Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(SFGate)   I am not restricting access to the public beach. Anyone can go there, just not by land   (sfgate.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Half Moon Bay, coastal california, California Coastal Commission, Vinod Khosla, Palo Alto, Surfrider Foundation, San Mateo County, Sun Microsystems  
•       •       •

12802 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 May 2014 at 4:01 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-05-09 01:07:27 PM  
You didn't build that.

And you have no right to block a public right of way you over-privileged selfish kleptomaniac psychopathic ass.

My ancestors (and very likely many of yours) were driven out of their rightful freedoms and common lands by grabby merchants and nobles (of course, with my kind of family tree, many of the grabby merchants and nobles are also ancestors, as I tend to have family on both sides of every war and sometimes switching sides in the middle). I hate the enclosure movement--it destroyed the lives and livelihoods of millions of people to enrich the very few, the One Percenters as we call them now. This was done by sheer hutzpah, legalistic BS (it's amazing what you can steal by just sending an email or a letter) and through theft by Act of Parliament, Imminent domain and so forth.

The grabbing hands grab all they can. Small things count in large amounts, however, and everything that is wrong in the history of the mankind is down to this sort of self-legalizing theft. Behind every mysterious fortune there is a massive crime, and that's also true of most of the "legitimate" and "legally-acquired wealth". Legal does not mean just or right or best or good.

Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente est un crime oublié, parce qu'il a été proprement fait (The secret of grand fortunes without apparent cause is a crime forgotten, for it was properly done.)~Honoré de Balzac,  Le Père Goriot (1835)

Read more athttp://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/honoredeba197735.html#GC lL8 Duc0WyhlZjp.99

Balzac is wrong. WE HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN.
 
2014-05-09 01:09:39 PM  
If you receive a letter from a lawyer, assume it is bullshiat. It is probably theft through bullshiat. Whether you simply ignore it or pursue it before the law is a delicate and dangerous decision. Consult a lawyer. Lawyers, to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, are people you sooner have on the inside pissing out than on the outside pissing in.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-05-09 01:26:32 PM  
A San Mateo County judge ruled in October that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848, allows Khosla to exclude the public. The treaty essentially required the United States to recognize Mexican land grants, and the judge found that such a grant existed on Martins Beach. Cotchett said that decision is being appealed.


Give California back to Mexico. Let the cartels decide who controls the sand.  And DHS could stop complaining about giving driver's licenses to illegals citizens of Greater Mexico.
 
2014-05-09 01:39:10 PM  
"We want to ask Mr. Khosla what his intentions were when he bought the beach - why he conducted himself in a way that he felt he could close down the beach," said

His intentions are none of your business. It's his land, not yours.
He felt he could restrict access to his property because he can legally restrict access to his property.

I don't see what the conflict is here.
 
2014-05-09 03:29:50 PM  

brantgoose: And you have no right to block a public right of way


It's not a public right of way.

He probably got tired of picking up all that garbage the surfers were leaving on his property.
 
2014-05-09 04:05:55 PM  
A similar issue was confronted on TV Nation back in the day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMS-EfcWrSw
 
2014-05-09 04:06:47 PM  
Meh.  His lawn, stay off it.
 
2014-05-09 04:07:01 PM  
Start a ferry service to the beach. Cater to college students and serve alcohol.
 
2014-05-09 04:08:19 PM  

Honest Bender: "We want to ask Mr. Khosla what his intentions were when he bought the beach - why he conducted himself in a way that he felt he could close down the beach," said

His intentions are none of your business. It's his land, not yours.
He felt he could restrict access to his property because he can legally restrict access to his property.

I don't see what the conflict is here.


That's pretty much all there is to say about this.
 
2014-05-09 04:08:49 PM  
" Khosla is famous for his backing of bold, eco-friendly projects and is a darling of Democratic politicians..."

/He'll get away with it. California is run by Deomcrats.
 
2014-05-09 04:09:33 PM  

svanmeter: " Khosla is famous for his backing of bold, eco-friendly projects and is a darling of Democratic politicians..."

/He'll get away with it. California is run by Deomcrats.


Another tolerant liberal.
 
2014-05-09 04:10:02 PM  

Honest Bender: "We want to ask Mr. Khosla what his intentions were when he bought the beach - why he conducted himself in a way that he felt he could close down the beach," said

His intentions are none of your business. It's his land, not yours.
He felt he could restrict access to his property because he can legally restrict access to his property.

