Home » Vinod Khosla a billionaire bought a California beach, blocked public access to it

Vinod Khosla a billionaire bought a California beach, blocked public access to it

Share: XFacebookPinterestLinkedin

Vinod Khosla a billionaire bought a California beach, blocked public access to it, and cited 1600s property rights to justify his actions. After years of lawsuits, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ruling that he violated state law, but the legal battle continues.

Another example of how billionaires are scummy

Here’s what the greedy piece of shit billionaire looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Khosla

I wonder how long it’ll take for the “Streisand effect” to kick in and loads of people take to this section of the beach in a giant fuck you to this guy.

And for any who didn’t know, or forgot, the Streisand effect basically means where a rich asshole attempts to conceal or hide something only to inadvertently make it wildly more popular. In her case, someone, way back in 2002, was trying to photograph the entire west coast in a project to map and show coastal erosion. Barbra’s mansion inadvertently showed up in one of those photos. She sued to have it removed. During the countersuit he filed it was revealed that the photo had only been viewed 6 times, two of which by her lawyers and the rest by Streisand herself and her. neighbors. When news of her being ordered to pay him after he won the counter suit hit, the photo went wild. In other words, had she done nothing no one would probably have ever seen that photo of her mansion on the beach. She drew attention to it and got lots of people to see it.

That case makes one wonder: had rich douche bag done nothing, how many people would have actually gone to that stretch of beach? And now, because of what he did, how many people will now go to that beach just to give a giant middle finger to that prick?

Martins Beach is a beach located in San Mateo County, California, named after local landowner and farmer Nicholas Martin. The beach is accessible only via Martins Beach Road, which runs from Highway 1 through privately held land. Billionaire Vinod Khosla, the current owner of the land, has sought to establish that he has the right to refuse access to the public.

Background

[edit]

Martin’s Beach, c. 1970

Martins Beach is made up of two shallow coves surrounded by sheer and overhanging cliffs. The coves are divided by “Pelican Rock”, a tall and sharply pointed rock cone surrounded by a narrow spit of tidepools.[2]

Once part of the Rancho Cañada de Verde y Arroyo de la Purisima, the beach and the land around it were purchased in the 1850s by Nicholas Martin.[3] Martins Beach has historically been a popular family beach and surf spot.[2] As of 2014, there were 45 leased beach cabins.[4]

Since the early 1900s, the Deeney family, the land owners, allowed the public free access to the beach, but charged to park vehicles. In the early 1920s, the Deeneys leased the beach to the Watts family. They managed the beach and visitor amenities, including Watts Inn on the beach, which still stands. Also included was paid parking by the highway. In the early 1990s, the Deeneys took over management of the beach. They allowed use of the beach in exchange for a parking fee.[5]

[edit]

In 2008, Vinod Khosla purchased the property adjacent to the beach, gated the single road running through it to the beach, and after 2010, prevented public access despite a San Mateo County judge’s ruling that he must open the gate.[2][6][7] Since then, there has been an ongoing legal battle to reopen the beach to the public under the legal theory of implied dedication[8] and the California Coastal Act.[9]

Khosla cites the Fifth Amendment ban on taking of private property without “just compensation”.[10] The first lawsuit was brought in 2014 by the Surfrider Foundation.[4]

In 2016, Khosla offered to sell a small slice of the property for a public beach path for $30 million, about as much as he spent on the entire property in 2008.[6]

A court subsequently ruled that Khosla may not close the gate without obtaining a permit from the California Coastal Commission. The Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal,[11] but in 2019 an appeals court ruled that the former owners’ permitting access had not established a right of public access.[12]

In 2020, the Coastal Commission and the California State Lands Commission brought a new lawsuit against Khosla;[8] a trial is scheduled to begin in 2025.[13]

References

[edit]

  1. ^ U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Martins Beach
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Erskine, Ron (July 14, 2017). “Battle of the Beach”. South Valley Magazine. Retrieved July 19, 2017.
  3. ^ Clifford, Jim (October 22, 2018). “Who Was the Martin in Martins Beach?”. Daily Journal. San Mateo.
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b Fimrite, Peter (June 22, 2014). “Surfers sue over blocked beach access”. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved May 13, 2024.
  5. ^ “Martin’s Beach”. Surfrider Foundation.
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b Lopez, Steve (April 24, 2016). “A billionaire is willing to bring back public access to Martins Beach—for a price”. Los Angeles Times (opinion).
  7. ^ “The Never-ending Battle Over Martins Beach Explained”. KQED. January 13, 2020.
  8. ^ Jump up to:a b Kaur, Harmeet (January 7, 2020). “California Is Suing a Silicon Valley Billionaire for Blocking Public Access to a Beach”. CNN. Retrieved January 8, 2020.
  9. ^ Fimrite, Peter (May 13, 2014). “Martins Beach billionaire evades questions on stand”. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved July 27, 2014.
  10. ^ Bowles, Nellie (August 30, 2018). “Every Generation Gets the Beach Villain It Deserves”. The New York Times. Retrieved February 19, 2021.
  11. ^ Rogers, Paul (October 2, 2018) [October 1, 2018]. “Martins Beach: U.S. Supreme Court denies appeal of billionaire Vinod Khosla”. Mercury News.
  12. ^ Woolfolk, John (November 27, 2019) [November 26, 2019]. “Martins Beach: Court hands Silicon Valley billionaire win in public-access fight”. Mercury News.
  13. ^ Dowd, Katie (May 12, 2024). “Battle over billionaire’s private Bay Area beach access goes to trial again”. SFGate. Retrieved May 13, 2024.

Further reading

[edit]

[edit]

TOP VIEWED

Protections: Public Domain. Non-Commercial. Fair Use. Freedom of The Press. No Tracking Of Public Allowed. First Amendment Protections, SLAPP, UN Protected. GDPR Compliant. Section 203 protected. Privacy Tools At: http://privacytools.io, ACLU, ICIJ- supported. If you sue us to try to hide and censor the news, you are allowing us to bypass the demurrer process, and we will counter-sue you for RICO, Anti-trust, Political Bribery, Sex Trafficking, Interference, First Amendment and your other crimes, which we have FBI-grade evidence for! Bring it on corrupt Tesla, Google, Facebook, Youtube, Netflix! We might even get DOJ and/or FTC to partner with us (again) to take your filthy corrupt companies down!....REAL NEWS does not have ads in it. Any news source, with ads in it, is fake news manipulated by the advertisers!....DOWNLOAD AND COPY THIS NEWS SITE. USE ANY FREE SERVER SPACE YOU FIND ON THE WEB. MAKE YOUR OWN DIGITAL NEWSPAPER. JOIN THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF FREE NEWS SITES, LIKE THIS, AROUND THE WORLD AND DELIVER THE NEWS AND DEMOCRACY. PLEASE FOLLOW THE WIKIPEDIA RULES FOR POSTING. BE THE NEWS!