I ca provide some additional information on the history of this - my family owns a mile or so of coastal property between Big Sur and Carmel. This land has been in the family for about 6 generations. Originally, with the land came ownership of a certain amount of the coastal waters (I do not recall how much). Then, the law changed and all the ocean belonged to the government - up to the beach. This was subsequently 'clarified' (during my lifetime) to mean that our property began 'at the high tide mark' of the beach. But at least we still owned our land-based property per se, right? Well, a few years ago it was declared that since all of the beaches 'belong to the public' (presumably this is 'below the high tide mark', but that is picking a nit) the property owners could not prevent access to the beaches, even though it was over their private property on privately maintained roads.

The roads down to the beach are in many cases the remnants of the Old Coast Road that have been kept open by the property owners for the past 3 generations so that they could get down to their own beach. That is what this article is about - the continued erosion of the property rights of the land owners.

Insofar as 'breaking a leg' is concerned, the Sierra Club actually got passed a pro-property owner law back in about 2002: as long as you do not invite a person onto your land or represent that your land is safe, if someone who is trespassing is injured you are protected from suit. (They did this so that people would be more willing to let hikers cross their property.)

Jan

we're speculating here. An access is a condition to the private property. But California does not have a rule that I am aware of that says you must maintain a certain number of feet to your property to allow access to beaches. An easement is a contract, usually of significant duration. You have to look carefully at those contracts when purchasing a property, sometimes they become null when ownership changes. I am unfamiliar with a government entity entering into an easement contract with a private citizen. but I don't know. here is what California law says:
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/accndx....

the state will fine them for lack of upkeep, like sidewalks

It would have been easy if the government hadn't stepped in...

So just curious, but if there is no easement on the property (and especially if the privilege is being paid for), what is the justification to treat the access as an easement? (Maybe I'm just naieve in believing there is anything rational or just going on here...)

There was no easement, it was a private trail and parking area the former owner set up. Khosla decided to stop the liability to himself, and the people used to the old owner's lot, who felt they should tell Khosla what he had to do with his property, sued him.

Easy answer? Get rid of the road. Problem solved.

Usually for some politically motivated purpose. The state assembly wo't passs a clearly looter-based budget? Sorry, all state parks and historical sites - even those privately owned - are closed.

They did not. They had a parking area and beach access they would charge for (I've been there, BTW). The new owner said no more - they did not want the liability this bit of potential spot would create. Their answer was to lock the gate, and tell people to go up or down the road.

I wonder what would happen if that road suddenly vanished? Hmmm... it's now my backyard garden. No road here. Go away, trespassers.

Will the state step in and cover the lawsuit from someone breaking their leg on his property because they mandated access? Not a chance... This battle has been going on for a while, and the courts struck yet another blow against the rights of the people.

I'll bet there is no easement. That's how the former owners maintained the road. They charged for parking which is like charging for use to hedge against the responsibilities. That's why I wanted to know the zoning for the road. Is it separate from the rest of the property? If not, this judge's ruling is unconstitutional. but that's never stopped california before. that's like saying, you haven't built on that land for a century, you can't build now because we took it for granted you wouldn't. oh, that's right, we'll just call it a wetland.

So a couple of problems:
#1 - according to most land-use laws, you must disclose any easements on a property under sale. Why didn't Khosla's attorney notify him about the easement when he was going to purchase the property?
#2 - why is a private citizen liable for anything that happens when an unauthorized person (read anyone not a guest of the owner) is using the easement? Seems rather contradictory to require someone to grant arbitrary access AND maintain responsibility?

I'm with kh on this one... The new owner is under no obligation unless it was a condition of the sale of the property, which does not appear to be the case. It would be worth appealing unless the State resorted to eminent domain (which looks like their next ploy); unfortunately the Supreme Court has allowed eminent domain to stand and the takers just keep on taking.

"belongs to everyone" except when the new owner is a crony pal of a government official. Then it will be okay for the road to be closed to the public.

What reasonable expectation of "continuity of old policy" is involved here? I gather the previous owners had a contract with the government.

This goes, of course, to the whole notion of the government owning anything. That's the real problem.

Easements still rely on two contracting parties. Who was the owner to contract with? The public? In the past the road was managed by charging for parking. But there was no obligation on the part of the current owner to continue that business. This isn 't just people navigating a path to the beach, this involves lots of cars and the owner's liability for what happens on his property. Whose obligation is that now that the courts have said we don 't care that you don 't want to deal with those issues, that property is yours in case someone decides to sue you or any negative consequences of its use but the public 's for any of the benefits.

I fall on the other side of agreement with this ruling. Preventing public access to beaches (as an example of trying to control access to other property by limiting access through your own property) has always been frowned on, as it should be. Particularly after a century's history of granting such access.

and the added irony that I have never visited a state that closed down as many "public access" parks and beaches as California does on a regular basis.