In a significant development in the long-running battle over whether Silicon Valley tech billionaire Vinod Khosla can limit public access to Martins Beach, a scenic stretch of sand south of Half Moon Bay, a judge has rejected Khosla’s attempt to throw out a lawsuit by state agencies that claim he has been “improperly and illegally” restricting public access to the popular beach for more than a decade.
Late Thursday, San Mateo County County Superior Court Judge Raymond Swope issued the decision.
The ruling by Swope, an appointee of former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, is a loss for Khosla. It means that the lawsuit, filed in 2020 by the California Coastal Commission and the State Lands Commission, will proceed to a trial, scheduled for April. That trial could result in Khosla being forced to remove no trespassing signs and to take down a gate that he has used to block the only road leading to the waterfront since 2010.
“We continue to think that public access here is of huge value,” said Lisa Haage, chief of enforcement for the Coastal Commission, a state agency based in San Francisco. “Martins Beach is an iconic and gorgeous place. There has been long-term public use and it means a lot to the community.”
Jeffrey Essner, a San Jose attorney representing Khosla, did not respond to requests Friday for comment.
Khosla, 69, of Portola Valley, is a venture capitalist and the co-founder of Sun Microsystems. He has a net worth of $7.3 billion, according to Forbes.
The fight over the sandy beach on the San Mateo County coast has gained nationwide attention. Khosla has called it a case of private property rights, while political leaders, surfers and environmentalists have said the issue could set a precedent about whether California’s beaches can be closed off by wealthy landowners.
The standoff began in 2008, when Khosla purchased 88 acres of coastal land along Highway 1 that surrounds the beach that had been used by families for generations for $32.5 million. Two years later, he locked the gates, hired guards and posted no trespassing signs.
Surfers and environmental groups protested. They noted that because the beach, which is public along the water line under the Coastal Act, is flanked on both sides by steep cliffs, the road is the only way to access it.
“According to the courts, the right to exclude others is the most valuable right in the “bundle of rights” that constitutes property,” Khosla wrote in a 2018 online post.
The Coastal Commission told Khosla that he must apply for a permit to lock the gate. The Surfrider Foundation, a non-profit group, sued him over the issue. After he lost that case in the lower courts, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the state’s landmark Coastal Act, approved by voters in 1972, was “Orwellian” and unconstitutional.
In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the case. The justices left in place lower court rulings that found Khosla could not lock the gate across the …read more
Source:: The Mercury News – Entertainment
