Supporting Property Rights

And for those who keep repeating that Customary Use is not a taking...there is intangible taking, as well as inverse condemnation.

"When a governmental actor physically occupies or invades a property right in a way that substantially interferes with the owner's use and enjoyment of the property, a de-facto taking results" Hall 355 Or at 522.

I can already here the customary users - IF owners do not prevail, owners never had the right and is not a government taking. But that is why ancient English common law customary use is repugnant and inconsistent with the US Constitution.

A BPO:
"If it’s always been customary use then why create public beach areas? Just build parking lots."
"Why won’t the county attorney agree to indemnify property owners from claims arising from the collection of trash?"
"Why not offer to reimburse all bfo’s who have spent money on renourishment of the beach?"
"If CU is not a taking then why can’t I start a business using the beach as revenue (the county collects fees for weddings, beach fires...etc)."

Another BPO:
"The big push is about money. Have to have CU or the county will go broke, etc. The thing is CU was only 1 summer and part of another. I wish that narrative could be challenged with facts. I tried once to no avail. And in closing.. Who in their right mind wants 3+ million tourists descending on 30a.. and more projected to come. Sounds like the county is slowly committing suicide."

Very, very interesting to see this letter (thanks for posting) as I just had talk with another BFO regarding a slanted for sale listing: “...direct public beach access via private walkover". I am confident the agent fully knows that today, the beach for that property is private.

If anyone ever had a doubt that some agents might be less than forthcoming for personal reasons or gains, doubt no more.

Cudos to Blake Morar for condemning ECAR’s official position in the customary use issue. Might he lose a little money because of this letter? Possibly. I may now consider their services.

Definitely will never, ever use the surfer dude’s company who’s buddies with the master maker and marketeer of mai tais to the masses.

Remember who really financially benefits from uncontrolled growth at the expense of BFOs should customary use prevail: existing businesses AND the county. This includes developers, restaraunteers, real estate agents, beach vendors, just about everyone with a business in Walton County.

Heck I’d support CU if I didn’t own beach front except I’d be going against what I know to be one of core values of the U.S. Constitution - private property rights. So I never will.

And to no one in particular, Customary Use (as it is being defined in the court of popular opinion) is central to property rights. It is granting a right to the public to use someone else's property. In this case, more than 5,000 property owners.

Three states are commonly cited as having public right of use easements to beach property. Oregon, Hawaii, and Texas. But the method used was different in each one. Hawaii’s custom was not through the English common law of custom but the following of Hawaiian National Usage - native custom. Texas was through “public easement”, Open Beaches Act, state law in 1959 and not through the doctrine of custom.

Florida’s “Customary Use” is a property right of use, a customary easement, following a “new-doctrine” of custom originated in Oregon in 1969. The Oregon ruling has been widely criticized as judicial activism, and not following the doctrine of custom but instead creating a new doctrine.

By granting that right of use to the public, Customary Use is at the same time invading the owner's right of control, enjoyment and removing the owner's right of exclusion.

There are four property rights which will be affected by Customary Use:

1. Possession. The loss of the right of exclusion.
2. Control. The county rather than the owner, will have control on who can use and what uses can be exercised by third parties without interference by the owner.
3. Exclusion. The owner will lose the right to exclude any member of the public (has already been lost by the actions of the local Sheriff unwilling to enforce trespassing law).
4. Enjoyment. The owner being burdened by the public, will diminish the right of enjoyment.

For those who state the owner never had the right of exclusion (like Larry Jones has incorrectly instructed the public for years) and “customary use” has been the status quo forever and is a predetermined right --- this is a going back in time machine granting of a public right which has not yet been determined by a court. Judge Rodgers and other judges have ruled that the doctrine cannot exist absent a judicial determination. The Reynolds and Trepanier courts already ruled that Tona Rama did not grant the right to all of Florida, only to the land in question in the case and required judicial determination to grant the right to other parcels. Selectively reading and misinterpreting Tona Rama to promote the customary use "right" narrative has become a sport for customary use advocates.

