Tech billionaire, ordered to reopen public beach, appeals to supreme court

[turbinetree]

A Silicon Valley billionaire who was ordered by California courts to restore public access to a popular surfing beach is seeking to take his case to the US supreme court.

The case could entirely upend public access to beaches in a state with more than 1,000 miles of shoreline.

Vinod Khosla, the influential technology investor and co-founder of Sun Microsystems, has been battling California regulators and environmental advocates for years over access to Martin’s Beach, a picturesque cove about 30 miles south of San Francisco that can only be reached by a private road across Khosla’s property.

Khosla has consistently lost his legal fight, thanks to California state law that regulates access to the coastline – and prioritizes public access to beaches. In August 2017, a California appeals court ordered him to restore access by unlocking the gate to the road, an order with which he has only intermittently complied.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/23/martins-beach-california-vinod-khosla

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. How dumb can people be to allow human beings to own DIRT

You can own a part of earth and prevent ME and everybody else from EVER walking on it?

insane

[EX500rider]

49. Sure, who wouldn't want to spend their live farming but have strangers tromp over their crops,

let their stock out, walk in their house etc..
lol

[Anon-C]

67. oh. ok.

[EX500rider]

69. So you agree with the above poster who is against private property?

(nothing to do with the beach access story)

[MFM008]

71. Not when

Some dickhead is claiming a swath of the California coastline.
Because $$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[EX500rider]

72. The poster I responded to is against ALL private property judging by the post

[Anon-C]

73. I wholely agree with private property rights. No right is absolute and it's silly to equate...

Coastal Access here in California with letting someone's animal stock out or waltzing through their living rooms.

[EX500rider]

79. I was solely responding to a "no personal property" post if you didn't notice.

[dhol82]

2. The rich consider themselves superior to us common folk

Hope the SC fucks him over.

[sarah FAILIN]

3. I think I agree with him in theory

You can still access the beach from the water. I bet you can walk to it by going down the shore from another area. I would not want random people driving through my property either. Would you want people walking through your back yard? It would be a source of worry that people could get hurt or drown and irritation if people left trash on your property as they exited.
I believe in the rights of property owners.

[rzemanfl]

5. It wasn't always his property. The property was stolen from the original owners. n/t

[sarah FAILIN]

12. The Indians???

The past owners were charging admission to get to the beach and providing "amenities " which I assume is bathrooms. I don't blame him for not wanting to do that.

[Codeine]

14. Theres an easement.

Not particularly rare for a property to have an easement to allow access to another area. He knew this when he bought the place.

[sarah FAILIN]

17. It could be done away with.

The past owners were using it as a money making venture. I don't blame him for not continuing it. He should have just asked the state to vacate the road to start though.

Surfers still can get there without his road.

[Codeine]

18. We handle public beach access differently in California.

The right of the public to access the beach is paramount. We don’t do away with an existing easement to make some rich asshole happy. Don’t want people using the road to the beach on your property? Don’t buy a property with a beach access road.

[sarah FAILIN]

21. Which I guess is why he didn't ask the state to vacate the road

And why he is going to the Supreme Court.
He should ask for the road to be vacated, but I think he will win. Property rights don't stop your access, they just make it less convenient.
Would you really want to provide parking and toilets to a lot of strangers?
Now I have to follow this to see how it goes.

[rusty fender]

52. Why would opening the road

force him to provide parking and toilets to the public? Is that requirement in CA law

[sarah FAILIN]

63. The past owner had charged people for that

There are lots of other houses there so it makes sense that you could get there another way. Parking spots are another story though.

[rusty fender]

70. So it isnt a requirement of CA law

that the current owner must provide parking and toilets for the public just because the previous owner did. Why are you pressing this nonsensical point

[sarah FAILIN]

74. I'm not.

The point here is that there are other routes to the beach. The only thing that makes sense is that the people want to continue to use his land as a parking lot. There are a whole lot of people here that don't like to ask questions. They just take every post they agree with at face value and run with it, sure that it is fact. I'm questioning this surf groups position because it doesn't make sense that the only way to the water is his road considering how many houses are on that beach. The more logical answer is that they want his parking, which is not part of the beach. To me that makes it a property rights issue instead of a beach access issue. I wouldn't want 20 or 30 cars parking in my yard either.

