he can do what he wants on his property to keep people from damaging his property.. I suggest people find another way to the beach or buy him out..
***the gate remains padlocked with no-trespassing signs.***
Bolt cutters ain’t out of style.
the beach was created with no public access as a means of making a private beach.
he did an expansion and consented to a public access.
he lost his court case to the California alt left courts where he argued extortion.
Vinod Khosla should have his home taken from him and turned into a visitor center for beach bums to hang out at.
Take to a higher court.. If I owned a piece of property i wouldn’t want people invading my space and trashing my land.. Would You?
It would have been nice if a reporter had pulled the survey before writing their articles.
I wonder if they would fine anyone who just drove through the gate using a ratty old pickup?
The road was a long established as public access. Khosla claimed all access to the beach. Basically he wanted it to be a private beach. However the public easement was well established by at least 80 years and maybe even 100s of years of access. Khosla bought all the surrounding property, closed off access and hired some goons to run off the surfers and picnickers. Access to beaches is well established precedent in California, Khosla was just hoping he get his way. Unfortunately he neglected to appreciate the legal resources of the surfriders foundation...its not a vanilla property rights situation, article X of the state constitution asserts prior right. Khosla’s attorney tried to argue the property was founded in a Spanish land grant and couldn’t be superseded by the state constitution, but this didn’t carry as it had been a public access beach for many decades. The previous owners only charged for parking, not access, so beachgoers were not paying to access and the right was well established. And Khosla is a globalist d**k anyways, but of course that only established his motivation, not a his rights...
Again ....
Please cite the law and portion of the constitution.
so, it appears the road is his, but was used "since 1918" with permission of previous owners for access, and is the only safe access for that area. In California, the property lines end at high-water's edge. I guess that's the same for people who live on lake lots maybe? According to the SF article, the next step is eminent domain vs Mexican Land Grant.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Vinod-Khosla-wants-30-million-for-Martins-Beach-6847689.php
it says it right there, hon. 1976 California Coastal Act. “Acts” become part of the California constitution.
worth finding out
Actually the statute from the 70s clarifies the public beach goes up to the vegetation line. The state constitution required the legislature interpret article x as liberally as possible to ensure access was preserved.
flouting not flaunting
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.