This was the main thrust of the Customary Use section of FL 163.035, to mandate local governments follow the judicial requirements of Customary Use that was already established judicial precedent. HB631 did not create any new rights other than to codify a process which the courts had already established. HB631 simply restated terms and property rights which had already existed well before the legislation.

Yet another version of Customary Use, granting a public right of use was created by Walton county and only existed in Walton county for a little over one year in the form of a beach ordinance. The ordinance has no value in the discussion other than a historical footnote.

Customary Use also invades an owner's covenant of Quiet Enjoyment obtained with a Warranty Deed.

Customary use, besides imposing the public burden, imposes a liability onto the owner, which cannot be mitigated through insurance.

The US Constitution 5th and 14th amendments, as well as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
Article 17
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

The right to own property and not be arbitrarily deprived of property is a documented universal human right.

.....Customary use, besides imposing the public burden, imposes a liability onto the owner, which cannot be mitigated through insurance.

So a friend tried to contact the county attorney and at least one of the commissioners regarding liability should customary use prevail. Neither responded as to who is liable if a public beach goer is injured on “private property”.

He informed me that BFOs will not be able obtain liability insurance on their beach property should customary use prevail because the private property owner could not exclude the public.

The county owes EVERYONE an immediate and CLEAR explanation as to who bears liability on “private beaches” that would become open to the public via customary use.

Maybe the professionals at ECAR could chime in with their infinite wisdom since they normally must disclose things like this. We did have customary use for over a year. What did they tell purchasers of private beach front property regarding liability during that period? I’ll bet nothing.

I believe strongly in property rights as well, but I also understand that real property law is complicated and property rights vested in owners are not always absolute and unqualified. I'm genuinely interested in the views of BFO owners. Which leads me to ask 2 questions of BFO's. For your personal parcel, has the public never used your dry sand area for recreational purposes during the time you owned it (and you can exclude the short period of CU by ordinance). In other words, do you believe your dry sand has always been treated as private? Second, if CU was defeated and I showed up by myself with a fishing rod and a chair at 6:00 a.m. and sat 10 feet out of the wet sand on your property, would your intention be to ask me to leave? I expect I'll get a cavalcade of responses that you want the right to tell me to leave regardless of whether you exercise it, but I'm asking what your approach would be as a pure matter of personal interaction. Is that what you would do?

Is Walton so different to this article?
Walton customary use is ONLY about property rights and RESPECTING property rights. Property rights are not some "angle" or legal trick. The founders of the Constitution emphasized property rights and due process and respecting property rights and since 1776 are the key to American prosperity.
If you think beachfront owners did not earn their property or pay their taxes on it; please cast the first stone of criticism.

May 2007 How Property Ownership Changes Your World View
Harvard Buisness School by Julia Hanna
When Argentine squatters were granted property title it changed the way they viewed the world. HBS professor Rafael Di Tella discusses his research into how property ownership affects our beliefs and also our attitudes toward capitalism.

What happens when a person owns property? Aside from the well-established financial benefits of equity and potential access to credit, there is the equally strong pull of the American Dream and everything it suggests—the idea that through hard work and determination, it's possible to get ahead, own a home, [own beachfront property,] and achieve some level of success, security, and happiness.

But how does this vision change in parts of the world where property rights, if they are present at all, are threatened by weak law enforcement, corruption, crime, and arbitrary government policy? In a recent paper (http://www.people.hbs.edu/rditella/papers/QJEBeliefs.pdf) published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, HBS professor Rafael Di Tella, Sebastian Galiani of the University of Washington, St. Louis, and Ernesto Schargrodsky of the Universidad Torcuato Di Tella delve into this question by comparing the beliefs of two groups of squatters living in the Solano neighborhood on the outskirts of Buenos Aires, Argentina.

What the scholars found could be the start of a better understanding of why capitalism remains unpopular through large swaths of the world—particularly in areas where property rights are weak or nonexistent.

