Here is a similar private property taking case Pacific Legal Foundation is fighting. This time it's North Carolina seizing all waterfront owner's privately owned dry land on the beach. https://pacificlegal.org/case/nies-v-...

Martin's Beach is not a public beach. It is private property. If you read the articles cited on this same page at https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... you will see that it is not like other, public beaches at Malibu and Santa Barbara and why this is legally not a case of public access to a public beach. This has been referred to here several times. There are no public access rights to a private beach.

Like it or not, Malibu and Santa Barbara owners of beach property have been forced to allow public access for decades. This not new, and Khosla should have been prepared for the ruling. California isn't about to relinquish the right to tell its residents what they can and can't do, whether we think it's right or not.

That wasn't quite right. In some states you can own to the low tide mark but there is public access within the intertidal zone for certain activities: "fishing, fowling and navigation" under colonial ordinances enforced by the state Constitutions in Massachusetts and Maine, but even this is being broadened by courts and state law through 're-interpretation' of rights and modern 'entitlements' in the name of 'public rights' under pressure from anti-private property activists.

The beach in this case is private property. There is no legal public access across private property to a private beach. The owner is not trying to ignore the law by thinking he is "privileged"; he owns the property. The most recent state court did "come in and make an ex post facto ruling" seizing control of the property.

The article didn't tell you all the relevant facts because it was based on the PR of the anti-private property pressure groups. You can read the legal aspects of the case by PLF, referenced on this same page at https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

The region between high and low tide is the intertidal zone. The beach is the normally dry region above that. In a few states property boundaries are recognized to the high tide mark. In most, typically but not always, only to the top of the beach above that. In this case the private property includes the beach even under California law https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
The claims by the pressure groups that this case is about "access" is false, as described in legal terms by PLF. There is no right to public access to the private beach. No one is landlocked by that private property.

As I understand it, property boundaries at ocean-side are defined at the high-tide mark. The beach is typically the area between the high/low-tide marks. With those boundaries only typically reduced by erosion/slides and/or other natural causes. What seems to be at the center of this particular argument is access.

Thanks EWV!

To my knowledge the "legal standard" described above has never existed. Rather, the legal standard in California is that if you own a piece of land but it's surrounded by the private property of others, then it's your responsibility, either to buy one of them out, or to negotiate an easement from one of them giving you the right to get to your property, before you can legally occupy it or improve it. I know people who had to comply with this law when a public road was moved away from their property.

If the property is privately owned then the owner dictates whether or not he will allow access. Just because access has been allowed at any time for any period of time does not mean that it cannot be denied for any reason. Reminds me of some property in the Los Angeles area that was empty and the owner was having trouble keeping weeds and other problems out of it. He agreed to allow some of the neighbors to use it as a garden and he would supply the water. It was a solution for the owner to keep the property neat and clean and the neighbors enjoyed produce and time spent together engaged in worthwhile work. A few years later when the owner wanted to develop the property did the neighbors get together to thank him for allowing its use in a way that was advantageous to them? No! They complained, took him to court, tried to demand that since he had allowed the use of the property it was no longer his choice to do something else with the property. (I would have provided a nice dinner with some of the produce to say thank you.) It was a costly court battle even though he won and delayed his plans for his property. This discourages creative solutions to problems for the fear of creating another problem. Without knowing the exact claims and or agreements that were given for this particular beach I couldn't agree or disagree with his actions. What I have read so far sounds like because someone has decided they 'like' the place that the owner should have to share.

And Kalifornia is acting like the People's State of Kalifornia with a "K."
A middle class cannot hope to exist in a socialist idiocracy like that. So-called white privileged property rights can't either.

What this individual may have failed to realize when he purchased this property is that the previous owner had established an easement across his property that can't be revoked simply by purchasing the land. It's been common law practice in many states including my own that if you allow for the establishment of an easement across your property for use by someone else and the use goes on for an indefinite amount of time, the easement becomes permanent. While I feel for the guy who purchased the land, he really should have consulted with a good lawyer, who would have told him about the probable easement restriction he would be facing.

It's sad how little rights we have left at what we have left can be overlooked, amended, or just bullied to change by big government, activists, protests and the media. I'm probably breaking 10 laws reading about this on my iPad sitting on my couch while enjoying this cup of coffee. Shame on me.

California has had a law requiring public access to all beaches (except federal property) since I lived there in grammar school (about 70 years ago). The owners of Malibu property often bellyached about this, but were never successful in challenging it. As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and Khosla was naive in thinking he could ignore it because he was privileged. We might think such a law as abusive, but it isn't like the state came in and made an ex post facto ruling.

interesting article. thanks for sharing.

how many more reasons does one need to understand why California is not the place to live.

I grew up on long island. when I started sailing on Long Island Sound I learned that all of the estates on the north shore LIS side of the island was private. that was and is the way it is. I can assure you that this is a situation that will not change.
the man OWNS the property and that is it. maybe he should close his business and move it where he will be appreciated.

All coastal beaches are not publicly owned, nor should they be. Beaches are land that should be subject to private ownership just like anywhere else. In California most are government owned. This one is not. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

It's long been a legal standard that one can't utilize property ownership to landlock, block, or eliminate access to property not owned. Additionally, all coastal beach areas are public property, unless specifically exempted by state or federal legislation such as port facilities, marinas, etc. This is simply an example of the Objectivist principle limiting one's Individual Right from infringing on that of another. What was Jefferson's comment? Something like 'Your right to swing your fists around ends at the tip of my nose' (of course paraphrased very loosely).

Martins Beach was the favorite hangout for my family when I was growing up. It's a really beautiful little beach, framed by rugged rocks and waves at both ends. We used to hang out there with Portuguese friends who would net smelt in the waves. We'd cook them on open fires right there on the beach. The one-lane winding road on the way down to the beach had little shacks on both sides, all with their little yards decorated with abalone shells. Very, very special place for me. I've been following this story, of course. Frankly, that beach is now lost for the public. Much of the beaches in that area require a key to get access anymore, though. The media has just jumped on this because a singular rich guy is at the center of it.

California has almost no middle class anymore...

Here is a description of the case by the Pacific Legal Foundation showing how the state and anti-private property pressure groups are trying to seize control over the land. PLF is always the place to look first in cases like this.

http://blog.pacificlegal.org/four-myt...

http://blog.pacificlegal.org/property...

Maybe because the previous owner allowed access for 70 years? I know that, say you put in a driveway that actually your neighbors property but nothing was said or done for 10 years. After 10 years that property is now yours. (Law in Connecticut anyway).

Did the previous owner get a tax break? Was there a lease to the town?...the story was incomplete.
If any of these things do not apply, I side with the new owner...and if they give him some Sh#t then I would force them to buy it or shut up...or at least Pay for the facilities and insurance.

The article didn't give us a whole lot to go on.