I don't see what the conflict is here.


You read the article and can't figure out what the conflict is?
 
2014-05-09 04:11:14 PM  
This thread is grey with Farkied tards.
 
2014-05-09 04:11:21 PM  
Gee, a lawyer who never heard of the concept of easements.

He must have been sick that day in law school.
 
2014-05-09 04:11:26 PM  

Cybernetic: svanmeter: " Khosla is famous for his backing of bold, eco-friendly projects and is a darling of Democratic politicians..."

/He'll get away with it. California is run by Deomcrats.

Another tolerant liberal.


Seriously.  It's, like, you can't even call black people the n-word anymore without them getting angry at you.  I want my country back, too.
 
2014-05-09 04:12:49 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: You read the article and can't figure out what the conflict is?


I'm just curious why "Waaaaa! We want something we're not entitled to!" is important enough to warrant any attention.

Even fark time.
 
2014-05-09 04:13:05 PM  
Theses people should be hung by their balls.

Serious I have heard places in LA people are putting fake No Parking and No Trespassing signs on public areas.

These people are scum.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-05-09 04:14:04 PM  
On the subject of easements, I hear California courts love to grant prescriptive easements. They substitute for the difficulty of establishing adverse possession under state law.
 
2014-05-09 04:14:22 PM  

Honest Bender: "We want to ask Mr. Khosla what his intentions were when he bought the beach - why he conducted himself in a way that he felt he could close down the beach," said

His intentions are none of your business. It's his land, not yours.
He felt he could restrict access to his property because he can legally restrict access to his property.

I don't see what the conflict is here.


And he thinks the public beach is his private property. Another rich person that thinks everything is his and that hand outs are ok for himself.
 
2014-05-09 04:14:23 PM  

Honest Bender: "We want to ask Mr. Khosla what his intentions were when he bought the beach - why he conducted himself in a way that he felt he could close down the beach," said

His intentions are none of your business. It's his land, not yours.
He felt he could restrict access to his property because he can legally restrict access to his property.

I don't see what the conflict is here.


Well there's two sides to the law on this one. One law says the public has the right to easy access to that beach, and that no one person or company can trump that right. The other law says it's the guy's private property (or his shell company's private property) and he does have the right to restrict access to his property.

So basically, what we are seeing is a war between The People and The Individual. It will be interesting to see how it goes in the end.

My take (as a proud landowner and individualist) is that the county should offer to buy some land from the edge of the guy's property, and if he sells, build a public road leading to the public beach. If he refuses, he's showing that he really did buy that land just to piss people off, which means he's an asshole and a douchebag. But it's still his land and that's the end of it.
 
2014-05-09 04:14:44 PM  
Our landowner has a couple of issues.

1) If the beach is truly public property, the State should be able to force an easement to access the landlocked property.  Of course, if he gets his way and has the beach declared private, good luck in getting ocean access anywhere in the state.

2) He has access to the cabins, which are under long term lease.  FTA didn't address that, but I'm guessing that some of the tenants are probably suing over that.

3) As stated before, it is irrelevant whether he intends to dedicate the propert to Sutra or Buddha or whatever.
 
2014-05-09 04:14:58 PM  
If there was a strip of public land that lead from the street to the beach, the surfers are justified in complaining.

If there was no strip of public land, does state law require private owners to supply public access from the street to the beach?  If yes, then the surfers are justified.  If no, then you better lobby your public officials to use eminent domain to create a public path.
 
2014-05-09 04:17:05 PM  
"A San Mateo County judge ruled in October that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848, allows Khosla to exclude the public. The treaty essentially required the United States to recognize Mexican land grants, and the judge found that such a grant existed on Martins Beach."

Stuff like this is why I love being a lawyer.
 
2014-05-09 04:17:11 PM  
thumbs1.ebaystatic.com
 
2014-05-09 04:18:16 PM  
just tresspass and walk through his land, do people really have to bother with anything else?
 
2014-05-09 04:18:49 PM  
Sounds like you shoot the guards and shoot the property owner, suddenly access has returned. Funny how violence solves that.


Love the Mexican land grants argument there. LOL. So you properly file your paperwork with Mexico? Your land is granted from Mexico so suddenly US and California law no longer apply? Judge sounds bought.
 
