Legislature passes bill to ensure public access to Martins Beach

[alp227]

Source: SF Chronicle

(08-21) 18:25 PDT San Francisco --

The California Senate passed legislation Thursday requiring the state to engage billionaire venture capitalist Vinod Khosla in negotiations to restore public access to the sandy haven known as Martins Beach.

The bill introduced by Senator Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, passed by a 23 to 9 vote and now heads to Gov. Jerry Brown for his signature. It is the latest legal broadside in an ongoing battle with the wealthy property owner, who bought the beachfront property near Half Moon Bay in 2008 and two years later closed the gate to the only road leading to the popular beach.

The proposed law, SB968, would require the State Lands Commission to negotiate with Khosla for one year in an attempt to find a solution. If an agreement can't be reached within a year, according to the bill, the commission would have to acquire all or a portion of the property by eminent domain to create a public access road.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Legislature-passes-bill-to-ensure-public-access-5704641.php

[yeoman6987]

1. Good to hear

It is not like they have had the property for 50 years.....2008 for probably a vacation home......open the gate.

[ripcord]

2. It has been awful trying to get breach access for the public in Malibu

David Geffen was one of the worst, he even put up false garage doors and illegal curb cutouts to keep people from the legal parking in front of his property. Property owners would send out security guards to chase away people who were legally enjoying the beach, the Coastal Commission has done a great job and now there is even an app to help people find legal beach access.

[Xithras]

3. Eminent domaining the property would go to the Supreme Court

The problem with this case, of course, is that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo required that the United States government honor all Mexican land grants in perpetuity. This was done to keep corrupt white Americans from stripping property from the previous Mexican population of the state and expelling them. This particular piece of property is one of the few remaining original grants from that period, and the treaty still supersedes state and federal law (the state can't override it, and the federal government has never chosen to do so by repudiating that part of the treaty). The property has been sold before, but it has always been acknowledged by both the state and federal government as exempt property, and the sales have always stated that they were transferring the grant, and not just a piece of American land. There have been multiple court rulings on this property, and others like it, confirming that it's still protected by the treaty.

There's some dispute about what that all actually means (there were different types of land grants, offering different types of property ownership, and it's not clear that the original grant for this land actually provided for exclusive use, and there's some question about whether the original Mexican standards should be applied to the property...since MEXICAN law prohibited landowners from blocking people from traversing their land to public or private property on the other side). One thing that is abundantly clear, and that the courts have already ruled on, is that the property is unquestionably covered by the treaty. That means the state would need permission from either Congress (through a bill exempting the property from the treaty) or the Supreme Court (stating that the treaty doesn't apply) in order to seize any of it by eminent domain. State seizure of the property is exactly the scenario that the treaty was intended to block, and no state has the authority to overrule a federal treaty.

[BrotherIvan]

4. Very interesting

Though I still hope he loses.

[Xithras]

7. It's honestly a topic I'm torn on.

On one hand, I absolutely believe that all beaches and waterways should be public. As a native Californian, I've grown up understanding that these areas are shared public lands, and it's offensive to see this guy trying to claim it as his own.

On the other hand, I do NOT believe that states have the right to override federal law. The United States signed a treaty with a foreign nation granting special protections to this land and others like it. I believe that those protections are antiquated and need to be repealed, but the power to do that lies with Congress, and not the California legislature or an appointed state board. As much as I hate to say it, Khosla has a valid legal point.

Congress can, and should, resolve this issue by passing a bill to repudiate that part of the treaty, while granting standard ownership rights to the landowners who currently hold the properties. Mexico is unlikely to complain (if ownership rights are still being respected), and that move would place these properties under the jurisdiction of their states and make them subject to zoning laws, environmental laws, preservation laws, and eminent domain actions. Those protections were essential to protect the original Mexican population from a white land grab in the mid-1800's, but they no longer serve that purpose (and, let's be honest, it wasn't particularly effective at protecting the Mexicans either...most were evicted from their land through force or deception anyway).

[BrotherIvan]

8. You seem to know quite a lot about it

As a native Californian, I agree, this should somehow be rectified as the rich always try to make their own private beaches (can't have their children near poor people don't you know). And since we're talking treaties or promises of land, the government broke most of the ones they made with Native Americans, so there's that.

[davidpdx]

5. Wow, that is interesting!

What a mess though to get a road through to a beach.

[father founding]

6. I GOT MINE

Now go screw yourself says the slumdog billionaire.