I truly don't understand how this can be an okay state of affairs... Beaches, at least here in Australia (and at least where I live in south east Queensland) are public. Even though yeah there are millionaires that own beautiful properties on the beaches here on the Gold Coast, we all get to use them, and access them via paths that the city council own.
Can someone explain how blocking off access to a beach works here? Is it because the access paths are privately owned?
It isn't an OK state of affairs. The gentleman is apparently breaking the law but the only remedy within the law is through the state agency that is preparing to sue him.
It looks like he's not technically breaking the law: the beach remains public, the issue is gaining access to it, which there's apparently no public mandate for (the article notes that previous owners of the property charged a small fee to go through).
Real estate law varies from place to place. It's common to require that a blocking property allow access to the blocked property (an easement). This guy's property seems to be blocking access to public property.
Lawyers will huddle, and I'm guessing in the end that people will again have access to public property.
Apparently, this became a private beach when California was part of Mexico, and there is apparently a treaty that says that the titles granted by Mexico would remain valid when the land became part of the United States. Hence, it appears that California's laws that make beaches public do not apply here. They are not powerful enough to override treaties that predate California.
To be consistent with this logic, most of California should be returned to Mexico. And if there were a serious effort for it, it's a safe bet that some other contrary excuse would be trotted out.
(When bullshit arguments are used, use them against an adversary and raise the stakes.)
People should arrange endless, cheap, just-legal boat parties on and off-shore. Just-so-loud music and the like. I'm sure there'd be a lot of takers, especially when they heard the cause. Would probably make for quite an enjoyable protest.
Problems with private access to public beaches still happen here (Australia) though. Especially in Sydney, where technically the harbour beaches are public but access to many if them is difficult or almost impossible by land.
Judging by the article, beach is only accessible through private road, dude bought the property containing the road and closed the road. Perfectly within his rights. And this rhetoric about "billionaire putting a strain on a state agency" is laughable.
Yep (well, maybe, I don't really know. But for the sake of argument: Yep). But dick moves are the type of thing that cause bounds of rights to be changed.
We're not lawyers here (or are, and are already aware that we're not before a court). In a conversation of what actions are tolerable to a society, laws can be changed. Without going on pedantic tangents about this or that, I just want to point out that: in general appealing to the law without making a case for the law looks like circular reasoning because changing the law (or using other, existing, laws to alleviate problems caused by the first one) is within scope of the conversation. That's probably why your post is currently gray.
I can't argue with the perfectly within his rights part, but why is the later issue 'laughable?' It's not rhetoric. It's a matter of fact and not opinion that state agencies have limited resources. I don't have their legal budget at my disposal, but I would take a bet that it's less than his.
Because they wouldn't blink an eye and strongarm a small business or individual that don't have legal budget. They even hint at it when "we were surprised he didn't settle since he has to come to us for permits anyway". Now that opponent actually has legal budget, they play the victim and "oh, now, this fight that is actually within our legal framework is not fair!"
If your property blocks access to another's property, you have to give up a slice of your land to provide access for the other property's owner. You can't simply buy up all the land around a property and then close off access. This is called an easement.
In this case the other property is the beach, which is owned by the government, no different than any other property. Khosla has no right to deny access to this property just because his home abuts it. The only issue here is an obscure treaty, apparently, but that will sort itself out.
Good point, some things are not completely clear though - there is still access by water, and since they own all coastland, by definition they have access through their own property.
Can someone explain how blocking off access to a beach works here? Is it because the access paths are privately owned?