2014-05-09 04:19:28 PM  

Honest Bender: HotWingConspiracy: You read the article and can't figure out what the conflict is?

I'm just curious why "Waaaaa! We want something we're not entitled to!" is important enough to warrant any attention.

Even fark time.



The issue is that they are entitled to visit that beach, however the only access is over private property, hence the catch-22. It's really simple and I don't know why you're having such a hard time grasping the concept. Maybe some definitions will help:

Public: Belongs to the citizens to be used but not abused by them.
Private: Belongs to an individual and unauthorized access is considered trespass and illegal.
Drooling, paint eating, window licking retard: You.

I hope I didn't use too many big words.
 
2014-05-09 04:19:44 PM  

Cthulhain: Honest Bender: "We want to ask Mr. Khosla what his intentions were when he bought the beach - why he conducted himself in a way that he felt he could close down the beach," said

His intentions are none of your business. It's his land, not yours.
He felt he could restrict access to his property because he can legally restrict access to his property.

I don't see what the conflict is here.

Well there's two sides to the law on this one. One law says the public has the right to easy access to that beach, and that no one person or company can trump that right. The other law says it's the guy's private property (or his shell company's private property) and he does have the right to restrict access to his property.

So basically, what we are seeing is a war between The People and The Individual. It will be interesting to see how it goes in the end.

My take (as a proud landowner and individualist) is that the county should offer to buy some land from the edge of the guy's property, and if he sells, build a public road leading to the public beach. If he refuses, he's showing that he really did buy that land just to piss people off, which means he's an asshole and a douchebag. But it's still his land and that's the end of it.


Is it possible that the county can Eminent Domain a chunk of it in order to access the public beach for "maintenance"?
 
2014-05-09 04:20:36 PM  
Khosla farks over taxpayers nationally by taking DOE grants for his scam biofuel company, and now he's farking over locals by preventing them from accessing their birthright. He's a grade-A asshole.
 
2014-05-09 04:23:21 PM  

brantgoose: And you have no right to block a public right of way you over-privileged selfish kleptomaniac psychopathic ass.


James Hetfield, the Metallica singer, did the same sort of thing. Buy land that has a long-standing public use, land that has some really nice nature that everyone's been enjoying for a long, long time, and then throw up a fence because MINE, ruining it for everyone else because MINE. In his case Marin County spent $650,000 undoing the damage his fence did. Why the hell money turns people into assholes I hope to never know.
 
2014-05-09 04:23:28 PM  

blatz514: Meh.  His lawn, stay off it.


Ordinarily, I would agree with you. In this case, it appears (at first glance) that what he's done is in violation of laws that he almost certainly would have been made aware of before he even bought the property (due to the disclosure laws surrounding the sale of real estate). If so, then he should lose this case on the merits.

He sounds like someone who believes that laws are for the little people, and that as one of our betters he should be allowed to ignore them.
 
2014-05-09 04:23:36 PM  

cgraves67: Cthulhain: Honest Bender: "We want to ask Mr. Khosla what his intentions were when he bought the beach - why he conducted himself in a way that he felt he could close down the beach," said

His intentions are none of your business. It's his land, not yours.
He felt he could restrict access to his property because he can legally restrict access to his property.

I don't see what the conflict is here.

Well there's two sides to the law on this one. One law says the public has the right to easy access to that beach, and that no one person or company can trump that right. The other law says it's the guy's private property (or his shell company's private property) and he does have the right to restrict access to his property.

So basically, what we are seeing is a war between The People and The Individual. It will be interesting to see how it goes in the end.

My take (as a proud landowner and individualist) is that the county should offer to buy some land from the edge of the guy's property, and if he sells, build a public road leading to the public beach. If he refuses, he's showing that he really did buy that land just to piss people off, which means he's an asshole and a douchebag. But it's still his land and that's the end of it.

Is it possible that the county can Eminent Domain a chunk of it in order to access the public beach for "maintenance"?


I don't know the laws in that state specifically, but in general it has happened across the nation in the past. Eminent Domain sucks balls in my personal view, but I do understand it is a necessary evil in some cases. Unfortunately our wonderful federal and state governments have used it way too often in the past to fark over their own citizens for no good reason.
 
2014-05-09 04:23:55 PM  

Cthulhain: Honest Bender: HotWingConspiracy: You read the article and can't figure out what the conflict is?

