Way to go, Jerry Hill!

It is a critical public interest to retain public access to our beaches. If this access can be bought up and closed off, then others will follow. I'm glad our tech industry creates great private wealth, but that wealth should not result in losing access to our public beaches.

I agree wholeheartedly with Matthew Self. Access to our public beaches is a fundamental right under California State Law. Allowing a landowner to abruptly cut off historic access is wrong. I hope it won't come to eminent domain, but that Mr. Khosla will come to understand that barring the public from accessing a beach that they and their families have accessed for generations is wrong and he will come to the table to negotiate viable public access so that everyone wins.

Does anyone know if the new owner is even a US citizen?? Sad if he could buy what belong to all Californians.

So what the courts have stipulated, a State Senator wants to take away? And force someone to negotiate by LAW?

Simply an OUTRAGEOUS take on behalf of and by the Government.

This has NOTHING to do with Access, this is PRIVATE land that has deeded restriction that the Court held up and now some surfers and a Senator want to take it back. What ever happened to land rights? Do you all want the Government to demand that you negotiate a better deal next time you buy/sell your home?

Offensive indeed.....and my guess is that the law will not hold up in court. Just Government money wasted to appease some constituents. Scandalous, wasteful, and shameful.

Roy Thiele-Sardina

@Beach Comber & Matthew Self

so if descendent's of the Ohlone would like access to your back yard because they used it for generations, you wouldn't mind if the government seized it and gave it to them would you?

the property is privately owned and Khosla gets to decide who has access. if you want to surf there, take a boat.

We have two foundational documents that protect access to beaches, the California Constitution (1879) and the California Coastal Act (1972). California has a long and active history of beach access protection and there is extensive community support, both private and public. The issue of Martin's Beach does not revolve around surfing, just because surfers benefit from beach access does not diminish the importance of upholding our Constitutional rights.

The new legislation requires Vinod Khosla to be held to the law, just like the rest of us. Khosla and his team have failed to apply for permits, failed to follow court orders, and failed to follow law. The legislation does nothing but give Khosla and his team one year to comply with these laws and work through the permitting process with San Mateo county and the Coastal Commission. Since he was forcibly exposed as the owner earlier this year, Khosla has remained silent on this issue.[Portion removed. Don't speculate on other posters.]

As I was there only yesterday and personally escorted news crews down to the beach, I can guarantee Martin's remains beautiful and garbage-free, awaiting a visit from you and your family. Don't worry, the Sheriff's Office and District Attorney are refusing to prosecute illegitimate trespassing charges!

Irony = An anonymous person calling himself 'Patriot' accuses someone else of "post comments using secrecy and subterfuge to forward his agenda."

Who is Patriot?

Where does he live? The exact street address please so that we can come visit you with outré news cameras.

There's nothing outrageous here. Sen. Hill's legislation proposes to negotiate with the property owner. If the negotiation is not successful, then the state can acquire a section of the property by eminent domain, which it has the right to do.

If the state wants access there is farm property on either side of the Martin's beach property that the state could acquire with much less difficulty and cost, and once at the high water mark people can walk anywhere else below the high water mark.

Interesting to hear what the denizens of Menlo Park and Atherton have to say about this. I hear surfer-bashing and "so if descendent's [sic]of the Ohlone would like access to your back yard because they used it for generations, you wouldn't mind if the government seized it..."

Wrong. This issue is much different than someone wanting access across your backyard, unless you happen to live on beachfront property in Portola Valley (hah!) California law treats beach access differently than other types of access because the California Constitution recognizes the public's right to use our public beaches. Generations of families, up until the day when Khosla padlocked the gate, accessed that beach. Families. Children. Parents. And surfers and beach-combers. We picnicked and played in the sand and the surf. Then a billionaire bought the property and locked the gate. Good for Jerry Hill for listening to his constituents and taking on this issue.

Since this is complicated by historic land grand rights, it'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

If you'd like to read about what's happening in the courts, you can use the following San Mateo County weblink (enter Case number 520336):

Web Link

@Roy Thiele-Sardiña
[Portion removed; stick to the issue and avoid personal attacks.] Oh and by the way, no one owns the beaches.

Web Link

hello it's the peoples beach we pay for it, duh

HAH,

Not sure what offensive comment the editor took out....

I never said they should't have access o the Beach. it is the law. However crossing someones private property to get it IS NOT OK. and taking that property to get access is also not OK.

Roy

Folks - this article does not mention the foundation for Kholsa's claim to his right to close off the property:

From the SF Chronicle 10/28/2013:
..."Buchwald ruled that because of a clause in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that required the United States to recognize Mexican land grants as long as the owner filed a claim - and a unique situation in which the original Mexican owner passed his 1865 patent for the beachfront property down through the generations - Khosla has the right to block public access to the road leading to the beach, despite the public trust doctrine of the California Constitution."

Like it or not, he's got a pretty good real estate lawyer! Given the above, eminent domain seems to be the only answer. Or as suggested above, buy a portion of adjacent property and create beach access that way.

This is a positive first step in getting public access to Martins Beach reinstated:

Web Link