Khosla is wrong, he doesn't have to provide anything except access to a path to the beach that already exists.
And California basically already seized an easement on his land years ago when they passed the law requiring beach access (although I'm not 100% sure how that's structured legally).
He might have a point about needing to maintain a relatively safe path, but so does every property owner in Malibu and they all seem to have it figured out.
I think his current argument is that he doesn't have to give access (maintain easement) because his property is part of an 1851 sale of Mexican property which has a treaty that supercedes Californian state law. Essentially a federal treaty supercedes state law through judicial review. So unfortunately the current interpretation based on the courts is that since his property is part of the 1851 sale which is governed by a federal treaty (which is always above the rules of state law), he doesn't have to provide easement at all.
I wonder if this means that any of the property owners involved in land as part of the 1851 sale can now block their existing easements for beach access.
> I think his current argument is that he doesn't have to give access (maintain easement) because his property is part of an 1851 sale of Mexican property which has a treaty that supercedes Californian state law.
That seems like a pretty radical interpretation. Wouldn't that totally undermine all state law, exempting him from stuff like building codes, state environmental laws, etc.?
Well take this with a grain of salt since this is from my high school government class, but it would only apply when the treaty conflicts with state law. So I assume in this case the treaty apparently gives him the right to not provide easements which is in direct conflict with the California state law. Since the treaty is federal law, it supercedes over state law where there is a conflict. I believe this is based on the Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
That doesn't mean Khosla is exempted from building codes, unless that 1851 treaty says something like "The US government shall be able to regulations the manner in which buildings can be constructed on this land."
Again this is just from what I've gathered from other posters. I'm curious what clause they took from the 1851 treaty that made it clear that he doesn't need to provide easements. Maybe there was a clause that the property could never be seized for public good which the Mexican government put in to prevent the government from evicting Mexicans who wanted to stay on their land post sale.
So does the federal treaty state specifically that land sold does not have to provide easement? If not, it seems like a weak argument. By that same logic, he could also put a casino on it and say that since the land was part of the federal treaty, he no longer has to abide by any state law at all while on the property.
I assume if the treaty says that he can open a casino then he can open a casino. Again, federal law supercedes state law. It's written into our constitution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
I have no idea what clause they took from that treaty to show he has the right not to provide easements.
And California basically already seized an easement on his land years ago when they passed the law requiring beach access (although I'm not 100% sure how that's structured legally).
He might have a point about needing to maintain a relatively safe path, but so does every property owner in Malibu and they all seem to have it figured out.