In an unusual set-up that Di Tella describes as "a natural experiment," about 1,800 landless families (organized by a Catholic priest) occupied the area in 1981, believing it was owned by the state. In fact, it was made up of privately held tracts of land belonging to 13 owners. Over the years, the squatters resisted several eviction attempts, until a change in government in 1984 resulted in a state proposal to pay off the owners and allocate the land to the squatters. Each owner was given the option of accepting the deal or suing to obtain higher compensation. By 1998, 9 of the owners had settled, and the tract of land was transferred to the squatters. With the remaining 4 lawsuits still pending, 62 percent of the squatters now hold title to their land, while 38 percent do not.

As a result, squatters who enjoyed the security of property rights existed in proximity to those with no legal claim to the land on which they lived. For Di Tella and his coauthors, the situation presented the ideal opportunity to research the beliefs of those who hold property rights versus those who do not, all other conditions being equal.

"In the United States, there are few dramatic policy changes that will create situations like this," Di Tella says. "In Latin America, you can observe things that you would not in a more stable environment."

Gauging Beliefs
The researchers asked survey questions to gauge the squatters' stance on beliefs common to a capitalist society. For example, did the squatters agree that it is possible to be successful on one's own, or did they think it necessary to have a large group supporting one another? To what degree did they believe money was important to be happy? Do people who put effort into working end up better, worse, or much worse than those who do not? Finally, did the squatters believe that other people could be trusted?

Di Tella and his coauthors found that squatters with land titles believed individual achievement is possible by a margin of 31 percent over those who did not hold title to their land; the margin for those with the materialist view that money is important to be happy was 34 percent; and 17 percent more squatters with titles believed that other people could be trusted. The only question that did not show a significant difference related to the meritocratic belief that effort pays off—in this case, the majority of both groups believe that this is true.

When Di Tella benchmarked these results against a sample of residents from the Buenos Aires metropolitan area with generally higher income and education levels, their responses tallied closely to the beliefs of squatters who hold titles. This showed the importance of property rights in closing the belief gap between a group of very poor squatters and the general population.

Changing Lives
"How is it that property changes peoples' lives?" asks Di Tella. "In developing countries, there are many claims or challenges to property ownership, which generate differences in the beliefs that people hold. Important research has been done to demonstrate the material effects of property ownership, like increased access to credit.

"However, I've been more interested in looking at the immaterial effects of how that influences people's view of the world and, by extension, how those beliefs may or may not foster development."

Capitalism, Di Tella says, is not popular in most parts of the world—and in Latin America, the backlash against free markets has reached epidemic proportions.

"Why is capitalism so unattractive outside of the United States and other rich countries? This paper shows that secure property rights are one part of the answer," he says. "If people don't own property, they don't believe that they can build on their success."

How is it that property changes people's lives?
Two other strands of Di Tella's research also point to how beliefs affect attitudes toward capitalism. In one, he notes that because the economies of poorer countries are often dependent on volatile resources such as oil and minerals (which are often controlled by a relatively small number of individuals) it is in fact true that hard work and effort don't pay off for the vast majority of people.

"As a result, voters favor high taxes," Di Tella says. "It's like a tax in a casino—people believe that it should be high because so little effort has been expended in winning the money."

Corruption is another issue. "If you perceive the system to be illegitimate, the tendency is to demand justice through increased government intervention and policies," Di Tella observes. These three factors, taken together, create an unfriendly environment for capitalism [and beachfront ownership rights].

"I'm concerned about beliefs and how they are formed because I think that the rejection of pro-market reforms in Latin America or Eastern Europe or Africa is not related to economic interests, as most economists claim, but to the way that people see the world," says Di Tella. "We think it's important to understand what causes these changes in beliefs [private property ownership rights] because they form the underpinnings of capitalism and have a profound effect on development."

