If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Surfer Today)   After years of taking private companies public, SUN Microsystems co-founder and venture capitalist now wants to take a public beach private   (surfertoday.com) divider line 72
    More: Scary, Vinod Khosla, venture capitalists, private company, local property, coastal california, beaches  
•       •       •

6262 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jan 2014 at 2:11 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



72 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-16 08:09:25 PM  
Go Surfrider!
 
2014-01-16 08:09:56 PM  
I think the only solution is to get a boat and have loud parties on the beach until he relents.
 
2014-01-16 08:33:26 PM  
Surfrider Foundation is a pretty awesome group. I'd highly recommend them.
 
2014-01-16 08:38:39 PM  
Okay, I'll be that guy, subby.  It's not SUN.  It's Sun.  It's not an acronym.
 
2014-01-16 08:38:51 PM  
Jesus, we have to stop him.  This is one step away from a volcano fortress, and if that happens YOU WILL RUE THE DAY.
 
2014-01-16 08:41:32 PM  

PainInTheASP: YOU WILL RUE THE DAY.


"Rue the day"? Who talks like that.
 
2014-01-16 08:46:56 PM  

NewportBarGuy: PainInTheASP: YOU WILL RUE THE DAY.

"Rue the day"? Who talks like that.


Oh Ha, ha. I was hot and I was hungry, okay? Anyway, I got news for you. You're not number one around here anymore.
 
2014-01-16 08:50:07 PM  

PainInTheASP: Oh Ha, ha. I was hot and I was hungry, okay? Anyway, I got news for you. You're not number one around here anymore.


I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates who said "I drank what?".
 
2014-01-16 08:56:38 PM  

NewportBarGuy: PainInTheASP: Oh Ha, ha. I was hot and I was hungry, okay? Anyway, I got news for you. You're not number one around here anymore.

I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates who said "I drank what?".


It is a moral imperative!
 
2014-01-16 08:58:16 PM  
He isnt blocking the beach. He is blocking a road that leads to the beach. That road lies upon private land.
 
2014-01-16 09:12:33 PM  

PainInTheASP: It is a moral imperative!


GOD!? Is that you?
 
2014-01-16 09:26:39 PM  
how do citizens get to the beach if the only road that leads to the destiny is closed?

I hate it when the road to my destiny is closed.
 
2014-01-16 09:29:51 PM  
I guess if you were a billionaire with a meaty-by fetish there is no better way to get the shiate kicked out of you by meaty boys.  It reads like my favorite parts of Brideshead Revisited.  Look it up, you might learn something about sexual psychology.
 
2014-01-16 09:37:33 PM  
I remember this guy. He preferred to hire indian  H1-B's over Americans allegedly for racial reasons.

http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=18431"> http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=18431

Dude just doesn't want your dirty white ass on his clean beach.
 
2014-01-16 10:29:03 PM  

cman: He isnt blocking the beach. He is blocking a road that leads to the beach. That road lies upon private land.


1) You dropped this: __'__
2) It is absurd to exempt modern laws from applying to current California property deeded from Mexico, which would include all "rancho" properties of the state. If the state constitution and laws do not apply to the property (which is the argument VK's lawyers made), then what laws do? Could he kill someone on his property and get away with it?
3) The previous owners of Martin's Beach expressly dedicated the road to the public. That conveys with the deed to the land. You give something (even an easement) away, and it can't be taken back without the consent of the people it was given to - in this case, the citizens of the State of California.
 
2014-01-16 10:54:09 PM  

GWSuperfan: 2) It is absurd to exempt modern laws from applying to current California property deeded from Mexico, which would include all "rancho" properties of the state. If the state constitution and laws do not apply to the property (which is the argument VK's lawyers made), then what laws do? Could he kill someone on his property and get away with it?


assets.smartbusinessrevolution.com

Your honor that's a slippery slope.
 
2014-01-17 01:18:49 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: GWSuperfan: 2) It is absurd to exempt modern laws from applying to current California property deeded from Mexico, which would include all "rancho" properties of the state. If the state constitution and laws do not apply to the property (which is the argument VK's lawyers made), then what laws do? Could he kill someone on his property and get away with it?

[assets.smartbusinessrevolution.com image 297x215]

Your honor that's a slippery slope.


Yes, arguing that state laws and the state constitution don't apply to his property *IS* a slippery slope.

