Saw this yesterday
http://news.msn.com/us/surfers-beat-billionaire-in-landmark-california-beach-case?
I wonder under what legal standing, the county board directed the land owner to keep his gate open year round? That appears to be how this started. In California, it wouldn't surprise me if the government condemned his land.
If this guy gets Sun to fix Java, then he can have his private beach back. Until then I will side with the surfers.
Interesting to say the least. Just as all the Great Lakes shorelines the public technically owns them and has a right of "enjoyment", generally defined as high water or low water (can't remember).
The right to trespass to gain access is quite clear. No, you do not have that right even by implied past use. The owner wants to gate it off, fine - go through those hoops. Two years don't mean squat.
What this guy should do is allow access and be a community hero so surf bums can rock on, but require a fee to use his clearly defined route for said access. Ok, keep it simple - $50 in, and $20 to get out. Don't have $70, learn to swim. Heck, even offer a season pass. He doesn't even live there, and the flora & fauna won't care.
CA sure has some funny ideas and ways of doing things, but the public does own the beach and how they get there is their problem.
$0.02 from a non ocean owner, but think the Great Lakes have similar rules concerning beach usage and access. Pretty clear cut. This Sun guy will likely win his appeal.
Potentially precedent setting as this is an issue all up and down the California coast. I'm with the surfers, if only for the reason that there is something fundamentally wrong in my mind with a public resource like this being completely locked up by wealthy private interests. Say someone drowned trying to reach this beach because no upland public access was made available, would it amount to just collateral damage to be dismissed with a shrug? :-S
"But Khosla allowed the gate to be closed permanently in 2010 after his property manager received a letter from the county demanding that it stay open every day."
I'm still trying to figure out why the county would think they had the right to weigh in on this issue.
This sounds like perhaps this "private" road had some history behind it. Perhaps it was once a public road, a dedicated highway? There has to be more than what is being revealed in the news story.
The Silicon Valley is overrun by rich jerks.
My in law's former house on the Embarcadero in Palo Alto is now worth over $1 million, small house, nothing special.
This is good, hopefully it is upheld.
No one should be able to jealously keep the public off the beach just because they have managed to gain an artificial economic advantage known as wealth.
Fully concur with that line of questions. I was going to introduce the "vacated right of way" concept, but I'm not all that up on CA law. In my experience the vacations typically reserve utility rights, but never access rights.
What I am up on though is how some P & Z people think they have judges robes on, and it is a struggle sometimes to sort the BS from the nonsense all the way to who is CYA'ing with a potential hand out for gratuities. And I always maintain that every potential client is not always a good client, so run Forrest run.
Land locked public resources is nothing new.
The private owners surrounding these shaded sections of public land, enjoy exclusive access to the public land.
In the past there were roads constructed through the private ground to the public lands for the purposes of logging and mining. The private land owners did not mind people using the roads because they also benefitted from the roads.
Today's society consists of a large percentage of dis-respectful, careless people. Land owners have locked the gates and put up "no trespassing" signs due to dust, illegal dumping, forest fires, shooting of cattle, ect.
Turns out that these land locked public lands have become prime deer hunting areas, for the exclusive enjoyment of the private land owners and their friends.
I called the USFS and asked them about access to land locked public lands and they stated that they have areas that they have to use a helicopter to gain access for management. There is no easement across private property to the public lands. In my mind the coastal land is no different.
We are lucky for now that the large private timber companies have not closed their roads. The only road closures we have to contend with is through the USFS.
The land owner obviously didn't want exclusive use of the beach, otherwise they wouldn't have allowed access at all. I also highly doubt the fee for parking was to make money (the guy was already extremely rich). Heck the federal government charges us to park and see the beach! If your broke, you are not granted access to the public land.
Not being argumentative, but if you owned 40 acres of land that straddled the American River, how would you feel about being forced to allow people to drive down your driveway and park on your land to access the swimming hole immediately behind your cabin? Many would argue that it is navigable because you can float a kayak down it.
This is a fundamental issue. It could be about accessing the beach, a river, or a piece of public land.
My family owns a small piece of land that fronts a river. I am SO very much glad that we do not have to share our land with the public, in other words it is private.
> My family owns a small piece of land that fronts a river. I am SO very much glad that we do not have to share our land with the public, in other words it is private.