[rusty fender]

76. Theres an existing easement for the road

through his property so are people parking on the public beach, or parking on his property?

And I still don’t get why you’re insisting that the current property owner must provide public toilets. Are people shitting all over the beach

[sarah FAILIN]

78. They were parking on his property, not just driving through it

Do they allow people to park on the beach there? It is strictly forbidden here.
The past owner charged people to park on the land and use the 'ammenities' which I take to mean a toilet. If California puts Porta potties up and down the beach, I don't know anything about that. Where do people poop when they go to the beach like this? I certainly would not want to have any part of cleaning b up public toilets, but the other option im thinking is even worse.

The past owner also locked the gate when he didn't have anyone to take up the money.

[Anon-C]

77. Excuse me, but not one poster on this thread can match the number of unsubstatiated...

...assertions made by you. Not trying to be snarky, but you seem very strident in making claims about what you admittedly don't know.

[sarah FAILIN]

80. I looked up a couple of articles on it.

I never heard of it before this was posted, but it is an interesting case. The problem imo is people expecting him to provide parking and toilets on his land when he doesn't want to.
There were several articles on it. This was on wiki.

:Martin's Beach was previously a popular family beach and surf spot before Khosla purchased the property adjacent to the beach and blocked access.[24] The previous owners of the land had allowed the public to park at the beach for a fee, but remained free to walk down. Khosla won a victory in May 2014, when Judge Gerald Buchwald issued a ruling which concluded that Martin's Beach LLC 1 and 2, the formal owners of Martin's Beach, can block public access to the beach, due to an exemption granted by the treaty which ended the Mexican-American war. The judge concluded that Khosla's property is not subject to aspects of the California Constitution because it was originally a rancho that predated the State.[25
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Khosla

[Anon-C]

82. i read that last night when this thread started, yes, this is not about parking and toilets...

Kholsa doesn't want the public on HIS beach!

[treestar]

88. Depends on the terms

Some easements run with the land, i.e., they are there and part of it when you buy the land.

[treestar]

87. Then it's simple

That's what I was thinking, they need to establish an easement. If it's already there, then the owner is full of crap.

[blake2012]

8. Do like Oregon. Make ALL beaches public. It is disgusting they try to keep people out of beaches.

Make him provide some type of easement where they can access the beach and the rest can be private.

[JDC]

10. This

[sarah FAILIN]

13. You can always get there

You just don't get to cross his land doing it. Get a boat or walk.

[blake2012]

34. My wholehearted hope is he loses in court

[kcr]

86. Well not one, but two courts in CA have ruled otherwise

Seems you're wrong.

[MurrayDelph]

43. In California all beaches ARE public

and reasonably-spaced access roads are supposed to be provided.

The difference is that in Oregon, to protect public access, beaches were made part of the state highway system.



(former Californian living in Oregon)

[Farmer-Rick]

9. The state merely wants him to apply for a permit to restrict public access

He knew when he bought the land that a road for public access to the beach ran through it. When my parents bought a farm on the Mason Dixon line, it came with someone else having right of way through their land. It was basically our neighbors driveway that they had through our land. No problem, they were nice people and maintained the lane well.

If he wants to stop people from using the beach and the road he has to first apply for a permit but he refuses to do even that. He claims the state will tell him no. See he's above all laws even simple permit applications.

[sarah FAILIN]

15. This is what he should have done from the statt.

The difference between your parents situation and his is your neighbors own the land behind your parents. My in-laws have a similar situation with no problems. Nobody owns the beach. People were spoiled before because the past owner had been making money and charging for parking on his land and the use of "ammenities" which I'm guessing is toilets. I do not blame the guy one bit for not wanting to keep that up. Not only do you have to provide someone to run the gate, I think that makes you responsible for drownings or any other accidents on your land
People could still get to the beach if that beach is like all the other beaches I know of. Walk up the shore or take a boat

He should still ask that the road be closed.

[Mariana]

20. The guy bought the property knowing the public had access.

When you buy property, and sign your name, on the dotted lines, all the words in those documents matter. If he didn't agree with the conditions that were spelled out in the papers, he should not have bought the property.

