“This is the route he’s chosen, and it’s unfortunate because certainly this is a property that hopefully can be available for those who want to come and enjoy it,” said Betty Yee, California’s controller and a commission member who would help make the eminent-domain decision. “My hope is that it can get resolved through negotiations.”
“I live here, and I want to be able to bring my kids here,” said Krishneil Maharaj, a 35-year-old information technology project manager who recalled scattering his grandmother’s ashes at a family ceremony at the beach a decade ago. “I don’t think one man should be able to cut off access to this beautiful spot.”
9 comments:
Khosla is not a very likable figure and puts a bad face on wealth. He will probably lose this one.
Socialism easily accepts despotism. It requires the strongest execution of power -- power sufficient to interfere with property.
-- Lord Acton
That article is a pretty good example of a clumsy attempt to gin up some drama to play to the cheap seats.
It's a form of entertainment, I suppose, but I'm not into it.
I'm all for private property rights. Maybe I'm wrong, but, if the law states that all beach access must remain public, then that's the law.
It happens to be a law I agree with.
All your beaches belong to you and me. Kumbaya.
I'm with April Apple. Previous owners allowed access also.
Count me in on the free access side. It is a violation of property rights in simplest terms, but a beach is a special situation. Controlling the beach also controls access to the ocean, and if all property owners deny access they take away a lot more than just a strip of land from the community. As long as the law does not allow the government to take it away for it's own use or to give it to another entity, I like this exception. It's similar to easements on our property that we all sacrifice for utilities.
Libertarian principles, despite being my preference in most things, can also lead to bad results when it becomes unassailable dogma.
June 5, 2013
President Barack Obama is headed to Silicon Valley tomorrow afternoon, marking his 20th fundraising visit to the state. He’ll host a reception at the Palo Alto home of Flipboard CEO Mike McCue, followed by dinner at billionaire Vinod Khosla’s home in Portola Valley.
Heh - AllenS
& the media, do they report? do they care?
The party of the rich is..... ?
I'm with April, et al. regarding access rights to what is clearly public property. Khosla is being a pill and engaging in vanity litigation which is costing the taxpayer. He's a big cheese who thinks he can buy his way above the law. I don't mind him making the state pay for the costs of public access, however.
Of course, if the situation was reversed, and you owned property in the middle of a national or state forest (just assume it could happen), would the government allow you right of access? There's no right of adverse possession (establishing ownership thru unimpeded use) against the government.
Post a Comment