Billionaire takes fight over beach access to Supreme Court

SAN FRANCISCO -- California courts say Martins Beach, a picturesque haven near Half Moon Bay, should have its gates opened to the public, despite the objections of its billionaire owner. Sometime in the next few months, the nation's highest court will decide whether to weigh in.

``No property right is more fundamental than the right to exclude,'' lawyers for Vinod Khosla said Thursday in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review of the case. They said the states' courts, in their rulings against Khosla, wrongly decided that ``owners of private beachfront property in California may not exercise that right without first obtaining the government's permission.''

Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, bought Martins Beach and surrounding coastal lands from their longtime owners for $32.5 million in 2008. He shut the public access gate in September 2010, citing the cost of maintenance and liability insurance. The previous owners had admitted the public for at least 70 years.

After a series of back-and-forth rulings, a San Mateo County judge ruled in 2014 that Khosla should have gotten a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission before shutting the gates. A state appeals court agreed last August saying the closure was a type of property development that required the commission's approval.

``One of the basic goals of the state for the coastal zone is to maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities to the coastal zone,'' said the three-justice panel of the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco. The state Supreme Court denied review of Khosla's appeal in October.

Khosla has intermittently opened the gate in recent months. He has said he would provide beach access across a portion of his land if the state paid him $30 million for an easement.

A visit to the beach on Friday found some Bay Area locals torn between the rights of property owners and the needs of the public.

``If you buy something, it's your right. You own it,'' said Rey Vargas, an avid fisherman.

But, he added, ``I just feel like he's being greedy. There's so much to offer at this beach. It's beautiful. Why not let the people enjoy it.''

Rich Lucov of Redwood City, a longtime surfer at Martins Beach, wondered why a natural wonder was in the hands of a private entrepreneur.

``I don't think anybody should be able to own the beach,'' he said.

Added Margaret Gossett of Half Moon Bay, as she strolled along the beach with friends visiting from New Jersey, ``I really like what California has done to preserve the coastline for everybody.''

Khosla's lawyers, led by Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general, told the high court Thursday that the California rulings were not only a strained interpretation of the state's Coastal Act but also a license for the ``taking'' of Khosla's property, in violation of his constitutional rights.

The Coastal Commission and county officials decided they had the power not only to require Khosla to open his property, but also to ``dictate'' beach access hours and an ``absurdly low'' admission price of $2, the lawyers said.

``The government simply cannot command that parties open their private property to the public without compensation,'' the filing said.

If the court grants review, with the votes of at least four of its nine justices, it would hear the case in the 2018-19 term that begins in October.

The state courts issued their rulings in a suit by the nonprofit Surfrider Foundation. Joseph Cotchett, a lawyer for the foundation, said it would oppose Khosla's appeal.

``What Khosla is doing is saying to the public of California, 'I don't believe you have access to the beaches,''' Cotchett said. ``It's pure arrogance and money to lead him to believe he can hire the most expensive lawyers in the country and beat down the public of California.''