I'm just curious why "Waaaaa! We want something we're not entitled to!" is important enough to warrant any attention.

Even fark time.


The issue is that they are entitled to visit that beach, however the only access is over private property, hence the catch-22. It's really simple and I don't know why you're having such a hard time grasping the concept. Maybe some definitions will help:

Public: Belongs to the citizens to be used but not abused by them.
Private: Belongs to an individual and unauthorized access is considered trespass and illegal.
Drooling, paint eating, window licking retard: You.

I hope I didn't use too many big words.


And many of these places to have public access but the rich people in these neighborhoods are looking gates up, putting fake "no trespassing signs" and "no parking signs" so that others don't use "their" beach.
 
2014-05-09 04:25:15 PM  

Cthulhain: cgraves67: Cthulhain: Honest Bender: "We want to ask Mr. Khosla what his intentions were when he bought the beach - why he conducted himself in a way that he felt he could close down the beach," said

His intentions are none of your business. It's his land, not yours.
He felt he could restrict access to his property because he can legally restrict access to his property.

I don't see what the conflict is here.

Well there's two sides to the law on this one. One law says the public has the right to easy access to that beach, and that no one person or company can trump that right. The other law says it's the guy's private property (or his shell company's private property) and he does have the right to restrict access to his property.

So basically, what we are seeing is a war between The People and The Individual. It will be interesting to see how it goes in the end.

My take (as a proud landowner and individualist) is that the county should offer to buy some land from the edge of the guy's property, and if he sells, build a public road leading to the public beach. If he refuses, he's showing that he really did buy that land just to piss people off, which means he's an asshole and a douchebag. But it's still his land and that's the end of it.

Is it possible that the county can Eminent Domain a chunk of it in order to access the public beach for "maintenance"?

I don't know the laws in that state specifically, but in general it has happened across the nation in the past. Eminent Domain sucks balls in my personal view, but I do understand it is a necessary evil in some cases. Unfortunately our wonderful federal and state governments have used it way too often in the past to fark over their own citizens for no good reason.


I agree on all counts, but I feel like this is a case where it would be properly applied.
 
2014-05-09 04:25:44 PM  
Another filthy rich scumbag Democrat.

And this idiot will lose, he's blocking access to a public easement.
 
2014-05-09 04:25:55 PM  

Honest Bender: HotWingConspiracy: You read the article and can't figure out what the conflict is?

I'm just curious why "Waaaaa! We want something we're not entitled to!" is important enough to warrant any attention.

Even fark time.


But there is a law there that says they are entitled to access the beach. Did you read the article?
 
2014-05-09 04:25:59 PM  
Just declare it a nude beach and tell the land owner once public access is restored it will no longer be a nude.  After one season of seeing the types that inhabit nude beaches, he will change his tune.

/the nudists will find a way onto the beach in droves.
 
2014-05-09 04:26:17 PM  
When he bought the property he stated that he understood that he could not restrict access to the beach.

His position now is, "I lied".
 
2014-05-09 04:26:20 PM  

Dinjiin: If there was a strip of public land that lead from the street to the beach, the surfers are justified in complaining.

If there was no strip of public land, does state law require private owners to supply public access from the street to the beach?  If yes, then the surfers are justified.  If no, then you better lobby your public officials to use eminent domain to create a public path.


This.
 
2014-05-09 04:26:37 PM  
I can see his concern. What if a naked girl breaks her leg on his beach. Who can she sue?
 
2014-05-09 04:26:40 PM  
Eminent Domain is only a possibility if the land if the government is seizing the land to help out a Corporation-American.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
 
2014-05-09 04:26:44 PM  

gimmegimme: Cybernetic: svanmeter: " Khosla is famous for his backing of bold, eco-friendly projects and is a darling of Democratic politicians..."

/He'll get away with it. California is run by Deomcrats.

Another tolerant liberal.

Seriously.  It's, like, you can't even call black people the n-word anymore without them getting angry at you.  I want my country back, too.


i580.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-09 04:26:56 PM  

Headso: just tresspass and walk through his land, do people really have to bother with anything else?


The guy hired armed guards to prevent this.
 