Besides, he has already acknowledged that state laws apply: he called the local Sheriff to come arrest a group of surfers for trespassing

On top of that, there is continuing acknowledgement that the state constitution and laws apply: He acknowledges that the constitution and laws of the state apply every time he pays his property taxes.
 
2014-01-17 01:47:34 AM  
 
2014-01-17 02:15:59 AM  

NewportBarGuy: PainInTheASP: It is a moral imperative!

GOD!? Is that you?


And from now on, stop playing with yourself.
 
2014-01-17 02:17:26 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: I remember this guy. He preferred to hire indian  H1-B's over Americans allegedly for money reasons.

http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=18431"> http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=18431

Dude just doesn't want your dirty white ass on his clean beach.


Probably closer to the truth.
 
2014-01-17 02:19:24 AM  

log_jammin: "Judge Gerald Buchwald concluded that Khosla's property is not subject to aspects of the California Constitution because it was originally a rancho that predated the State. "

the fark?

that has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read.


How big of a bribe did that judge get?
 
2014-01-17 02:24:02 AM  

grimlock1972: log_jammin: "Judge Gerald Buchwald concluded that Khosla's property is not subject to aspects of the California Constitution because it was originally a rancho that predated the State. "

the fark?

that has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

How big of a bribe did that judge get?


must of been a big one. the entire damn state of California predates the state of California. how anyone could rule in favor of that, without a bribe, is beyond me.
 
2014-01-17 02:24:43 AM  

log_jammin: "Judge Gerald Buchwald concluded that Khosla's property is not subject to aspects of the California Constitution because it was originally a rancho that predated the State. "

the fark?

that has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read.


d1e0u2actw4eb3.cloudfront.net
I didn't get to where I am today by allowing the law to apply to rich people! Bailiff! Take this 'Log_Jammin' someplace squalid and seething with vermin.
 
2014-01-17 02:25:57 AM  
Rich people are entitled.
 
2014-01-17 02:29:42 AM  
If this is true, then California may have a big problem in the near future. Ladies and Gentlemen (and FARKers)! I present...RANCHO SECO:
upload.wikimedia.orgSure it's decommissioned, but  approximately 11 acres (4.5 ha) of land including a storage building for low-level radioactive waste and a dry-cask spent fuel storage facility remain under NRC licenses
 
2014-01-17 02:44:12 AM  

Brainsick: log_jammin: "Judge Gerald Buchwald concluded that Khosla's property is not subject to aspects of the California Constitution because it was originally a rancho that predated the State. "

the fark?

that has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

[d1e0u2actw4eb3.cloudfront.net image 255x191]
I didn't get to where I am today by allowing the law to apply to rich people! Bailiff! Take this 'Log_Jammin' someplace squalid and seething with vermin.


Nice! you just joined my very short list of favorites.
 
2014-01-17 02:48:05 AM  
He deserves some personal attention from Anonymous.
 
2014-01-17 02:54:19 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: I remember this guy. He preferred to hire indian  H1-B's over Americans allegedly for racial reasons.

http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=18431"> http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=18431

Dude just doesn't want your dirty white ass on his clean beach.


If you're going to call it racist, be correct. Indian is a nationality. He just doesn't want your dirty non-Indian ass on his beach.

/not saying that's much better.
 
2014-01-17 02:55:04 AM  

Radak: Okay, I'll be that guy, subby.  It's not SUN.  It's Sun.  It's not an acronym.


More like you'll be that idiot. "Sun" is an acronym, Einstein:

Stanford University Network
 
2014-01-17 02:56:52 AM  

Wake Up Sheeple: Because People in power are Stupid: I remember this guy. He preferred to hire indian  H1-B's over Americans allegedly for racial reasons.

http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=18431"> http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=18431

Dude just doesn't want your dirty white ass on his clean beach.

If you're going to call it racist, be correct. Indian is a nationality. He just doesn't want your dirty non-Indian ass on his beach.

/not saying that's much better.


Dot or feather indian?
 
2014-01-17 03:08:53 AM  

Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: Radak: Okay, I'll be that guy, subby.  It's not SUN.  It's Sun.  It's not an acronym.

More like you'll be that idiot. "Sun" is an acronym, Einstein:

Stanford University Network


so are you now "that guy" or is he still "that guy"? I'm so confused...
 
