Lawyers? Man buys land that includes public road, bars access to the public.

[mhendo]

@Yllaria

Thanks. I was trying to find a map like that on the internet and failing miserably.

Around here we run into property that was, or still is, part of Rancho Campo de los Franceses. When we fill out forms asking for the number of the general survey map it can be found on, we have to fit a reference to the rancho map into the space meant for a little number. Or we put in an asterisk and add a footnote.

If anyone is interested, UC Berkeley, via the Online Archive of California, has many of the case files and maps from the original court cases over the ranchos, in the wake of the United States taking control of California.

Here’s a line drawing of the original diseño for Rancho Campo de los Franceses.

[UltraVires]

@Martin_Hyde

The beaches I believe are unquestionably public land, …

I believe this is right. In most coastal states, beachfront property goes to the high tide line, so that during most of the day, the beach is not on the landowner’s property.

But how do we know that 1814 Mexican land grants were worded that way? Maybe this guy owns water a mile out?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I doubt the land grants came with any (ocean) water rights. Remember, there were hardly any people in California in 1814. I expect they only contemplated agricultural use.

[Capt_Kirk]

AIUI the beach itself is Public Property as all beaches are in CA. It is pretty obvious (to me anyway) that the owner is trying to make this a Private Beach.

If I had the money I would run a ferry from Half Moon Bay to “his” beach hourly 24/7 365. This is serious surfing territory, although I do not know about this particular beach, I imagine the surfing community is not just going to stand by, court case or not.

For those who have not been there, to the North is “Mavericks”. One afternoon a few years ago I saw 60ft waves there and guys in ocean going kayaks riding them, awesome is too small a word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mavericks_(location)

Capt of the Reavers

[mhendo]

@jtgain

But how do we know that 1814 Mexican land grants were worded that way?

Because there was no such thing. There was no “Mexico” in 1814.

During most of the period from 1810 to 1820, Spain was too busy fighting to hold on to New Spain, and didn’t spend much time making grants. The vast majority of Mexican grants were made after secularization of the missions in 1834.

[Nava]

@Yllaria

Didn’t learn much besides the name of the granted land: La Canada de Verde y Arroyo de la Purissima. (Rancho of Green Glen and the Creek of the Purest? With Purest meaning the purest conception aka the Virgin Mary?)

One of the meanings cañada is, curiously enough, “a path, specifically one used by cattle”.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@suranyi

In general, there are laws in California about access to public beaches.

However, what the court said is that this is an exception. In this particular case, the landowner has the right to block access to the beach. Apparently, the reason is that ownership of the land can be traced back to when the land was Mexican, and Mexican laws applied. According to the treaty that ceded the land to the United States in 1848, California law cannot supersede the landowners right to block access to the beach at this location. That’s what the court just decided, if I understand correctly.

If memory serves just about everything in Southern and Central California was originally part of one Spanish land grant or another, so does the same ruling apply elsewhere along the coast? Could all the property owners within five blocks of the beach in, say, Santa Monica or Venice decide to combine their holdings into one massive parcel and then close all the roads?

Does this ruling invalidate all the development permit denials persuant to Proposition 20 way back in 1972?

[DataX]

Doesn’t look like the judge had much of a choice:

The original owner of the property was Jose Maria Alviso, who received a provisional land grant from the Mexican government in the late 1830s. He later transferred the property to his brother, Jose Antonio Alviso, whose rights to the property were upheld under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War. The U.S. government challenged Alviso’s land patent, but the Supreme Court confirmed Alviso’s ownership in 1859.

All that complicated history led Buchwald to a basic conclusion: The nation’s high court exempted this property from the full reach of California law.

“What the Supreme Court was saying was that a claim exactly like the one being made here now was extinguished,” Buchwald said. “And it doesn’t matter that the claim is being made all these years later.”

Vinod Khosla wins key Martins Beach battle

[Yllaria]

@mhendo

. . . Here’s a line drawing of the original diseño for Rancho Campo de los Franceses.

Thanks. I missed that the last time through and it’s very interesting.

As to the previous extinquishment, I still don’t see how it applies. The US was trying to establish that the brother didn’t own the property and his ownership was upheld. Unless I’m missing something, there wasn’t a prior judgement regarding access to the beach. No one is arguing that Khosta doesn’t own the property.

[mhendo]

@Yllaria

As to the previous extinquishment, I still don’t see how it applies. The US was trying to establish that the brother didn’t own the property and his ownership was upheld. Unless I’m missing something, there wasn’t a prior judgement regarding access to the beach. No one is arguing that Khosta doesn’t own the property.