I believe strongly in property rights as well, but I also understand that real property law is complicated and property rights vested in owners are not always absolute and unqualified. I'm genuinely interested in the views of BFO owners. Which leads me to ask 2 questions of BFO's. For your personal parcel, has the public never used your dry sand area for recreational purposes during the time you owned it (and you can exclude the short period of CU by ordinance). In other words, do you believe your dry sand has always been treated as private? Second, if CU was defeated and I showed up by myself with a fishing rod and a chair at 6:00 a.m. and sat 10 feet out of the wet sand on your property, would your intention be to ask me to leave? I expect I'll get a cavalcade of responses that you want the right to tell me to leave regardless of whether you exercise it, but I'm asking what your approach would be as a pure matter of personal interaction. Is that what you would do?

Well let's start with your first statement. Property rights are absolute (read Tiffany) unless limited by law. Unfortunately, many here want to define by fiat what property rights are or are not on beach property and run to the "rights are not absolute" argument. So I reject your premise and you might want to spend a few days reading Tiffany on fee simple. No doubt real property and land use law is complex - but that complexity doesn't default to limitation, but the opposite.

As to your next two question - no the "public at large" has never used my parcel or most private parcels in Walton county. If you mean have random non-owners occasionally used the parcel --- with or without my knowledge --- well that's a given. But you didn't ask that. You asked if the "public" used it and that means something entirely different - the public means everyone and anyone, in any quantity, continuously and notoriously (not covertly) and the answer is "no".

Second question. First I would not have any knowledge you were there as I would not be awake at 0600, and ten feet off wouldn't really catch my eye if you were there when I was. If you MADE yourself noticeable by staying there all day and returning day after day, and/or setting up camp, or loud noises or bothering people --- yes, I would inform you this is private property and you need to do this somewhere else. The key here is, are you making yourself a nuisance or presenting your presence in such a way that suggests you are "occupying" my property obnoxiously. And no, you don't have "Customary Use" --- you have CONSENT.

This is a core legal problem with custom vs. public trust. You and the residents of Walton county may have some degree of claim of custom on a parcel - what does not transfer is that into a public easement. This is why there are 7 criteria of custom - one of them being "certain persons".

In other words, do you believe your dry sand has always been treated as private? Second, if CU was defeated and I showed up by myself with a fishing rod and a chair at 6:00 a.m. and sat 10 feet out of the wet sand on your property, would your intention be to ask me to leave?

1. "treated as private"? If you mean legally recognized as private; YES. Since the title of the land was granted I can license whomever I what or not to use my private property to the MHWL - not wet sand.
2. If you are Dave Rauschkolb, Daniel W. Uhlfelder, Jackie Markel, any of the recent commissioners, Larry Jones, REALTORS Keith Dean, Josh Summers, or Liz McMasters - Yes I'd ask you to leave. List is not all inclusive but you get the idea.

Well let's start with your first statement. Property rights are absolute (read Tiffany) unless limited through the rule of law. Unfortunately, many here want to define by fiat what property rights are or are not on beach property and run to the "rights are not absolute argument". So I reject your premise and you might want to spend a few days reading Tiffany on fee simple.

As to your next two question - no the "public at large" has never used my parcel or most private parcels in Walton county. If you mean have random non-owners occasionally used the parcel --- with or without my knowledge --- well that's a given. But you didn't ask that. You asked if the "public" used it and that means something entirely different - the public means everyone and anyone, in any quantity, continuously and notoriously (not covertly) and the answer is "no".

Second question. First I would not have any knowledge you were there as I would not be awake at 0600, and ten feet off wouldn't really catch my eye if you were there when I was. If you MADE yourself noticeable by staying there all day and returning day after day, and/or setting up camp, or loud noises or bothering people --- yes, I would inform you this is private property and you need to do this somewhere else. The key here is, are you making yourself a nuisance or presenting your presence in such a way that suggests you are "occupying" my property obnoxiously. And no, you don't have "Customary Use" --- you have CONSENT.

