nice business oportunity
Seems like some money could be made by offering a water-taxi service from a publicly accessible location over to this stretch of beach. Or maybe just do it for free to piss the guy off.
Surf’s up, but not on this beach. A judge has ruled that Vinod Khosla, the billionaire venture capitalist co-founder of Sun, is allowed to block beach-goers from walking or driving across his property to access the 200-acre stretch of coastal sand in front of it. Martin's Beach road access closure Martin's Beach Road closure …
Yup, perfect opportunity for the loudest water taxi service you can think of, running every 15 minutes.
I believe Sir Christopher Cockerell came up with just the machine for this...
Or maybe Top Gear's spin on it might be even better...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beoTcF2CsvE
The US television program TV Nation - a Michael Moore production from the 1990s - once did something similar with beach access in Greenwich, Connecticut. The Snobbsville burghers had declared the beach private and cut off land access, so the TVN crew gathered a bunch of the unwashed, put 'em on a boat, and "stormed" the beach (after which said unwashed were, presumably, washed).
Good fun. And yes, if I lived anywhere near Santa Cruz, I'd be boating over to Martin's Beach too.
(Here in Michigan, the state still permits private lakeshore beaches, and it's unlikely that the Legislature, which is firmly in the hands of the moneyed classes, will be changing that anytime soon.)
In today's world, the things that matter are money, fun, entertainment, 'respect', status, being in the newspapers, money, and...money. People, relatives, friends especially, community, live and let live, these things are no longer very relevant.
I pay 38 million dollars for a huge property near the beach. People have been using one of the paths for years before I came here to access their public amenity, the beach. I don't want this. I find a way to prevent them. I'm happy. They're not happy? Screw them. I have millions. I'm OK. They should work hard and make millions and do the same as I did, the lazy @!$?.
It stands to reason that the majority of people with a lot of money have a lot of money because they are miserly arseholes. One of the major issues with capitalism is that being nice to people doesn't reward you in the same way as selfishness. Although there are exceptions, as in your example, this guy is sadly the norm.
> An entrepreneur might start a business, through hard work and at risk to himself, and end up providing livelihoods for hundreds of families, as well as his own.
Or he might be a trust fund baby who makes a living off the interest or far worse like that Max factor heir who drugged and raped and filmed women for years before he ran to Mexico and used his money to buy safety for awhile.
a sneaky way to almost get a private beach or at least a very exclusive one.
I agree with water taxi or something preferably shipping thousands of people in.
I am thinking it is not a massively used beach though...
beach party lots of people lots of noise.... oh dear the police cannot get to it to shut it down..
ship some hobos in there also for good measure
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
The problem with a boycott is that they just don't work anymore. Not against the rich.
Even if you organised a really good one, he could have a courier or the postal service bring in food, even if you somehow got the national supermarkets offering home delivery to stop feeding him. Beyond that, he could simply hire a goon to do it.
Being mega rich insulates from the requirement of needing people. Indeed, that's half the point. But even kids have all they need these days, the Internet ensures that no-one lacks for 'human' contact and you can have all the pizza delivered to your basement you want...
They can't. The treaty was ratified by Congress after the Mexican-American War and thus, under the Constitution, has the force of Federal law. Under the 14th Amendment, unless the law specifically exempts it (this one doesn't), federal law trumps state law.
It would require one of two things: agreement between it and Mexico to allow for an exception to the treaty or an overriding federal concern (such as breaching another federal Act or treaty) overruling it.
Does seem a crappy way of going about things but I guess it depends on whether he now goes into discussions with people about granting access. Much easier to start from a position of "I don't have to be here, I'm legally entitled to just deny access, now let's haggle." than one where the others may or may not have rights.
That was my first thoughts too. Knowing the litigious nature of many people in the USA, he may simply be asserting his rights before re-opening access. Maybe it's come to his attention that some people are claiming they have a "right" to access the beach via his land so he needs to demonstrate that his right is legal and trumps others rights in this matter.
Or it could just be that he's being a dick.
Doesn't work that way. One of the idiosyncrasies of the US Constitution is that all Treaties get incorporated into law as part of the Constitution. Since the Treaty with Mexico was signed and approved by the Senate, it's requirement to respect the land grants from Mexico trumps the eminent domain clause of the US Constitution and therefore any State/Commonwealt constitutions as well. And there's not much point in fighting it to SCOTUS because SCOTUS will probably rule 7-2/8-1/9-0 for the Treaty enforcement on it if they do take it.
Sounds like both Khosla and the "Friends of Martin's Beach" had the money to pay good lawyers, and the Judge didn't really have any choice but to uphold the law as written. Just because it hinges on a 150-year-old treaty, or that one of the parties is a billionaire, doesn't make the law any less valid.
A lot of the complainers here seem to be working on the basis that just because Khosla's rich, he shouldn't be able to benefit from the law. Hardly seems fair, and it's not like that stretch of Highway 1 is short of beaches.
A lot of the complainers here seem to be working on the basis that just because Khosla's rich, he shouldn't be able to benefit from the law.
That's a fascinating interpretation. My reading is that the "complainers" are complaining because Khosla's a dick, not because he's rich or legally in the right.
Martin's Beach Road should be officially signed over to the property owner as a private driveway (if it isn't already) and removed from the city highway department upkeep roster. Eventually -- even is SoCal, and with only limited traffic use -- it'll need repairs, which the property owner appears to be well-equipped to pay for, himself. (Up here in the Northeast U.S., the expense of plowing a driveway that long in the winter and repairing the frost-heaves the following spring would be considerable, and we would all stand around to point and laugh!)
Given the state of the road in the picture, it's likely just a dirt path, plus we're talking SoCal: not exactly known for snow. If he has a proper off-road vehicle, he could drive up and down it with little regard for maintenance. Indeed, he may WISH to let the road fall into disrepair as a disincentive for other people or the state (or in this case, the US as it's a FEDERAL treaty blocking it) to try to obtain it through other means.
For further inquiry: Is the state beach enveloped by the private property in such a way that one MUST go through that property to reach it? Or could the state develop some other means to reach the beach, perhaps through an adjacent landowner who is more accommodating?
His property is blocking access to a public beach? Condemn the road and a trailhead through eminent domain (beach is a public good and recreation area) bisect his property and tell him to go screw himself. That respects his property rights and its in the constitution, so I supersedes his land grant. His lawyer may delay that, but its a pretty clear-cut case of private land preventing reasonable access to a public space, so Mr. Khosla is ultimately screwed.
Unless of course he's bought off the county commissioners through political donations or other means, so that they don't want to proceed with the condemnation procedure.
Eminent Domain might not be necessary. The title deeds to property usually define easement and building set back requirements for utility and throughway access. This was put into place to prevent just such actions. Since this is a public beach, I would imagine that there would be regular inspections, garbage collection, police patrols and cleaning of the privies. Putting up a gate and fence not only prevents access to the pubic, but also the relevant local authorities. If somebody called for emergency services after visiting the beach via boat and the ambulance couldn't get to them, would they be able to sue this twat? Hmmm, I wonder if I should row over, call the paramedics for a heart attack and then sue when they can't get to me. Might be worth a few quid.