[sarah FAILIN]

23. Sorry, I disagree

Property rights trump tradition. The past property owner had been running it as a business and was charging for access. It was not free access. This makes it a business. If someone decides to stop doing that, they should not have to do so. If I bought a building that had been ran as a library and the public liked to come there, there is no obligation to continue the library services. For all I know, the past owner may have created the road himself

[MineralMan]

39. No. Property rights do not always trump tradition.

In California, all ocean beachfronts, up to the mean high tide line are public property. You can't own that land. California also has a law that requires that public access be maintained to that public property. There are public beach accesses through private property along the entire California coast. It is the law. It has been the law for quite some time.

It was the law when that person bought that property. The previous owner, too, was required to maintain that access. Applying for a permit to shut down that road will not result in that permit being issued.

Somehow, you do not sound like a progressive in this series of posts. California has laws regarding beach access and private property. Those laws will be enforced. This man wants to stop people gaining access to what he thinks is his beach. It is not his beach. He will not prevail. Not in California. There are laws there to ensure public access to public beaches, all of which are state property.

You are incorrect.

[sarah FAILIN]

51. Who said I was a "progressive"?

There are lots of other houses on that beach. If they just wanted access, they could walk to the beach.

They need him to give up his land as a parking lot to leave their cars on and they need whatever bathroom facilities the previous owner had to keep everyone from pooping all over the place.

I go by the adage that your rights end where mine begin. That includes property rights. He should not be forced to provide conveniences like parking and toilets for strangers on his land They can still get to the beach, it is just not as easy.

[MineralMan]

53. My error. Whatever you say...you're not a progressive, then.

California has laws. Are you in California?

[sarah FAILIN]

59. Not at all

And if you notice, I said I agree with him "in theory" because I don't know all the laws there.

I'm a moderate dem. I see no reason one should lose their rights for the convenience of someone else

[MineralMan]

64. You don't know all the laws there.

Perhaps you should go look them up. We have similar laws here in Minnesota, with regard to our many lakes. Private property ends at the average waterline of every lake in the state, except for those few that are completely within an individually-owned property.

The lakes of Minnesota belong to the people of Minnesota, just as the ocean shoreline in California. Oddly enough, some lakeshore homeowners here seem to think the lake in front of their property is their property. Sometimes they come out and shout at boaters who are fishing in "Their lake." Sometimes they even threaten those boaters.

That happened to me once on a local lake here. The owner went so far as to threaten bodily harm if I didn't move to another part of the lake. He thought it was HIS lake. So, I called 911, and the local Sheriff's department boat showed up after about an hour. I was still fishing in front of that man's house on the lake. The Deputy tied up to the man's dock, went up to his house, and explained the law to the man.

In California, lots of properties on the beach have mandated public access lanes to the beach on them. The owners often don't like it. But, it's the law. The beach, right up to the mean high tide line, belongs to the people of the State of California, and they have a right to use that beach. Too bad for the owners. The smart ones have built safe, fenced pathways to the beach. The stupid ones just keep trying to own land that belongs to the people and to keep the people off the beach. They lose in court. They're just plain wrong.

[sarah FAILIN]

68. That is what I just said, I don't know all their laws

Turns out we have very similar laws though. A guy in our county killed his neighbors or over some of this same stupid crap. The dead guy was working on his existing drive with a tractor. The guy with a gun claimed he came after him with the tractor when he tried to stop him from scraping the road. He has had 2 trials and had a hung jury both times.

The issue to me is providing a parking lot and toilets against your will

[CreekDog]

95. you admit you dont know the laws but keep insisting that the result has to conform to what you think

Last edited Sun Feb 25, 2018, 10:57 AM - Edit history (1)

we are supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of what sarah failin thinks.

oh and it appears you had a post removed that was a response to me.

smh

[CreekDog]

98. Who said you were a progressive? Probably nobody

[Cha]

96. You can't own the SAND.

[MineralMan]

97. True. Here today; gone tomorrow...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

84. You keep making factually incorrect statements.

The wiki piece you posted said people were free to walk down but they paid for parking and amenities. The previous owner did not restrict access, they just provided parking and amenities.

And where easements are concerned, tradition does in fact count

[Farmer-Rick]

40. But he needs a permit for that

according to state law. And he has never applied for a permit.