2014-01-17 03:11:36 AM  

Harry_Seldon: He deserves some personal attention from Anonymous.


Yup, guy's an arrogant POS.
 
2014-01-17 03:12:19 AM  

cman: He isnt blocking the beach. He is blocking a road that leads to the beach. That road lies upon private land.


A very quick internet search on the topic:


A private road is often established because an individual needs to gain access to land; such a road can cross another person's property. A private road can be used by the general public and is open to all who wish to use it, but it primarily benefits those at whose request it was established. Unlike highways that are cared for by the public at large, private roads are maintained at the expense of the private individuals who requested the road.

Statutory regulations must be observed when a private road is designated. An applicant can recommend a certain location for the road, but the ultimate decision rests with the highway authority, which might vary the proposed route to comply with the public interest and statutory regulations. Distance, practicality, the interests of the applicant, and the least intrusive means of utilizing private property are some considerations involved in making a road. When a private right of way is requested over another person's property and the owner of the land over which the proposed route is sought provides a convenient and practical route, that passage will often be earmarked for a segment of the private road.

The authority to establish a private road is derived from the power of EMINENT DOMAIN.  Most statutes require that an applicant file a petition with a court to commence a civil action for the establishment of a private road. The action is between the applicant and the owner or owners whose land will be utilized in the proposed road. The court appoints viewers, commissioners, or jurors to inspect the affected area, to decide whether the road should be established, and to suggest any needed modifications. Where statutes provide for the appointment of viewers, who subsequently find the road necessary, they will map out a route that does the least amount of damage to private property and consider the needs of the applicant. The awarding of damages to the property owner over whose land the road passes is within the exclusive discretion of the viewers. A court will review the damages award only if it is alleged that the viewers acted in a dishonest or corrupt manner.

Some statutes require the commissioners or viewers to conduct a hearing on the proposed road. Such a hearing provides for a better fact-finding procedure since the applicant and any opposing party can present arguments for or against the proposed road. If an opponent wishes to contest an application that receives a favorable report, he must file an exception, which preserves the record should the losing party decide to appeal. If no exceptions are filed during the hearing, a report that conforms to the law is binding on a court. A court must then enter a judgment, describing the location of the road and, if required by statute, limiting its use to a specified period or time.

The duty to maintain and repair a private road rests on the person or persons for whose benefit the road is established. If a large portion of the public utilize the road or if a statute requires its designation as a public highway, then the duty to maintain and repair falls on the public at large. Persons who are injured as a result of disrepair can seek to recover damages from the responsible party.
 
2014-01-17 03:14:00 AM  
Stanford University Network.
 
2014-01-17 03:23:54 AM  
Blocking the access road is against the law.   California has very specific laws regarding this.  The rich assholes in Malibu try to do this all the time and occasionally they get cited for it.

If you are a surfer in the area, take along bolt cutters and remove the lock.  Yes, you might get cited or even arrested, but if no one challenges this unlawful action, nothing will change.
 
2014-01-17 03:25:30 AM  

log_jammin: Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: Radak: Okay, I'll be that guy, subby.  It's not SUN.  It's Sun.  It's not an acronym.

More like you'll be that idiot. "Sun" is an acronym, Einstein:

Stanford University Network

so are you now "that guy" or is he still "that guy"? I'm so confused...


My apologies for the confusion.

I'm that guy.
 
2014-01-17 03:27:41 AM  

log_jammin: "Judge Gerald Buchwald concluded that Khosla's property is not subject to aspects of the California Constitution because it was originally a rancho that predated the State. "

the fark?

that has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read.


The only place state law doesn't apply is on actual tribal land that has been recognized as such.  This judge is taking bribes or is incompetent.  Probably both.
 
2014-01-17 03:31:34 AM  

super_grass: Because People in power are Stupid: I remember this guy. He preferred to hire indian  H1-B's over Americans allegedly for money reasons.

http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=18431"> http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=18431

Dude just doesn't want your dirty white ass on his clean beach.

Probably closer to the truth.


Why not both? A company I worked for had a VP of Software Engineering who was Pakistani. He tried to hire only Chinese H1Bs. When a couple of Indians were forced on him, he made sure that they were quickly found to be incompetent and laid off. The one Indian he couldn't get rid of was because the guy was friends with the owner of the company. All others were forced out for "reasons". The company loved H1Bs for the cost savings but the Pakistani hated Indians but somehow they made it work. Ebony and Ivory of crappy business behavior working together in perfect harmony.
 