2014-05-09 04:27:04 PM  

Cybernetic: blatz514: Meh.  His lawn, stay off it.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. In this case, it appears (at first glance) that what he's done is in violation of laws that he almost certainly would have been made aware of before he even bought the property (due to the disclosure laws surrounding the sale of real estate). If so, then he should lose this case on the merits.

He sounds like someone who believes that laws are for the little people, and that as one of our betters he should be allowed to ignore them.


I was thinking more along the lines of someone owning lake front property.  You can't just walk through the land/yard of the owner to access the water.  You need to ask permission or use the public beach/boat landing.
 
2014-05-09 04:27:13 PM  

Corvus: Cthulhain: Honest Bender: HotWingConspiracy: You read the article and can't figure out what the conflict is?

I'm just curious why "Waaaaa! We want something we're not entitled to!" is important enough to warrant any attention.

Even fark time.


The issue is that they are entitled to visit that beach, however the only access is over private property, hence the catch-22. It's really simple and I don't know why you're having such a hard time grasping the concept. Maybe some definitions will help:

Public: Belongs to the citizens to be used but not abused by them.
Private: Belongs to an individual and unauthorized access is considered trespass and illegal.
Drooling, paint eating, window licking retard: You.

I hope I didn't use too many big words.

And many of these places to have public access but the rich people in these neighborhoods are looking gates up, putting fake "no trespassing signs" and "no parking signs" so that others don't use "their" beach.


Which is illegal for them to do, and pretty shiatty too. You can't buy public land unless the government sells it to you, and personally I hope they find a way to resolve this and get the people back on their beach. This is one of the few situations when I agree with the government vs an individual's rights, mostly because the individual in question knew he was breaking the law and didn't care.
 
2014-05-09 04:27:23 PM  
So anyone who has beachfront property has to allow anyone who wants, to tromp through their yard to get to the beach?
 
2014-05-09 04:27:34 PM  

Tom_Slick: Just declare it a nude beach and tell the land owner once public access is restored it will no longer be a nude.  After one season of seeing the types that inhabit nude beaches, he will change his tune.

/the nudists will find a way onto the beach in droves.


Even better:

Hire helicopters to fly people over his land to the beach, making low passes over his house.
 
2014-05-09 04:28:13 PM  
the people should just commit civil disobedience and walk through his land, if they wait for it to be actually settled the teenagers trying to surf now will be geriatrics when it finally is.
 
2014-05-09 04:29:35 PM  

Corvus: And he thinks the public beach is his private property.


 Your reading comprehension is an idiot. Go read the article again.

Cthulhain: The issue is that they are entitled to visit that beach, however the only access is over private property, hence the catch-22.


I don't see where the guy told anyone they couldn't visit the beach. They just aren't welcome on his property.  It's really simple and I don't know why you're having such a hard time grasping the concept.
 
2014-05-09 04:29:40 PM  

cgraves67: Cthulhain: cgraves67: Cthulhain: Honest Bender: "We want to ask Mr. Khosla what his intentions were when he bought the beach - why he conducted himself in a way that he felt he could close down the beach," said

His intentions are none of your business. It's his land, not yours.
He felt he could restrict access to his property because he can legally restrict access to his property.

I don't see what the conflict is here.

Well there's two sides to the law on this one. One law says the public has the right to easy access to that beach, and that no one person or company can trump that right. The other law says it's the guy's private property (or his shell company's private property) and he does have the right to restrict access to his property.

So basically, what we are seeing is a war between The People and The Individual. It will be interesting to see how it goes in the end.

My take (as a proud landowner and individualist) is that the county should offer to buy some land from the edge of the guy's property, and if he sells, build a public road leading to the public beach. If he refuses, he's showing that he really did buy that land just to piss people off, which means he's an asshole and a douchebag. But it's still his land and that's the end of it.

Is it possible that the county can Eminent Domain a chunk of it in order to access the public beach for "maintenance"?

I don't know the laws in that state specifically, but in general it has happened across the nation in the past. Eminent Domain sucks balls in my personal view, but I do understand it is a necessary evil in some cases. Unfortunately our wonderful federal and state governments have used it way too often in the past to fark over their own citizens for no good reason.

I agree on all counts, but I feel like this is a case where it would be properly applied.


This isn't even an eminent domain issue.  This is strictly an access easement the plaintiffs are seeking and their argument is the existing road is the de-facto easement.
 
Displayed 50 of 210 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and 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