I need a permit to build on my property. I don't see why he can't apply if he wants to destroy the only access to the beach.

I'm not sure I agree with you that there are other ways to get to the beach. There is No indication of that in the story. I suspect if you got rid of his house and walls, fences and gardens there would be access.

He knew when he bought the property what he would be facing. If he didn't want to be involved with road maintenance, he shouldn't have bought the property. I'm sure there are plenty of other properties that don't have a road for public access going through them.

[sarah FAILIN]

48. I looked at other stories

They had pics. What they are really wanting is to use his land as a parking lot. I disagree with forcing this guy to provide a parking lot or toilets. There are lots of other houses in the area. Visitors can walk to the beach without his road.

The way easements work where I live, if there is another way to get to the property, you don't have to allow it.

They aren't going to give him a permit. The governor signed a bill of some sort trying to force him to open his property.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

45. I have news for you - the people own the beach.

The same as neighbors who own the land behind the other DUer's parents.

Easements are very common in real estate.

The guy bought a property with an easement and now he doesn't want to honor the easement.

My friend's condo building has an easement to cross the parking lot belonging to the condo association behind my friend's building. The easement grants my friend's co-owners access to the alley (for trash collection, egress etc.). Some asshole decided they could padlock my friend's back gate. They had to go to court to get the issue cleared up - now the other building has to ensure a clear pathway which also includes mandatory snow removal. Lol.

[sarah FAILIN]

58. The people may own the beach

But they don't own the land around it that people were using to park on. The right to get trash picked up and the right to enter and exit a property is far different from being forced to give up your land to be used as a parking lot or having to provide bathrooms to keep people from pooping all over your property or having to provide people to clean the trash left behind.

The people could walk to the beach if they wanted because there are several other houses there. What they really want is the convenient parking.

The previous court ruling found that the owner was exempt from California's rules because the land was covered under the treaty that ended the Mexican American war. It will be I Teresa I got to see what the Supreme Court rules.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

85. You seemed to be in agreement that an easement is valid if the Easement grantee owns the property

Here:

The difference between your parents situation and his is your neighbors own the land behind your parents. My in-laws have a similar situation with no problems. Nobody owns the beach.

I’m just reminding you the people who want access to the beach do in fact own the beach

[JI7]

11. Then he can move. It's not like he doesn't have the means to do it

[sarah FAILIN]

19. Or people could go to another beach

It's not like there aren't plenty of them.

[Atman]

31. You clearly know nothing about surfing.

Or surfers. This isn’t just “a beach,” it’s an excellent surf break. As surfing has increased in popularity, finding a decent break that’s not overrun with kooks is getting more difficult. He took away access to a spot that was very special to a lot of people.

And no, you can’t just walk don’t the beach from somewhere else. That’s the point! It’s a cove along a rocky cliff. There is no other way in.

No one is saying the guy has to run a proper parking lot or provide “amenities” like the previous owners were doing. Surfers just want to be able to get down to the water.

[sarah FAILIN]

75. Why can't they get there?

There are several houses there. To me it looks like this is all about his actual land, not the beach. I wouldn't want anyone parking or pooping on my land. If anyone is hurt, he is open to lawsuits for injuries.

I'm sorry if that particular surf area is special to you, but I don't think he cares how much money he spends. If the SC rules in his favor, it might cost more than one surf area.

[DLevine]

81. It is the only access to the beach.

From the link: "Vinod Khosla, the influential technology investor and co-founder of Sun Microsystems, has been battling California regulators and environmental advocates for years over access to Martin’s Beach, a picturesque cove about 30 miles south of San Francisco that can only be reached by a private road across Khosla’s property".

[Farmer-Rick]

41. It's Not his beach. Most beaches in the US are NOT owned

He didn't buy the beach he bought land in front of it. It would probobly have been twice the price if he had to buy the beach property too. He is Not king and can't buy everything he thinks he should own. If he wants beach property, go to Florida where owners are routinely given ownership of beach access. (though even there they don't own the beach, just the access.) I'm sure several foreign countries would sell him a beach.

