The public can do whatever it wants on the beach itself. The argument is about whether the road to the beach is implicitly public property because of prior use.
That PDF provides some tests, and is useful to review prior to reading the judge's decision.
Isn't this not about the beach but about his private property that leads to the beach? The courts previously ruled in favor of Khosla - see https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A154022.PDF. The conclusion is on pages 35 and 36, which notes that this particular piece of land was NOT dedicated to public access and does not fit the common law parameters for implied public access.
Could one not walk up to this beach by foot following the road built? I ask this because the article said the previous owner charged for parking not access. If so I don't agree with the judges assessment because that would mean anyone from the public could just walk to this beach and use it as they are arguing it has always been open to the public which seems true to me from what I've read.
This sort of thing happens a lot in California -- all beach land is public property, but the private land that controls access to said beach can impose arbitrary restrictions.
In this case the beach (at least the portion below the mean high tide line) is already public under California law. The issue tends to revolve around access to existing public places.
Also, it's not just about conservation. (Public access and conservation are often at odds.) Per the article, "The issue has taken on new meaning as conversations of equity dominate politics."
Basically a panel found in favor of an earlier Judge's ruling that because the previous owners charged a fee to enter the property, it isn't a public road/beach, but instead a permitted use road/beach, giving the owner the right to not permit ANYone to enter the property.
Regardless of the title, the key to this issue is that while
California beaches below the high tide line are open to
the public, access over private land is not part of the deal.
One could walk along a beach, or arrive by water, or access from and over public land, and be within one’s rights,
but there is no right to walk thru somebody’s private
land to get to the public beach.
Note that the Khosla / Martin’s Beach case also contains
an issue of changing public access without a permit
from the Coastal Commission. That’s complicated.
Public access laws like what California and Washington State have require the property owner to allow access to the beach. This means a property owner has to provide a reasonable right of way to access shoreline on their property. Anything less is illegal, up here in Seattle people get hauled to court (or worse if they refuse to allow access repeatedly).
Stealing a beach from the public domain is illegal, and Cali seems to have serious enforcement problems. No property owner has a right to steal public beaches
You are mistaken. All beaches in California are public, up to the "mean high-tide line". The previous owner of the private land adjacent to the beach welcomed public access and allowed public use of his land. But the beach itself, along with the right of way providing access to it, have always been public.
It's not the billionaire's beach. He has no legal right to the beach front which is guaranteed as public by California law. I don't think your second point is reflective of this situation and I think your first is only somewhat reflective of the formerly public road.
If they are being forced to allow access through private property, and injuries could occur on the private property, I do wonder why there hasn't been any cases? Are we sure it is private property and not some amount of reasonable public property allowed for access to the beach (which the owners might be pretending is private property and then being sued to allow access)? On a non-California beach I've been to, there are public access ways (about 20ft wide) between every 3 to 5 houses. The houses are free to block their own land, but they can't block the accessways, the beach, or the dunes because all of that is public property.
Some of beach front lands were in private ownership before the access law passed. One notable example is Hollister ranch another is Martins beach. This lawsuit means that there's no pre-existing or effective easement for the road because the previous owners charged for access / parking. So as much as we want this land to be open and accessible, it is not. You can also legally access the beach by boat.
I thought that all CA beaches were public? What made this one different?
EDIT: Ah, It's not really the beach being public that is in dispute. It's the extra "sandy beach" space above the high tide line and the parking lot as you explain here:
I don't think it is obvious that he is wrong. Previously the property had a parking lot, where people could pay to park and then go to the beach. This parking lot was not profitable, so he decided to close it down. There is still public beach access, just not through that parking lot.
I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that he should provide access through the road to the parking lot, and just disallow parking, but it doesn't seem obvious to me. The previous owner did not allow free access (there was a gate), so I think it is OK for the new owner to forbid access entirely.
Why do you consider it a fundamental right to be able to go on someone else's private property, even if it was allowed public usage in the past? Maybe CA should have passed some sort of beach front protection like Oregon did in 1967. Nobody can own the beach. It's all public. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Beach_Bill
The public can do whatever it wants on the beach itself. The argument is about whether the road to the beach is implicitly public property because of prior use.
That PDF provides some tests, and is useful to review prior to reading the judge's decision.
reply