Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
But there is the catch right there... The only public access is through his property... Which means people have to trespass to get to the beach. On top of this, it makes him legally liable if something happens. I don't really care if it's a path, a trail, or even a dirt road, if it's on his property he can do whatever he wants with it. He's not closing the beach, just making difficult to get to.
|
Simply owning property does not confer the right to do whatever you want with it. There are zoning laws, public access laws, health and safety laws, etc.
There was public access for to Martins Beach for several generations prior to Khosla purchasing the land. He then proceeded to close access to the public. This change in public access should have required a permit.
Quote:
The representative of the holding companies was made aware of the existing public access associated with the property prior to purchase of the property, and was also informed that closing or deterring access would be an activity that required a development permit from the County and Coastal Commission. (We learned this through discovery on our lawsuit...see video)
But, as powerful people are sometimes wont to do, the law was ignored and access was closed without benefit of a permit. Doubtlessly he reckoned that the only way that he would have to answer to these actions and forced to address this closure was through an enforcement action or a lawsuit brought against him.
Mr. Khosla was approached early on by Surfrider Foundation in hopes that the closure could be discussed and an amicable resolution to restore access could be reached, but alas Mr. Khosla was not responsive to this approach. Instead, he relied on his lawyers to respond, and the response more or less said that the court would need to decide. So Surfrider took him to task and sued for violation of the Coastal Act.
|
I expect the Surfrider Foundation to ultimately prevail.
ADG