Table of ContentsIntroductionBackground on Public/Private Beach RelationsCase Study: Martins BeachConclusionWith the increase in the number of resorts and of private estates bordering beaches in the world, a question arises about land ownership and its extension onto the adjacent beach and water. The rights to use this traditionally public space are now being challenged by the purchase of multi-million dollar properties encroaching on these beaches. Like many states grappling with this recent phenomenon, California law provides that, under certain conditions, long-term public access to all private property can result in the establishment of a permanent public easement. Thanks to this public easement, beaches “under certain conditions” cannot be considered entirely private, even though many, including Martins Beach, still present themselves as private property. This means that it is just as contradictory to say private beach as it is to say private park or private square. This conflict is framed by numerous legal cases which favored both parties. Without consistent decisions, this important legal case is an ongoing battle between surfers, Surfrider Foundation and Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla. The final decision, in this particular case, will likely set a legal precedent that could shape the future of California's beaches and could apply to public space as a whole. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original EssayIntroductionSince the beginnings of this country, people have devoted time and resources to protecting private property rights. This continued emphasis on private property rather than community good has continued and led to the disappearance of some traditionally public areas, including beaches along the coasts. In recent years and the evolution of legislation, extreme tension has arisen due to the relationship between public access and private land. Fortunately for the public, this legislation, in most coastal areas, sets a precedent and replaces any previous access limitations. These laws are called public easements and can be enforced not only along coastal areas, but also where recreational use is significant enough. It is these laws that have helped define and protect public beaches from resorts and landowners seeking oceanfront properties. In some situations, there may be laws or court rulings that refute the easement public, as was the case in the trials and conflict over Martins Beach. The final decision, whatever the outcome, of the “Battle for Martins Beach” will have radiating effects on coastal areas, recreational areas, and public spaces across the United States. Context of public/private relations on the beach Public easements in general provide the public with the right to use a certain space. Traditionally, public easements are used for streets, trails, and airspace, but they have recently been used controversially to protect beaches intended for public use. In most areas, beaches from average high tide to the ocean are considered public, called "wet sand laws." Today, along the California coast, and on other coasts as well, public beach easements are granted over areas not protected by universal sand lawswet: access to the beach, as well as recreational areas inland from the beach. These new public easements, nicknamed "dry sand laws", are beginning to take shape along the California coast, following the introduction of the California Coastal Act in 1976. The decision whether or not to grant these easements has the potential to shape the beaches. , and public space, along the entire California coast and also set the standard for the rest of the West Coast and East Coast. Martins Beach, California is a surfing destination located west of Palo Alto and just south of HalfBay of the Moon. Many surfers in the area learned to surf on the beach and are therefore very attached to the beautiful seaside landscape. The 2008 decision not to grant an easement led to the privatization of the famous surfing destination, Martins Beach, and therefore blocking its public use. Today, many area groups continue to further examine these public easement laws and how they can apply and be used to reopen the beach. There are two ways in which the beaches are appropriated for the public: one involved the purchase of the land as a designated park and the other is a public easement. Government purchasing of oceanfront land to make public can be extremely expensive due to increased land values ​​along the coastline, monitoring costs, waste cleanup and regulatory requirements. security. Despite the costs, this is the only guarantee that the land will be fully public through government ownership. In contrast, public easements do not require the purchase of property and are therefore much less expensive. The purchaser of the easement “acquires only the right of use” rather than title to the land (Mckeon 567). In this case, homes and resorts can be built on the high ground and guests and residents can enjoy the beach, ideally promoting compatibility between public and private uses. Because these easements can be acquired for free, or at least at a much lower cost than purchasing the land, this “seems a more promising method of providing public access” (McKeon 567). In California, the precedent for easements was set with the passage of the law. the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Proposition 20) leading to the creation of the California Coastal Commission and enormous impacts on beach accessibility throughout the state (California Coastal Commission). They created a public program of prescriptive rights, similar to public easements. Prescriptive rights refer to public rights over private land acquired through use. Historically, the public has used many coastal areas; for example, paths to the beach, informal car parks, beaches and other areas providing recreational opportunities. Prescriptive use rights are “an easement on property that arises without the express consent of the owner” (California Coastal Commission). The Commission exists to implement and protect these prescriptive rights. It is necessary to protect areas of use important enough to warrant prescriptive rights. Section 30211 of the California Coastal Act states that "development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea..." As the Coastal Act shows, it is evident that California is very committed to the conservation of beaches and coastal features for public use.Martins Beach is located south of San Francisco and west of San Jose. In San Mateo County, its known origins date back to the early 1800s. In 1838, property including the beach was deeded to José Maria Alviso,one of the first settlers of modern Silicon Valley. His ownership of Martins Beach lasted only 10 years until the Spanish were forced to cede California to the United States, leading