<story><title>Vinod Khosla Wins Ruling Threatening Public Beach Access</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-26/billionaire-khosla-wins-ruling-threatening-public-beach-access</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>wil421</author><text>The concept of property being sacred is what drew a lot of people to America in the beginning. Instead of paying a Lord you could literally come to America and be given free land by the Federal government. It was a huge reason we rebelled against England in the first place.&lt;p&gt;In this situation is sucks for regular people but in a lot more situations it benefits everyone else.</text></item><item><author>happytoexplain</author><text>The concept that property is so religiously sacred that simply owning of a thing entitles one to cause external harm using that thing, even passively, is sickening.</text></item><item><author>baggy_trough</author><text>He is literally entitled, because he owns the land.</text></item><item><author>cjensen</author><text>The law is not implemented like that. Basically if there is a property which does not provide through-access to the beach, the law does not require them to provide it. If any change is made to the property, including improvements, then as part of the permitting process a requirement will be made to provide the access.&lt;p&gt;This is why at California beach areas and piers, old buildings have no access, but all remodeled ones do.&lt;p&gt;That all said, still amazingly entitled behavior by Khosla.</text></item><item><author>JMTQp8lwXL</author><text>&amp;gt; the three-judge panel upheld a trial judge’s ruling in Khosla’s favor, finding there was substantial evidence that the previous owners didn’t intend to dedicate the road for public use because they charged fees.&lt;p&gt;Why does it matter what the previous owner(s) did? The law states there must be public access to the beach. This is an 89 acre parcel of land, providing not even a single access point sounds like the owner could be blocking an appreciable amount of ocean frontage.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>CharlesColeman</author><text>&amp;gt; The concept of property being sacred is what drew a lot of people to America in the beginning.&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#x27;s not what you describe below.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Instead of paying a Lord [sic] you could literally come to America and be given free land by the Federal government. It was a huge reason we rebelled against England in the first place.&lt;p&gt;I think the most important thing here is the &lt;i&gt;free land&lt;/i&gt; aspect.  Property ownership has never been &amp;quot;sacred&amp;quot; and was always subject to things like squatter&amp;#x27;s rights and other practical exceptions:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Adverse_possession&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Adverse_possession&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; The principles of homesteading and squatter&amp;#x27;s rights embody the most basic concept of property and ownership, which can be summarized by the adage &amp;quot;possession is nine-tenths of the law,&amp;quot; meaning the person who uses the property effectively owns it. Likewise, the adage, &amp;quot;use it or lose it,&amp;quot; applies. The principles of homesteading and squatter&amp;#x27;s rights predate formal property laws; to a large degree, modern property law formalizes and expands these simple ideas.</text></comment>
<story><title>Vinod Khosla Wins Ruling Threatening Public Beach Access</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-26/billionaire-khosla-wins-ruling-threatening-public-beach-access</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>wil421</author><text>The concept of property being sacred is what drew a lot of people to America in the beginning. Instead of paying a Lord you could literally come to America and be given free land by the Federal government. It was a huge reason we rebelled against England in the first place.&lt;p&gt;In this situation is sucks for regular people but in a lot more situations it benefits everyone else.</text></item><item><author>happytoexplain</author><text>The concept that property is so religiously sacred that simply owning of a thing entitles one to cause external harm using that thing, even passively, is sickening.</text></item><item><author>baggy_trough</author><text>He is literally entitled, because he owns the land.</text></item><item><author>cjensen</author><text>The law is not implemented like that. Basically if there is a property which does not provide through-access to the beach, the law does not require them to provide it. If any change is made to the property, including improvements, then as part of the permitting process a requirement will be made to provide the access.&lt;p&gt;This is why at California beach areas and piers, old buildings have no access, but all remodeled ones do.&lt;p&gt;That all said, still amazingly entitled behavior by Khosla.</text></item><item><author>JMTQp8lwXL</author><text>&amp;gt; the three-judge panel upheld a trial judge’s ruling in Khosla’s favor, finding there was substantial evidence that the previous owners didn’t intend to dedicate the road for public use because they charged fees.&lt;p&gt;Why does it matter what the previous owner(s) did? The law states there must be public access to the beach. This is an 89 acre parcel of land, providing not even a single access point sounds like the owner could be blocking an appreciable amount of ocean frontage.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>wpietri</author><text>You aren&amp;#x27;t quite getting it. Lords controlling the land &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; property being sacred. A lot of people came to America because less property was already locked down by the rich. But if we treat &amp;quot;my great-grandfather stole this fair and square&amp;quot; as sacred, we&amp;#x27;ll end up in the same boat.</text></comment>