Buyer be ware, if you buy land with a public access road, and you don't want to let people on that road, you need to apply for a permit to close it. This happens with people who buy land close to some national forests. They have public access roads going through them to the national forest. When land owners didn't want a leaky gas pipeline going through their property, they had no choice. There are many many instances where landowners have to allow through traffic or worse. So, this guy is Not special nor deserves to own a US beach.

[Canoe52]

54. Wish the state of Washington had all beaches public, here you can own the beach down to

lower low tide (basically the lowest tide of the year) so no walking along the beach most places.

Canada is like Oregon and California, beaches are owned by everyone.

[CreekDog]

28. of course you agree with him

Even though he bought the land decades after the law that governs this was enacted.

Even though the previous owner had zero trouble following that law.

Even though court after court has upheld that law (not to mention the overwhelming majority of Californians who passed it in the early 70's).

But YOU, YOU your opinion is different, not better, not more informed, in fact, one of the reasons you don't come to the same conclusions everyone else who is expert on the matter has is because you haven't bothered to study or learn what they know.



So here again, you put an opinion that is ill informed on DU.

Just like you did when you posted your support of food stamp restrictions

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028473100#post176

When you stood up for the racist, sexist Google memo-writing guy (now fired) and then posted the Republican talking point that there are "hiring quotas" for minorities.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210076328#post2

----

People come to DU and they read what other liberals think and if they often see that another liberal is actually against a liberal idea, then it causes some consternation and they might reconsider whether they should support it too or whether it will have enough support to survive (like the The California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972).

On the other hand, if they realize the criticism is coming from someone who actually posts conservative things, then it's really no surprise when they weigh in against one of the greatest laws in the country, the one the voters of California passed in the early 1970's to protect our coast and access to it, the one he is disobeying.

Unless you have more knowledge and more wisdom on this topic than all the folks trying to uphold this law, I don't really see the point of considering your opinion on the matter.

[seaglass]

30. Thanks for the insight CreekDog. n/t

[bluestarone]

33. great post! Brings out some VERY INTERESTING FACTS TY!

[JI7]

42. +

[Hassin Bin Sober]

46. I figured as much.

This is why I love cjeeekdog (or whatever that spelling was lol)

[CreekDog]

47. yes, cjeekdgg!

[Tatiana]

93. Oh dear...

Well this certainly puts things in context.

[tenderfoot]

56. I'm glad he keeps losing. The coastline doesn't belong to him and if he doesn't like then he should

move.

[sarah FAILIN]

61. He won the first time

He might win again.

[CreekDog]

91. the Pittsburgh Steelers also won the first game of the playoffs

winning the first game doesn’t mean much if you don’t win the ones that follow.

[democratisphere]

4. Sorry American Oligarchs. You f'ers need to learn to share.

[BigmanPigman]

6. They feel superior and above the law.

I hope these tech giants are nailed for every law they break and they break a lot of them. Sexual harassment and unfair pay is up there with these "boys club" techies.

[democratisphere]

7. Recently it looks like many of the American and Russian Oligarchs

are finding out they are not above many of the laws. There is still some hope!

[sarah FAILIN]

16. Can I come to your house

I'll just pitch a tent outside since you like to share. I'll knock before I come in to use the bathroom. That's cool, right?

[Mariana]

22. if the documents I signed say you can pitch a tent

then you can pitch a tent. That's how it works. This asshole was either too stupid to read the stuff he was signing, or he planned along to renege on the conditions of his purchase. Either way, he's in the wrong.

[sarah FAILIN]

24. Read the previous post

People don't have to learn to share as he suggests.

[democratisphere]

27. Absurd. It is all about right of way access to the ocean beach front.

Put up "POSTED:No Trespassing" signs along both sides of the right of way access and if it is violated, call the police. Additionally, the State of California should post Rules and Regulations signs along the beach front. I realize humans can be scum, but the American Oligarchs can't use that to take over the ocean beach front too.

[Atman]

32. He could put up No Trespassing signs, or even...

....a fence lining the road. Stray off the road and you’re trespassing. Pretty simple. Something tells me he’s paying far more for lawyers than a simple cattle fence would cost.

[democratisphere]

38. Thank you Atman!

[sarah FAILIN]

65. There is a fence in the pics

He doesn't care that it is costing him 11k a day. He is a billionaire.