2014-01-17 03:32:46 AM  

OgreMagi: if no one challenges this unlawful action, nothing will change.


Which is why the Surfrider Foundation and Friends of Martin's Beach are suing to get access restored.
 
2014-01-17 03:46:33 AM  

GWSuperfan: Because People in power are Stupid: GWSuperfan: 2) It is absurd to exempt modern laws from applying to current California property deeded from Mexico, which would include all "rancho" properties of the state. If the state constitution and laws do not apply to the property (which is the argument VK's lawyers made), then what laws do? Could he kill someone on his property and get away with it?

[assets.smartbusinessrevolution.com image 297x215]

Your honor that's a slippery slope.

Yes, arguing that state laws and the state constitution don't apply to his property *IS* a slippery slope.

Besides, he has already acknowledged that state laws apply: he called the local Sheriff to come arrest a group of surfers for trespassing

On top of that, there is continuing acknowledgement that the state constitution and laws apply: He acknowledges that the constitution and laws of the state apply every time he pays his property taxes.


I'm glad you corrected me sir. The blue haired lawyer from the Simpsons should have made it obvious that I was kidding. However in this case I was not. I agree with your analysis, carry on.
 
2014-01-17 04:33:49 AM  

GWSuperfan: OgreMagi: if no one challenges this unlawful action, nothing will change.

Which is why the Surfrider Foundation and Friends of Martin's Beach are suing to get access restored.


I caught that in the article.  I was stating the obvious because a lot of people tend to not read the articles.

If the rich keep pulling this kind of "keep out the peasants" shiat, the peasants are going to eventually tire of their crap and start burning down mansions and hanging the gentry.

No raises because a bad economy, but million dollar bonuses for upper management.  No more medical coverage, get it through ACA.  No more job because we outsourced to China so we can get even more money that we can't possible spend in a lifetime.  Let's rape those pension funds while we're at it.  By the time anyone notices, they'll be too old to put up a fight.

I'm pro capitalism.  Our current system of crony capitalism, however, is a good way to start a civil uprising.
 
2014-01-17 04:45:49 AM  

log_jammin: "Judge Gerald Buchwald concluded that Khosla's property is not subject to aspects of the California Constitution because it was originally a rancho that predated the State. "

the fark?

that has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read.


As someone who stands to inherit property that has been passed down from parents to offspring since Texas was its own country, I really like the legal precedent set by that ruling. Too bad that likely wouldn't fly here. But I can still dream.

/I hear-by pronounce you trespassing on the sovereign soil of PolyHatSnakeistan, and demand you perform 30 jumping jacks before kindly removing your fat ass from my lands!
 
2014-01-17 05:12:21 AM  
Had something like that happen here in Florida. The beach area built up fast with millionaires, who promptly started closing off beach access through their properties. The pi$$ed off a lot of folks who had been using the beaches for decades.

Then, they had a public beach refurbished, making sure the number of public parking spots was halved. With land on both sides being residential now, folks couldn't find places to park. Basically, the beaches were becoming exclusively for the wealthy who lived along them.

The State has a high tide law, meaning it owns the land up to the high tide mark, which becomes public property. Some enterprising local politician discovered a law on the books which requires public access to public beaches and a law regulating the amount of public parking spaces for a public beach.

After a couple of years, the city had to build new, smaller parking areas on adjacent properties still publicly owned. Then several private properties discovered that a strip of their land, 4 feet wide, had to be open to the public from the street to the beach to allow public access.

That pi$$ed a lot of the rich folks off but the State backed the decisions.

Maybe that's why I wasn't all that sympathetic when the last major hurricane washed several of the over priced, right-on-the-beach homes into the sea.

To pi$$ them off even more, there's now a new law forbidding new homes to be built right up against the beach because storms tend to bring the Atlantic right into their living rooms.

Seawalls were discussed, until a Surf-hippie Oceanographer pointed out that seawalls tend to destroy beaches, by encouraging the sand to wash away, plus they looked ugly, the State would not allow dredging of replacement sand from off shore for ecological reasons and the city would have to pay millions to a sand company to truck in sand to replace that which washed out.

