Here is a description of the case by the Pacific Legal Foundation showing how the state and anti-private property pressure groups are trying to seize control over the land. PLF is always the place to look first in cases like this.

http://blog.pacificlegal.org/four-myt...

http://blog.pacificlegal.org/property...

Martins Beach was the favorite hangout for my family when I was growing up. It's a really beautiful little beach, framed by rugged rocks and waves at both ends. We used to hang out there with Portuguese friends who would net smelt in the waves. We'd cook them on open fires right there on the beach. The one-lane winding road on the way down to the beach had little shacks on both sides, all with their little yards decorated with abalone shells. Very, very special place for me. I've been following this story, of course. Frankly, that beach is now lost for the public. Much of the beaches in that area require a key to get access anymore, though. The media has just jumped on this because a singular rich guy is at the center of it.

California has almost no middle class anymore...

If the property is privately owned then the owner dictates whether or not he will allow access. Just because access has been allowed at any time for any period of time does not mean that it cannot be denied for any reason. Reminds me of some property in the Los Angeles area that was empty and the owner was having trouble keeping weeds and other problems out of it. He agreed to allow some of the neighbors to use it as a garden and he would supply the water. It was a solution for the owner to keep the property neat and clean and the neighbors enjoyed produce and time spent together engaged in worthwhile work. A few years later when the owner wanted to develop the property did the neighbors get together to thank him for allowing its use in a way that was advantageous to them? No! They complained, took him to court, tried to demand that since he had allowed the use of the property it was no longer his choice to do something else with the property. (I would have provided a nice dinner with some of the produce to say thank you.) It was a costly court battle even though he won and delayed his plans for his property. This discourages creative solutions to problems for the fear of creating another problem. Without knowing the exact claims and or agreements that were given for this particular beach I couldn't agree or disagree with his actions. What I have read so far sounds like because someone has decided they 'like' the place that the owner should have to share.

Maybe because the previous owner allowed access for 70 years? I know that, say you put in a driveway that actually your neighbors property but nothing was said or done for 10 years. After 10 years that property is now yours. (Law in Connecticut anyway).

Did the previous owner get a tax break? Was there a lease to the town?...the story was incomplete.
If any of these things do not apply, I side with the new owner...and if they give him some Sh#t then I would force them to buy it or shut up...or at least Pay for the facilities and insurance.

The article didn't give us a whole lot to go on.

It's sad how little rights we have left at what we have left can be overlooked, amended, or just bullied to change by big government, activists, protests and the media. I'm probably breaking 10 laws reading about this on my iPad sitting on my couch while enjoying this cup of coffee. Shame on me.

California has had a law requiring public access to all beaches (except federal property) since I lived there in grammar school (about 70 years ago). The owners of Malibu property often bellyached about this, but were never successful in challenging it. As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and Khosla was naive in thinking he could ignore it because he was privileged. We might think such a law as abusive, but it isn't like the state came in and made an ex post facto ruling.

It's long been a legal standard that one can't utilize property ownership to landlock, block, or eliminate access to property not owned. Additionally, all coastal beach areas are public property, unless specifically exempted by state or federal legislation such as port facilities, marinas, etc. This is simply an example of the Objectivist principle limiting one's Individual Right from infringing on that of another. What was Jefferson's comment? Something like 'Your right to swing your fists around ends at the tip of my nose' (of course paraphrased very loosely).

What this individual may have failed to realize when he purchased this property is that the previous owner had established an easement across his property that can't be revoked simply by purchasing the land. It's been common law practice in many states including my own that if you allow for the establishment of an easement across your property for use by someone else and the use goes on for an indefinite amount of time, the easement becomes permanent. While I feel for the guy who purchased the land, he really should have consulted with a good lawyer, who would have told him about the probable easement restriction he would be facing.

how many more reasons does one need to understand why California is not the place to live.

I grew up on long island. when I started sailing on Long Island Sound I learned that all of the estates on the north shore LIS side of the island was private. that was and is the way it is. I can assure you that this is a situation that will not change.
the man OWNS the property and that is it. maybe he should close his business and move it where he will be appreciated.