[sarah FAILIN]

62. The past owner had been charging for parking and use of the "facilities'

They want that kept up and the new owner doesn't want to. I don't blame him.

In the court documents the past owner testified that he did lock the gate when he didn't have anyone to take up money or the weather was bad too. I would not want the legal liability of providing anything because as soon as someone is hurt on your property, they can sue.

[democratisphere]

94. No Trespassing Signs eliminate the liability.

Sounds like the previous owner had a working relationship with the public and everyone got along and what they wanted. The American Oligarch doesn't want to share so he thinks he will win with threats, lawyers, courts and chaos. Sounds like another wannabe Oligarch residing in our WH.

[Captain Stern]

25. This sounds shady to me.

All the guy has to do to try and get the road closed, is file a $200 fee for a permit, and he hasn't even tried. Instead he's paying millions to take it through the courts.

From the article:

“The only way they can find for Vinod is to throw out the entire California coastal program,” Massara said. “It’s hard to fathom what would happen to California’s beaches and all beach access in the United States.”

I think that's their goal.

He's not refusing to apply for the permit because he feels it will be rejected, he's refusing to file for the permit, because he's scared he'd get it.

[sarah FAILIN]

26. I've just read more on this

The Governor signed legislation to force him to open the gate. They are not going to vacate the road no matter what form he files.
The past owner closed the gate when he felt like it himself and testified to that in court, but his reasons were bad weather or not having someone to sit and take money at the gate. I would not want to be forced to maintain a business like this.
The previous ruling found for the property owner because of it being part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. If the Supreme Court also rules according to the treaty, beach access rules may change in CA.
I looked at the pics. It doesn't look impossible to get to in other ways since there are houses all around it, they just want to use his parking areas and to me providing parking areas are not the same as beach access.

[CreekDog]

29. thanks for posting the conservative opinion on the applicability of environmental laws

BONUS, it's YOUR opinion too!



you can't just say that something is exempt from the California constitution and California laws just because at at the time California became a state and adopted its constitution some of the land had owners (not this owner mind you but people with no connection to him). and the courts have upheld this, minus one initial judge's ruling that's been overruled since.

http://www.surfrider.org/pages/6950

[blake2012]

36. Way to hold people accountable to truths

[ChubbyStar]

37. Thank you for all the refreshing insight in this thread

Much appreciated!

[Captain Stern]

89. The current ruling isn't in favor of the property owner...that's the whole reason he's appealing.

You don't appeal cases that you just won.

He's lost at every step, and the California Supreme Court won't even hear his case.

This isn't about parking areas. He simply wants to close the only reasonable access there is to this beach, despite the fact that the public has used that access for decades. And yes...if the Supreme Court were to actually take up his case, and rule in his favor, it would change beach access rules in CA, and in the rest of the country....and not in a good way.

[Johnny2X2X]

35. Waterfront access disputes are not new

Here in Michigan there are the same types of disputes with Lake Michigan beach front property.

You can't own the shoreline, in Michigan you can walk the shoreline anywhere you want as long as your feet are in the water. That has been further expanded here as the natural high water line. Basically that part of the beach where the water has compacted the sand, even if the waves aren't currently touching it. So you could walk with dry (ish) feet.

The lakes are the public's, you can own property up to the shoreline, but you have no right to tell the public to stay out of their lake or ocean. You don't like it, buy a different house with a private lake.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

44. You guys HAVE heard of the Public Trust Doctrine, right?

It's been all the rage since the Roman Emperor Justinian. Public access to the beach is a public right. He can take some measures to exercise domain over his little share of the beachfront, but there a fair number of cases, including at the Supreme Court level that define where that right begins and ends.

[LAS14]

50. Has the supreme court agreed to hear the case? nt

[Captain Stern]

90. No. And they most likely won't. nt

[riversedge]

55. lordy lord--at first glance I thought it was Obama..........

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Vinod Khosla. Photograph: Steve Jennings/Getty Images for TechCrunch

?w=1920&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=4caf323a0c540a4a59274cf978d0682e

[riversedge]

57. sorry, but pic willl not transfer for me.

[Owl]

66. Vinod is a jerk.

[California_Republic]

83. He is scum

[Baitball Blogger]

92. Deplorable.