This is a core legal problem with custom vs. public trust. You and the residents of Walton county may have some degree of claim of custom on a parcel - what does not transfer is that into a public easement. This is why there are 7 criteria of custom - one of them being "certain persons".

Thanks for responding. I appreciate it. So what I hear you saying is you are ok with the peaceful use of your dry sand so long as it is not obnoxious or a nuisance (e.g. change my example above to someone showing up with their family of 4 at 8 a.m. that just wants to build sand castles and clean up all their trash when they leave). The reason I ask is if most BFO's are ok with that type of non-nuisance use, why couldn't this all be resolved by some form of agreed upon easement for recreational use with appropriately strict restrictions that balance everyone's interests. Would you support something like that?

1. "treated as private"? If you mean legally recognized as private; YES. Since the title of the land was granted I can license whomever I what or not to use my private property to the MHWL - not wet sand.
2. If you are Dave Rauschkolb, Daniel W. Uhlfelder, Jackie Markel, any of the recent commissioners, Larry Jones, REALTORS Keith Dean, Josh Summers, Liz McMasters - NO.

#2 --- I'll only add the other CU zealots (et al.) Absolutely - ZERO CONSENT.

1. "treated as private"? If you mean legally recognized as private; YES. Since the title of the land was granted I can license whomever I what or not to use my private property to the MHWL - not wet sand.
2. If you are Dave Rauschkolb, Daniel W. Uhlfelder, Jackie Markel, any of the recent commissioners, Larry Jones, REALTORS Keith Dean, Josh Summers, Liz McMasters - Yes I'd ask you to leave.

1. No, I mean have you actively excluded third-parties when they used your dry sand.
2. I'm not so I assume you wouldn't ask me to leave.

Thanks for responding. I appreciate it. So what I hear you saying is you are ok with the peaceful use of your dry sand so long as it is not obnoxious or a nuisance (e.g. change my example above to someone showing up with their family of 4 at 8 a.m. that just wants to build sand castles and clean up all their trash when they leave). The reason I ask is if most BFO's are ok with that type of non-nuisance use, why couldn't this all be resolved by some form of agreed upon easement for recreational use with appropriately strict restrictions that balance everyone's interests. Would you support something like that?

That's not what I said at all. I am not willing to grant a right to the public on my property. I have 100% interest in my property - why would I dilute that to the public? Why? Do you really understand what a public use easement is legally? I'm not sure you do (by your comments).

If the answer to 1 is "no, the public has not consistently used my dry sand area" then aren't you going to win any customary use case with regard to your parcel? And wouldn't a court decision resolve this issue for you once and for all? There would then be clarity.

If the answer to 1 is "no, the public has not consistently used my dry sand area" then aren't you going to win any customary use case with regard to your parcel? And wouldn't a court decision resolve this issue for you once and for all? There would then be clarity.

Yes a court decision is the only way for Walton commissioners to claim public rights on private property - unlike their 2017 declaration without due process. It will only cost Walton taxpayers millions for commissioners to try (it's not their millions $). Why do you think beachfront owners should have to pay millions(?) to defend their fee simple Constitutional property rights and like it?

If the answer to 1 is "no, the public has not consistently used my dry sand area" then aren't you going to win any customary use case with regard to your parcel? And wouldn't a court decision resolve this issue for you once and for all? There would then be clarity.

What do you mean "win"? If you mean successfully defend my property interest against the claim? Spending a lot of treasure and time?

Most cases supporting custom including Florida's reflect a high degree of judicial activism. Custom is a highly controversial doctrine in American law. I'll leave it there.

Well let's start with your first statement. Property rights are absolute (read Tiffany) unless limited by law. Unfortunately, many here want to define by fiat what property rights are or are not on beach property and run to the "rights are not absolute" argument. So I reject your premise and you might want to spend a few days reading Tiffany on fee simple. No doubt real property and land use law is complex - but that complexity doesn't default to limitation, but the opposite.

