Good ole Oracle, eh
Is being able to piss off large numbers of people a prerequisite to being in Oracle's upper management or is it something they have to train for?
Billionaire's Babylon beach ban battle barrels toward Supreme Court
Billionaire venture capitalist Vinod Khosla is taking his legal battle to control access to a piece of California coastline to the US Supreme Court. Here's the quick backstory. There is a public surfing beach south of San Francisco called Martins beach that's quite popular. To get to this seaside spot, you have to walk or …
-
-
Friday 23rd February 2018 22:35 GMT MeRp
To be fair...
Compulsory Purchase in English/Welsh law is the same idea as Eminent Domain (referenced int he article) in US Law.
It still requires a process, and if the relevant governmental entity decides to squash it (as happened here), then it won't go forward.
I think Oregon State did it right WRT this situation; they have a law that not only stipulates that all beaches are publicly owned or have public easments, but any adjacent private property must provide public access to said beaches. If California had a similar law, this case would be open and shut; he's preventing free public access.
-
Friday 23rd February 2018 23:08 GMT Charles 9
Re: To be fair...
As I recall, California has a similar law on the books, which was cited in the article (the Coastal Act). Thing is, Khosla is trying to challenge the law by using other acts or trying to trump it with Federal law. Eminent Domain is being tabled because the person who would invoke it (Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom) is running for Governor this year, and Khosla has enough resources to play Global Thermonuclear War with Newsom on the campaign trail should Newsom choose to "go nuclear". Khosla is willing to play the long game, Newsom doesn't have that option.
-
Sunday 25th February 2018 18:52 GMT Ian Michael Gumby
Re: To be fair...
AFAIK, the coastal act makes the beach public property. Khosla isn't fighting that. He's saying that the use of his land to gain access to the beach opens him up to a host of liability issues. As well as maintenance issues. (E.g. someone trips and hurts themselves on the path to the beach, they can sue Khosla for $$$.
He puts in a sidewalk, he has to spend $$ to maintain it and again, he has the liability. )
He could sell the land on his own, but he was asking for $$$$$ when it should have been $$$. Eminent Domain would have taken care of this and would have solved it... but it was never done.
Federal law does trump state law, however... even that wouldn't stop the city from using Eminent Domain, or forcing an easement. (Although Khosla is right about the liability issue and potential nuisance suits. )
IMHO he should sell the strip, put up a 30 ft high privacy fence and then call it a day.
-
Monday 26th February 2018 04:38 GMT Mark 65
Re: To be fair...
I was interested and so did some searching. It seems it is not so much a "strip" but a private road that weaves through the property down to some beachfront rentals and the beach itself. I don't think he can easily "sell the strip". See here [Daily Mail (urgh!)]. If you search you can also confirm that it is this long winding private access road that has been closed - photo of locked gate here. It would appear this access road splits the land, as well as occupying a reasonable chunk, which would mean that if it were sold as a public access he'd then have issues crossing his own land and lose a fair portion of it.
Whilst he's being a dick on some fronts the nature of the access and the litigious US culture have not helped as fear of being sued is genuine.
NB I read somewhere those properties are holiday rentals so I'm assuming they are on his land and perhaps leased else the owners would surely kick up a stink.
-
-
-
Sunday 25th February 2018 18:45 GMT Ian Michael Gumby
@Will Godrey Re: Miserable old git
In the US there is a thing called Eminent Domain.
The City / County / State could force the sale to the city enough land to put in a fence and a public walkway to the beach. The cost of the land would be roughly what has been his tax assessment per acre.
He's already facing millions in fines and it would solve this issue once and for all.
I don't know why they haven't attempted to force a constructive easement since the beach is "land locked" meaning that Khosla ?sp? owns all of the overland access to the beach which is public property, so he would have to grant the easement. He could put up a fence to limit their access and to keep pedestrians on the easement only.
Either way, he's being a total prick about it and will lose i court.
