Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

branford

(4,462 posts)

29. If the state suddenly passed such a law,

Reply to kentauros (Reply #28)

Sun Feb 28, 2016, 03:27 AM

Feb 2016

and permitted public access to private property thereby diminishing its value, it would likely still be a taking, and potentially expose the state to billions in claims.

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