General Discussion

branford

(4,462 posts)

12. It appears that the public had access with the consent of the prior owner,

Sat Feb 27, 2016, 10:43 PM

Feb 2016

but the state did not appear have an easement, no less one that would survive a sale of the property. If the state had such unequivocal entitles legal access, I imagine this matter would have been resolved long ago and there would be no discussion about the fair market value of such access. Just because the public had prior access through the Khosla's property doesn't necessarily mean they are now legally entitled to that particular access, no less without compensation.

Again, as indicated in the below article and others, the state can forcibly demand access via the relevant statutes under its eminent domain power, but this does not obviate the need to compensate the landowner.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ad516961-754d-4cf5-9b38-7cdafaf3b4c9

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/23/vinod-khosla-martins-beach-silicon-valley-billionaire-public-access-beach

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Mogul Seeks $30 Million From California to Give Beach Access [View all] Red Oak Feb 2016 OP

So, he wants the State of California to buy back the access at a tune of $30 million MagickMuffin Feb 2016 #1

And once they do apply eminent domain, kentauros Feb 2016 #28

If the state suddenly passed such a law, branford Feb 2016 #29

He owns the rights to the beach. If they wanted it to remain public LittleBlue Feb 2016 #2

It doesn't work that way for coastal property. Public access is often protected. kcr Feb 2016 #4

I read the article and it appears it was protected retroactively LittleBlue Feb 2016 #5

There was a law passed in 2015, but it was a public beach long before then kcr Feb 2016 #6

The article implies that it was a private beach, branford Feb 2016 #8

The article implies a lot of things. kcr Feb 2016 #9

The article is indeed vague on some matters, branford Feb 2016 #10

Have you read anything about this other than that article? kcr Feb 2016 #11

It appears that the public had access with the consent of the prior owner, branford Feb 2016 #12

Where do you get that the state did not appear to have an easement? kcr Feb 2016 #13

Where does the state claim they had an easement? branford Feb 2016 #16

Prescriptive easement exists and has for a long time. No, he doesn't need to prove it kcr Feb 2016 #18

If the prior owners consented to access, there would be no prescriptive easement. branford Feb 2016 #20

.... Spider Jerusalem Feb 2016 #25

There are a lot of issues that the cited regulations do not appear to address, branford Feb 2016 #27

It's about the access road, not the beach itself. I think all CA beaches are public Recursion Feb 2016 #15

Upon further research you appear to be correct. branford Feb 2016 #17

No, they won't. It's just is own assertion that it's worth that. kcr Feb 2016 #19

See my post # 20. branford Feb 2016 #21

Can't do that in Oregon, all 363 miles of coast are free and open to the public..... Bluenorthwest Feb 2016 #3

This message was self-deleted by its author Recursion Feb 2016 #14

There's no dispute that Khosla owns the property. branford Feb 2016 #7

I'm not completely unsympathetic to him Sen. Walter Sobchak Feb 2016 #22

Yeah, we're total fucking savages.. denbot Feb 2016 #30

Philosophically I agree with you Sen. Walter Sobchak Feb 2016 #31

This message was self-deleted by its author denbot Feb 2016 #32

Fuck him. He is a fucking BILLIONAIRE. Cal Carpenter Feb 2016 #23

"People bemoan private property and ownership?" branford Feb 2016 #24

If its a private road he is free to lock the gate Travis_0004 Feb 2016 #26

Republican values up the wazoo AxionExcel Feb 2016 #33