People can kayak down it, float a boat, fish along the banks, ect. but driving into the driveway, parking, and walking through the parcel is whole different level of invasion of private rights.
:good:
Again digger, I do concur with your sentiments. I know in MI they passed a law a long time ago and I don't know the date or number, but thinking circa late 1800's granting the local governing body (city, county, state, feds) a 66 ft wide right of way for public use centered along all section lines. Think it was the McNitt Act.
It later developed into the private access routes to public land dilemma you speak of, so they made another law circa mid-1900's. But it may have been included, or at least amended into the McNitt Act? Those access routes were defined as "traveled roadway" with no specified width.
Thus they couldn't gate things off to public land. This did not include private to private parcels, and railroads are not public.
Fast forward to AZ. Notta. You can buy 40 acres with the only trail leading to 1000 acres of BLM land and gate it off. That is the law around here, and seems to be in CA & other Western states. I'm ok with all that, as I believe the other folks could have bought that 40 acres & done the same thing.
What do they call them - NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard
> The Silicon Valley is overrun by rich jerks.
>
> My in law's former house on the Embarcadero in Palo Alto is now worth over $1 million, small house, nothing special.
>
> This is good, hopefully it is upheld.
>
> No one should be able to jealously keep the public off the beach just because they have managed to gain an artificial economic advantage known as wealth.
I can agree on the Rich Jerks, etc, but looking at this from a pure surveyors perspective dealing with private rights of real property, I can not logically and legally see (based upon the facts presented) where the public has any right to cross any property, anywhere, without that right being previously granted legally via a public right of way, or easement. Seems the previous owner and current owner (up to a point )allowed the access via a license if they paid the parking fee. Said License could then be construed as revocable and or unwarranted to an individual if they didn't pay.
Naturally this is a case where every little detail, permission, right and allowance has some weight on the final verdict. Im very interested to see where this goes.
Maybe there is something deep down in the bowels of the title research that provided access to the public from an owner from the past.
Wayne-
A 'heads up' when you come surfing in Ontario, Canada
On the Canadian side (Ontario) of the Great Lakes, unless there is a specific original Shore Road Allowance or Reserve to the Crown in the Right of Ontario, the riparian title boundary between the navigable water and the private upland holding is the normal water's edge.
Attorney General of Ontario v. Walker, 1972 CanLII 31 (ON CA),
On non tidal waters (i. e. James & Hudson Bays)tiz different.
But you have to book your iceberg surf board then ! 😉
Cheers,
Derek
Although I don't see the fairness of having land locked public lands (I think they should consolidate), I also can relate to the private land owners.
I own land bordered on 3 sides by public lands. I can't imagine being forced to allow the public onto my property for access, even if it was land locked.
With the extreme mileage of publically accessible beaches in California, it seems like it would be just as easy to go somewhere else other than across private land.
I think there could have been an alternative solution if it were to have been approached differently. I think the public could have benefitted and the owner could have come off as a hero.
> I don't see the fairness of having land locked public lands
There in lies the problem. People placing "fair" on other peoples rights. Personal property rights are exactly that - personal property, and owned by the owner - not the gobm't. If uncle wants access, then talk to the owner of said access and negotiate and acquire it. That would be "fair". No problem. Yes is yes and no is no. No problem there either.
I was amazed when I moved to AZ to find out that folks could block off access so simple, as it was not that way in my home state. It really wasn't too much of an issue either, as half the folks either were friends, relatives, beer buddies or had something good worked out. Not that there is a shortage of deer in MI....
What my hillbilly buddies in MI would do is just decide to fell a couple trees across said trail a month or so before deer season. No truck I've been in would get over them, and going around is trespassing, and likely be on the receiving end of a couple rounds of a 30.06. Then they'd buck them up for fire wood in the winter - after hunting season ended. Opps, for Nate's sake it's "fa're woood" 😉
I think us surveyor types are all on the same page on this issue. It's my land, you could have bought it, so now get the heck off it. Those owners have the right to protect it, and who cares if it's "fair".
You are correct - "Fair" is a term open to interpretation.
You can't have it both ways.
:good: :good:
Cheers from sunny AZ who is about to get hammered with some rain.... again
