Supreme Court won't hear case over California beach access

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is refusing to hear an appeal from a California billionaire who doesn’t want to open a road on his property so that the public can access a beach.

The justices said Monday that they will not take up Vinod Khosla’s appeal of a California appeals court decision. The case had the potential to upend California’s longstanding efforts to keep beaches open to the public.

Khosla bought the property in the San Francisco Bay Area for $32.5 million in 2008 and later blocked the public from accessing it. That prompted a lawsuit by the nonprofit Surfrider Foundation.

A state appeals court ruled last year that Khosla needed to apply for a coastal development permit before denying public access.

-snip-


Read more: https://apnews.com/9f75d9b2d38946f68dbf02391a8a27f0/Supreme-Court-won't-hear-case-over-California-beach-access

[Calista241]

1. Some good news for a change.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Property rights

Sounds like the appeals court is encouraging development if they require a development permit to enforce his property rights. So the land belongs to him, with public access, until he plants communities or industries of some type, which changes the landscape and property attributes.

You think you own things. Real estate (derived from 'royal estate' - part of the king's) is only yours if you obey government laws and pay taxes. It's like a transferable lease in perpetuity.

[Hekate]

6. Not really. It's a day by day battle, but California is trying to guarantee access to something...

...we all own. And believe me, billionaires and millionaires are quite snitty about it.

[bucolic_frolic]

7. Please, what part of that is 'not really'?

He doesn't have to pay taxes? He doesn't own it? A development permit is not to develop? I only ask because I'm missing something. I don't live in CA but property laws concerning real estate and development are generally the same state by state, with some major variations such as who owns what's above, what's deep down below, what moves sideways underground ...

[displacedtexan]

9. There is no privately owned beach in CA.

I think that's what you're missing. Occasionally, someone tries to change the law, but so far that hasn't worked.

[bucolic_frolic]

10. ah! That explains it

So he's trying to claim what he doesn't actually own by way of lawsuit. Sort of akin to right of way tactic, where in many states you can bulldoze over someone else's land to get to your land, then, after the fact, sue them for right of way. Gotcha. Thanks!

[LisaM]

11. Yes, it's not that way in lots of states.

My boyfriend's cousin (from California) went on a beach in Washington state that was clearly marked "Private" (and which was seriously only ten feet from a public beach; the access was different on two sides of a set of stairs), and got into an argument with a woman who asked her to move. The cousin said that she tried to "explain" that beaches were all owned by the public! I didn't even know it was that way in California, so clearly, there is confusion on the issue.

[yourmovemonkey]

12. In NY, I believe it includes rivers, creeks and streams,

and anything 15-20ft from the shoreline (not totally certain about the distance). If you can find a place to legally access the waterway, you can paddle or wade as far as you want. There are a lot of places that are still inaccessible though.

[TeamPooka]

3. Fuck you Khosla!

[Auggie]

4. Well, that's one billionaire who is not above the law

[Hekate]

5. No, you can't own the whole world just because you have money

[bluestarone]

8. Wonder if the SC is going to visit THIS again after

The ninth judge is seated?? Just my thoughts here. (CAN THEY?)