to the first conflict on that land. Maria Alviso's brother, José Antonio Alviso, filed a claim for the land containing Martins Beach that went all the way to the Supreme Court, but was ultimately upheld and the decision made no mention of a public easement. In the early 1900s, this land was sold to the Deeney family who, from 1930 to 1991, leased it to the Watts family. The Watts family started the tradition of Martins Beach as a surfing area by opening it to the public for just a parking fee. Once the Deeneys regained control of the land, they continued to let people pay to park and surf on the beach. (Kinney) Throughout its time as a public beach, several generations of surfers have enjoyed access to the beach. The attraction came from the beach scenery as well as the surfing potential. It's very unique, hidden from the highway and boasting shark fin-shaped rock formations. It has built a reputation as a good spot for beginners and a great place to take the family, surfers or not. Beach access remained public in 2008 when new owner Vinod Khosla purchased the property. After transferring more than a thousand vehicles between July and September 2008, public access did not last and the access gate to the beach was closed definitively in 2010, provoking a furor of lawsuits which still remain in progress. suspense. Case Study: Martins BeachAs mentioned, Martins Beach is considered the home of many surfers as it is a great place to learn surfing and teach as a family. Because of this attachment, emotions flared when Silicon Valley investor Vinod Khosla purchased and blocked access to the beach, leading to two lawsuits against Khosla (Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach 1 , 2 LLC) and the possibility of pursuing others in the future. The actual “ownership” or right to the beach is unclear. Both parties present valid arguments and rely on legislative precedent. The battle for the beach became a fierce fight through trials and acts of defiance, with each side gaining the advantage on different occasions. With the lawsuits unresolved, the public appearance of the beach remains uncertain. The numerous lawsuits and threats of lawsuits have made headlines on many news sources as the story continues to develop. This has led to a complex timeline of events that continue to unfold every day. It started in 2010 when Khosla closed the gates, blocking the road to Martins Beach. This barred visitors from the beach for the next 3 years, which it took for them to organize and file a lawsuit against Khosla. In October 2013, the group formed, Friends of Martins Beach, filed a lawsuit against Khosla, or Martins Beach 1,2 LLC. They requested a public easement for recreational use on Martins Beach Road and the dry sand along the beach, and also to prohibit Martins Beach LLC from interfering with the public's use of these easements (Friends of Martins Beach c .Martins Beach LLC 2013). The judge in that case ruled in Khosla's favor because of the original claim to the land in the mid-1800s, as that agreement did not discuss easement or any sort of public land. The State was also not mentioned in the title as having any form of ownership over the land and therefore the land "is not subject to the laws of Congress concerning public access" (Standen). After losing the first trial, due to thePrevious ownership of the land by In Spain and its re-acquisition by José Antonio Alviso, the Friends of Martins Beach reorganized with the Surfrider Foundation to try to bring Khosla back to justice. Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach 1, LLC; Martins Beach 2, LLC was a citizen's lawsuit under the California Coastal Act closing the gate and preventing access that was previously granted to the public. The plaintiff, Surfrider Foundation, sought to reconcile three causes of action. The first involved a declaratory judgment or essentially recognition that a law had been broken. The judge ruled in favor of the Foundation because, under the California Coastal Act, any development altering public access or use of the beach, water and/or coast requires a permit which Khosla did not have nor was he trying to get. The second cause of action was an injunction or legal solution to the problem. In this case, obviously, the injunction was to have the door opened permanently. Although the judge denied permanence, she agreed that the gate would be opened and unlocked at the same times and to the same extent as when Khosla purchased the property. Finally, the Surfrider Foundation attempted to have Khosla pay fines for his behavior, but this third appeal was rejected. On the other hand, Khosla or Martins Beach LLC sought to incriminate the Surfrider Foundation for unauthorized entry onto the property, but there was no significant evidence that the people who entered were at all involved in, directed by, or sanctioned by the foundation, the judge therefore denied this cause of action. Simply looking at the news articles, one can hardly be sympathetic towards Khosla and his position, but upon looking deeper, his position represents two long- American ideals of the time: historical legal precedent as well as the high value of land ownership and private property rights. Historical ownership of this land is extremely open and, without any mention of government or public easement, it can be implied as full ownership. The deed given to Alviso was also created well before the California Coastal Act was passed by the legislature and the Commission's codes took effect, thus strengthening Khosla's argument. If the status of this particular beachfront property is based on early Alviso records from hundreds of years ago, as was the case in the original case, then the status of most Beachfront properties could be called into question. This would result in few, if any, publicly accessible beaches anywhere along the coast. Not only did this original deed imply complete private property rights, but the judge in Friends of Martins Beach v. Martins Beach LLC also ruled that the land was completely private, thus setting a legal precedent. The historical information as well as the judicial decision constitute a convincing argument. Although it was overturned in Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach 1, LLC; Martins Beach 2, LLC, due to prior use, the information raises the question: If there had not previously been public access to the beach, would there even be a conflict today or is Kholsa currently enjoying his private beach? Although unrelated to the current situation, the issue calls into question the public use of the past as a powerful force in the eyes of California courts and the California Coastal Commission. If this public use of an area can convert a private driveway and lot into a public road and parking lot due to significant recreational use, as the California Coastal Act suggests, what..