Given all the years and precedent of access (throughout the State of California), I would hope that any stay of the order pending further litigation would be denied.<p>And that, if he then continues to refuse, he be jailed for contempt of court.<p>In my own little childhood hometown, I've watched public beach access (to a lake) become more and more locked up behind fees and limited hours of access and upscaling property values and home ownership that wants to keep things quiet and for themselves.<p>The quiet part, I appreciate. The "keep out" part, not so much.<p>The childhood memories I have of times spent there, are simply no longer possible. It's all on lockdown. Something lost in that -- something significant, in my opinion.
The Zonker Harris Beach Accessway in Malibu is "closed for repairs" again.[1] Closed for over a year now.<p>[1] <a href="http://beaches.lacounty.gov/zonker-harris-accessway-closed-for-repair/" rel="nofollow">http://beaches.lacounty.gov/zonker-harris-accessway-closed-f...</a>
Just so we don't go over the same thing again, Khosla's unique claim is that the title to the land derives from a land grant from before California was a state, with which he justifies disregarding the CCC.<p><i>A year after the case was filed, however, a San Mateo County Superior Court judge dealt Friends of Martin’s Beach a setback, ruling there was no right of access. He said the property was subject to the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, an agreement that ended the Mexican-American War and required the United States to recognize Mexican land grants.</i><p><a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-martins-beach-snap-20161026-story.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-martins-beach-sn...</a>
I am surprised more states do not have laws like Hawaii's where you are required to provide beach access. Shame for such a nice beach to go to waste.
> One year later, his management companies closed the gate and put up a no-access sign. A billboard that had advertised beach access was painted over.<p>What a jerk.
Did anyone tried to organize a protest, show up en-masse on 'his' beach etc?<p>From what I understand, you could use a boat, show up at the beach, party and leave with boat and you are within legal use.
I can see his point of view, though: as a rich man, he <i>should</i> be able to do what he wants, and lay claim to this beautiful stretch of the Pacific Ocean.
Why is a beach up for sale if it's not up for private gating?<p>(Why doesn't California declare its coastline public property that is not-for-sale?)<p>edit: Just found out the answer. Beaches themselves are never for sale, even though properties right up to the edge of the beach are. Next question: Are all river banks public property too? Can you not build a manufacturing plant at a river bank? What about lakes? Are lakes public property?