As to your next two question - no the "public at large" has never used my parcel or most private parcels in Walton county. If you mean have random non-owners occasionally used the parcel --- with or without my knowledge --- well that's a given. But you didn't ask that. You asked if the "public" used it and that means something entirely different - the public means everyone and anyone, in any quantity, continuously and notoriously (not covertly) and the answer is "no".

Second question. First I would not have any knowledge you were there as I would not be awake at 0600, and ten feet off wouldn't really catch my eye if you were there when I was. If you MADE yourself noticeable by staying there all day and returning day after day, and/or setting up camp, or loud noises or bothering people --- yes, I would inform you this is private property and you need to do this somewhere else. The key here is, are you making yourself a nuisance or presenting your presence in such a way that suggests you are "occupying" my property obnoxiously. And no, you don't have "Customary Use" --- you have CONSENT.

This is a core legal problem with custom vs. public trust. You and the residents of Walton county may have some degree of claim of custom on a parcel - what does not transfer is that into a public easement. This is why there are 7 criteria of custom - one of them being "certain persons".

I understand what fee simple means but will concede I am not anything approaching an expert on it. As you point out, "property rights are absolute unless limited by law." I completely agree. But the important part is "unless limited by law." The concept of customary use where established by sufficient evidence has been the law in Florida since 1974. Therefore, where the elements are met, customary use is an instance where "absolute" property rights are "limited by law." Right?

On use, you say random non-owners have occasionally used the parcel (sometimes with your knowledge and sometimes without). "That's a given." You say that the public hasn't used it. Where do we draw the line between the public and random "non-owners?" I mean if different "random" people have engaged in recreational use of your dry sand and they do it frequently, that starts to sound a bit like continuous, notorious, public use to me. I mean they are not hiding their use right? And we are not talking about a 2,000 acre parcel where you may not even know people are there. These are all issues that would need to be resolved in any litigation over customary use.

I don't expect we will agree on these points but I appreciate your willingness to discuss them.

You mean case law? Any adjudicated easement would subject a property to the terms of the easement yes. You keep saying the law in Florida - this is just an odd expression. There is case law and judicial precedent. And you are incorrect, where the criteria is proven in a court of law, judicial precedent could be used to support a public use easement on a parcel if a judge so rules affirmatively. But not until. This is not a statute where meeting a set of conditions merits a self declared easement - that is a political narrative and gross misinterpretation of Tona Rama.

You do understand there are four criteria even in the "new-doctrine" of Fla's Customary Use case law? And your great leap from what I described to "continuous, notorious public use" is probably left for someone else, there's an entire community of these folks who subscribe to these lines of belief. I'm not interested in these topics.

Finally, continuing to state that customary use is black law is not a fruitful discussion point.

On use, you say random non-owners have occasionally used the parcel (sometimes with your knowledge and sometimes without). "That's a given." You say that the public hasn't used it. Where do we draw the line between the public and random "non-owners?"

And that’s exactly why (among other criteria), in my very humble opinion, customary use as it stands will be defeated at the federal level when the Blessey case “re-ripens” after the meeting in November.

The county should at least wait after they declare CU in November before investing more tax dollars in legal fees. The outcome of this case could negate all efforts to date and in the future.

Being a layman and reading the case with an open mind, it certainly appears to me that it has a good chance of winning.

Customary use by its own definition is much much too arbitrary for any reasonable minded and completely neutral party to be able to determine.

You mean case law? Any adjudicated easement would subject a property to the terms of the easement yes. You keep saying the law in Florida - this is just an odd expression. There is case law and judicial precedent. And you are incorrect, where the criteria is proven in a court of law, judicial precedent could be used to support a public use easement on a parcel if a judge so rules affirmatively. But not until. This is not a statute where meeting a set of conditions merits a self declared easement - that is a political narrative and gross misinterpretation of Tona Rama.

You do understand there are four criteria even in the "new-doctrine" of Fla's Customary Use case law? And your great leap from what I described to "continuous, notorious public use" is probably left for someone else, there's an entire community of these folks who subscribe to these lines of belief. I'm not interested in these topics.