-
-
Saturday 24th February 2018 06:36 GMT Steve Davies 3
Re: Bulldozer
That is a great idea except...
This 'numbskull' would simply sue the people who :-
- owned the bulldozer
- drove the bulldozer
- built any part of the bulldozer
- transported the bulldozer to site
- the city
- the county
- the state
+ anyone watching including the Police
Into oblivion. He has more than enough money to bankrupt the lot of them and/or tie them up in legal cases that would give them all such a bad credit score that... well you can guess the rest.
He simply does not care about anyone but himself. SOP for American Rich IMHO.
He would be right at home with old wrinkly (Rupert M).
Perhaps another billionaire could buy the road leading to his home and put a gate on it. :) :)
Other than that [see icon]
-
Saturday 24th February 2018 18:21 GMT kain preacher
Re: Bulldozer
Qualified immunity shields public officials from damages for civil liability so long as they did not violate an individual's "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights. The immunity is available to state or federal employees, including law enforcement officers, who are performing their jobs.
-
Sunday 25th February 2018 19:01 GMT Ian Michael Gumby
@kain preacher ... Re: Bulldozer
No. Not exactly.
In this case they couldn't sue the guy driving the bulldozer. Or the rank and file city workers.
They could sue the company contracted to do the work.
(Khosla would win.)
They could sue the City government, and again Khosla would win and win big. The individual has immunity, the city doesn't. (And their are limits to the immunity)
Immunity would not shield the city because Kholsa could argue that it was a malicious act and it was done to harass him and his family over this legal battle. It would be an abuse of power.
In short it would be the worst thing the city could do.
Having said that... if the fencing was on an easement granted to the city and they needed to do work, or the fence was put in without a permit... it would be different.
-
Sunday 25th February 2018 22:02 GMT kain preacher
Re: @kain preacher ... Bulldozer
"They could sue the company contracted to do the work.
(Khosla would win.)
They could sue the City government, and again Khosla would win and win big. The individual has immunity, the city doesn't. "
Nope you have permission.
Let me give you an example of how you are wrong(but should not be)
My father is a carpenter. he got hit by crane ball. he went to sue and the company said we are a gov contractor and have qualified immunity . The Jude agree and said he would have to sue the federal gov. Now to sue the go you need permission .
No the company was not doing any thing neglect but following the cities orders. Another fine example is in Detroit. they city ordered a house to be condemned and demolished . They gave the contract the wrong house address and you guess what happened. They company were free and in the clear and the home owner had to sue the city.
-
-
Monday 26th February 2018 22:59 GMT elDog
Re: Bulldozer
So - for sake of an argument (or not):
I'd be perfectly happy to purchase a bulldozer (I think I can secure the funds for a nice big one) and plow through this a-holes property. And turn around and make sure I did it properly. Perhaps even getting rid of a few protuberances such as unsightly guest houses.
I could get sued to the end of days but it wouldn't net anyone except the a-holes lawyers anything. While I was still alive, my middle fingers would be very well exercised.
Oh, I have 0 net worth. Everything is well hidden anywhere but here.
-
-
-
-
Saturday 24th February 2018 13:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Access via the sea in a boat ?
Yes. Folks can use the beach all they want if they come via the water (surf, swim, boat, submersible, etc), they just can't get to it if they try parking on the public street outside his home & walking to it via the previously open access trail.
This rich bastard is intentionally blocking folks from getting to a public beach all because he would rather spend the money on 24/7 guard service than the occasional maintenance service such access would require. He claims that upkeep would be "financially prohibitive" even though the cost of the guards has already blown past any mere upkeep costs might have imposed.
I tried to visit there once & he had guards (& a lock on the gate) to prevent anyone from going through his property. It pissed the crowd off enough that a few of them had gone to fetch bolt cutters. The guards said they were authorized to call the police to report the tresspass. I wasn't surprised that the crowd shouted back "go ahead!" & were ready to mob the guards anyway.