This was my thought as well, and it’s why i would like to read the actual judgment and see the judge’s reasoning in his own words, rather than a journalist’s summary.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Capt_Kirk

AIUI the beach itself is Public Property as all beaches are in CA.

IIRC any private beach front property is private down to the mean high tide line–which obviously means that for much of the time the public’s part is submerged. I can’t help but wonder if there have been any trespassing cases involving visitors who moved their things inland of the MHTL so their beach blankets wouldn’t get wet…

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Close.

This dispute arose as defendants were engaged in a beach-clean-up operation in Westerly. As defendants traveled along the beach, they were stopped by Wilfred Kay, a littoral owner, and Patrolman Byron Brown of the Westerly police department. Kay, believing his private property extended to the mean-high-water line, had staked out that line previously. He informed defendants that they were not permitted to cross the landward side of it. The defendants, on the other hand, believed that their right to traverse the shore extended to the high-water mark. This line was defined by defendants in the Superior Court as a visible line on the shore indicated by the reach of an average high tide and further indicated by drifts and seaweed along the shore. It has been stipulated by the parties that defendants had crossed the mean-high-tide line but were below the high-water mark at the time of their arrest. Also, at the time of the arrest, the mean-high-tide line was under water.We have referred to the term “high water mark” as used by defendants and accepted by the Superior Court. We shall now discuss the term “mean high tide line.” This line is relied upon by the state as the proper boundary, and it is the line accepted by the District Court. The mean high tide is the arithmetic average of high-water heights observed over an 18.6-year Metonic cycle. It is the line that is formed by the intersection of the tidal plane of mean high tide with the shore.

State v. Ibbison, 448 A.2d 728, 729-30 (R.I. 1982)

There’s also a rather awesome (yet incredibly boring) discussion of the limits of shoreline land grants and what mean high tide means in Roman (civil) law in Luttes v. Texas, 159 Tex. 500 (link is to rich text file download).

[Musicat]

@jtgain

I believe this is right. In most coastal states, beachfront property goes to the high tide line, so that during most of the day, the beach is not on the landowner’s property.

Not in Wisconsin. Although tide is not an issue, here’s the way it works:

The riparian property owner’s land goes to the OHWM (Ordinary High Water Mark). If the lake recedes, the owner’s land does not increase in area, but he gains control of the now-exposed area. If the lake rises, he does not lose ownership of the land now under water, but he loses control of the use of it.

So if you walk on my Lake Michigan beach, strictly speaking (because I won’t enforce it) you are walking on my private property. Hence the “wet foot rule”: if you are in the water, you are not on private property.

[DrDeth]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Close.

There’s also a rather awesome (yet incredibly boring) discussion of the limits of shoreline land grants and what mean high tide means in Roman (civil) law in Luttes v. Texas, 159 Tex. 500 (link is to rich text file download).

It takes a certain kind of douchebag to arrest volunteers who are cleaning the beach, only because they stepped a couple feet onto what he considered ‘his land”. :rolleyes:Not to mention the asshole cop who should have told the douchebag “I got better things to do now, sir”.

Nice to see they were acquitted. I hope they sued his ass off.

[mhendo]

Judge rules that Khosla has to open the gate, at least until he gets a development permit.

[Jackmannii]

What cases like this need are litigious busybodies like Conan Doyle’s Mr. Frankland in “The Hound of the Baskervilles”.

@Frankland

I mean to teach them in these parts that law is law, and that there is a man here who does not fear to invoke it. I have established a right of way through the centre of old Middleton’s park, slap across it, sir, within a hundred yards of his own front door. What do you think of that? We’ll teach these magnates that they cannot ride roughshod over the rights of the commoners, confound them!

[UltraVires]

@mhendo

Judge rules that Khosla has to open the gate, at least until he gets a development permit.

That seems like a worse ruling that the first one. So the man cannot erect a gate on his property without a permit? What if he hires ten men to stand there armed and direct people to stop trespassing on his property. Is that okay?

Don’t get me wrong; I’m all for public access to the beach. I think it is important for cultural development. But the state shouldn’t force private property owners to allow easements without any type of compensation or immunity from lawsuits should a guy trip over his own feet after drinking his 14th beer.

[mhendo]

Apparently, after the original ruling that he had to open the gate, Khosla filed briefs arguing that he didn’t have to close it until after he had applied for a permit and been rejected.

Now a judge has ordered him to open it immediately, on pain of a contempt-of-court ruling.