Finally, continuing to state that customary use is black law is not a fruitful discussion point.

This is where I just don't understand your continuing resistance to what should be an uncontroversial point. Yes, I am talking about case law from the Florida Supreme Court applied by the lower courts and Federal courts over the years. Saying a doctrine established by judicial precedent is "the law" is not an odd expression at all in litigation. It's no different than saying assumption of the risk or contributory negligence or mitigation of damages is "the law" in a given jurisdiction where it is clearly established by case law. We may not know if these legal doctrines apply under the facts of a specific case, but it is still "the law" to be applied. If this were to be litigated and you were to go into state court and say there is no doctrine of "customary use" in the Florida courts; it is not the law, the judge would likely give you an odd look and ask if you have read Tona-Rama.

Yes, I understand the criteria for customary use established under Florida case law. I have never suggested that they do not apply but they will have to be interpreted and applied by the court in an individual case.

Finally, I assume you mean "black letter law." I would argue that the existence of the customary use doctrine and its elements are black letter law in Florida. We just have to apply that law to the facts of individual cases.

Sounds good. Good luck with all that.

"Good luck with all that"

Supreme Court Turns Away Billionaire Who Wanted To Turn People Away From Calif. Beach.

Surfrider Foundation prevails landmark beach access case. Those pesky surfers....

Supreme Court Turns Away Billionaire Who Wanted To Turn People Away From Calif. Beach

NPR

The Supreme Court has refused to take up a billionaire's appeal of a lower court ruling that forced him to maintain public access to surfers and others who visit Martins Beach, a scenic spot near Half Moon Bay, south of San Francisco.

The case had been shaping up to be a showdown over California's Coastal Act, with possible ramifications for other states with laws to preserve public access to beaches. Advocates for public access are hailing the court's decision to decline the case as a victory. The Supreme Court declined the case on Monday, the first day of its new session.


THE TWO-WAY
California Court Orders Venture Capitalist To Reopen Disputed Beach
A legal fight over the beach had been brewing since 2008, when Vinod Khosla, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems, bought Martins Beach for some $37 million. Within a year, his management companies had begun locking a gate at the property; it then shut down a parking lot where members of the public had been able to pay a fee to reach the beach.

The abrupt change angered surfers and other locals and drew a lawsuit from the Surfrider Foundation, which said Khosla shouldn't be allowed to privatize a beach that people had used regularly for decades.

A California court ruled against Khosla in 2014; in August 2017, a California appeals court backed that decision, ordering Khosla — a venture capitalist who has invested in solar power, biofuels and clean energy — to reopen the beach.

"Today's decision is a significant win for beach access rights across the nation," said attorney Eric Buescher, part of the legal team representing Surfrider Foundation. In a statement released by the group, he added, "By declining to hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the owner's attempt to purchase a public resource."

To prepare for a potential Supreme Court showdown, Khosla had hired well-known attorney Paul Clement, a veteran of dozens of cases at the high court, including the challenge to the Obama health care overhaul.

But the justices declined to take the case on Monday, ending a lengthy process that included the initial appeal, a response by Surfrider, a counter-response by Khosla's lawyers and numerous briefs filed by interested parties.

Those exchanges had fed speculation that the Supreme Court would take the case. But the two sides also disagreed on whether the case was "ripe" for the Supreme Court's review at all. In its filing, Surfrider said the case wasn't ripe, because "the property owner has not applied for a permit to gain the relief they seek."

In reply, Khosla's legal team said their case revolved around private property rights, writing, "There is simply nothing unripe about having the government in your backyard or strangers on your property."

With the Supreme Court declining to take the case, the road to the beach must remain open to the public. Khosla still has the option of pursuing a Coastal Development Permit to change the status of the area along the beach.

Apples and bananas. This isn't California or Oregon, the left coast. If that's what your socialist vision is for Walton county - you'll fit right in.

Shannon