I decided to leave before the blood flowed. I figured getting to the public beach wasn't worth the criminal record for the vigilante justice of the mob.
Shame really, that fat fuck would get far more reward for helping the public rather than hindering them. The cost of a dedicated concrete path, flanked by tasteful wroght iron fencing, complete with light poles to illuminate & protect against crime, would be far less than what he's spent in legal fees to keep himself walled off.
I don't think his legal team will be of much use should some "social terrorist" decide to do some SJW work on him/his home.
And I doubt anyone other than another rich bastard would shed a single tear.
-
-
Friday 23rd February 2018 23:52 GMT Queeg
There is this...
"The cost to him since 2008 has been roughly $1m a year. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear his appeal and the Coastal Commission decides to impose its maximum fees, that would jump to more than $4m a year. But aged 63, he would still be in a position to use his vast wealth to block access to Martins beach for the rest of his life."
California Penal Code 166 PC punishes contempt of court. "Contempt of court" essentially refers to any behavior that is disrespectful to the court process. Examples include (but are not limited to):
being excessively loud or belligerent,
refusing to be sworn in as a witness and/or refusing to comply with the judge's requests during any court proceeding, and
willfully disobeying a court order.1
It's the last example that tends to trigger the greatest penalties and the type of contempt upon which this article will focus.
Penalties
For the most part, contempt of court (including violations of court orders) is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in county jail and a maximum $1,000 fine. That said, there are situations that invite more serious penalties such as higher fines and up to one year in jail and/or a potential state prison sentence.
For a Billionaire 6 Months behind bars would probably feel like 6 years.
Oh by the way, DON'T DROP THE SOAP IN THE SHOWER.
-
-
Saturday 24th February 2018 15:08 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: There is this...
"BTW, the only billionaire I know of that ended up in a US jail was Madoff ... and that because he defrauded the powerful"
Actually it was because he madoff with all the money without even giving them a relational database to play with. There are right ways and wrong ways to extract lots of money from people.
-
-
Saturday 24th February 2018 13:01 GMT Charles 9
Re: There is this...
They can't use Contempt of Court YET because Khosla is currently appealing the decisions as is his right. Until the case is finalized (which could happen soon if the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case; it's their choice), there can be no definitive legal action because the action may have to be reversed.
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Saturday 24th February 2018 13:41 GMT Doctor Syntax
"Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, who didn't want to pick a high-profile fight with a Silicon Valley billionaire over property rights when he himself is running for governor of California later this year."
If public opinion is in favour of access I'd have thought this would have been an excellent fight to pick.
-
Saturday 24th February 2018 14:29 GMT Charles 9
California is a BIG state. The sentiment up in Northern California may not necessarily coincide with that of southern Cali. Plus crossing a man with deep pockets during ANY kind of campaign is ill advised as your adversary has the resources to dig up (or even manufacture) all sorts of dirt on you. And since none of it has to go directly to the campaign, there's no real way to control it even if campaign limits were in place (he'll just play Six Degrees of Separation).
-
-
Saturday 24th February 2018 14:27 GMT Maelstorm
This is going to end well...
...for the public. Ultimately, the US Federal Government owns the beaches, but it's delegated to the states to manage them. In California, nobody can own a beach. I already know how this is going to play out. SCOTUS is going to either not hear the appeal or will find in favor of the state as the state has a keen interest to maintain public access to a natural resource under the Public Use Doctrine which goes all the way back to the Roman Empire. He will be forced to pull the gate down or go to jail for contempt of court.
In the end, it doesn't matter how much money that you have. Nobody is above the law.
-
-
Saturday 24th February 2018 16:25 GMT KSM-AZ
Digging a lake . . .
Nope. You'll need a permit for any kind of man-made lake. Along with an environmental impact statement. Sign-off from the Army Corps of Engimeers, . . . Etc, etc, etc. Wanna piss thru a billion? Try contruction pretty much anywhere in CA on anything involving altering natural landscape that involves water. Even a swimming pool can be a pain.
-
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