So Seawalls were banned.

The residents just call the cops on anyone for any reason they can think of now, but that's a minor annoyance. Like, when the beach closes at a certain time, if every car isn't out of there within 30 minutes, calls go to the cops, who take their time responding by now.
 
2014-01-17 05:17:24 AM  
No douche like a rich techie douche.

California seems to have even more trouble with this sort of crap than Hawaii and Florida which have similar laws. I believe both states tend to put in their own access points and maintain control of access roads, though, while California seems to let them be controlled by (or at least fall under control of) rich assholes. Maybe it's time for CA to use some eminent domain?
 
2014-01-17 05:53:07 AM  
Wikipedia says it's not in all caps, FWIW.

/they also capitalize nVidia as Nvidia, so...
 
2014-01-17 06:08:20 AM  

NewportBarGuy: PainInTheASP: YOU WILL RUE THE DAY.

"Rue the day"? Who talks like that.


I like 'rue the day'. and malarkey and naught and hitherto and mellifluous
 
2014-01-17 06:34:27 AM  
This is when you bring the guillotines
 
2014-01-17 06:36:54 AM  

themindiswatching: Wikipedia says it's not in all caps, FWIW.

/they also capitalize nVidia as Nvidia, so...


FUBAR is an acronym. If you created a company called "Fubar" , your company name would not be an acronym. The "Sun" in "Sun Microsystems" is not an acronym even though the original "SUN" workstation it got it's name from was.
 
2014-01-17 06:49:49 AM  

Rik01: Had something like that happen here in Florida. The beach area built up fast with millionaires, who promptly started closing off beach access through their properties. The pi$$ed off a lot of folks who had been using the beaches for decades.

Then, they had a public beach refurbished, making sure the number of public parking spots was halved. With land on both sides being residential now, folks couldn't find places to park. Basically, the beaches were becoming exclusively for the wealthy who lived along them.

The State has a high tide law, meaning it owns the land up to the high tide mark, which becomes public property. Some enterprising local politician discovered a law on the books which requires public access to public beaches and a law regulating the amount of public parking spaces for a public beach.

After a couple of years, the city had to build new, smaller parking areas on adjacent properties still publicly owned. Then several private properties discovered that a strip of their land, 4 feet wide, had to be open to the public from the street to the beach to allow public access.

That pi$$ed a lot of the rich folks off but the State backed the decisions.

Maybe that's why I wasn't all that sympathetic when the last major hurricane washed several of the over priced, right-on-the-beach homes into the sea.

To pi$$ them off even more, there's now a new law forbidding new homes to be built right up against the beach because storms tend to bring the Atlantic right into their living rooms.

Seawalls were discussed, until a Surf-hippie Oceanographer pointed out that seawalls tend to destroy beaches, by encouraging the sand to wash away, plus they looked ugly, the State would not allow dredging of replacement sand from off shore for ecological reasons and the city would have to pay millions to a sand company to truck in sand to replace that which washed out.

So Seawalls were banned.

The residents just call the cops on anyone for any reason they can think of now, but that's a minor annoyance. Like, when the beach closes at a certain time, if every car isn't out of there within 30 minutes, calls go to the cops, who take their time responding by now.


All of this.

See, FL can do things right. Especially when it impacts their main industry; tourism

Did not look it up. Wonder what it actually is.
 
2014-01-17 07:09:07 AM  

OgreMagi: GWSuperfan: OgreMagi: if no one challenges this unlawful action, nothing will change.

Which is why the Surfrider Foundation and Friends of Martin's Beach are suing to get access restored.

I caught that in the article.  I was stating the obvious because a lot of people tend to not read the articles.

If the rich keep pulling this kind of "keep out the peasants" shiat, the peasants are going to eventually tire of their crap and start burning down mansions and hanging the gentry.

No raises because a bad economy, but million dollar bonuses for upper management.  No more medical coverage, get it through ACA.  No more job because we outsourced to China so we can get even more money that we can't possible spend in a lifetime.  Let's rape those pension funds while we're at it.  By the time anyone notices, they'll be too old to put up a fight.

I'm pro capitalism.  Our current system of crony capitalism, however, is a good way to start a civil uprising.


No they won't, they'll take their govt checks and complain on the internet.
 
Displayed 50 of 72 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report