IndexIntroductionBackground on Public/Private Relations on BeachesCase Study: Martins BeachConclusionAs the number of resorts and private estates lining the beaches increases worldwide, a question arises about land ownership and its extent to the adjacent beach and water. The rights to use this traditionally public space are now being challenged by multimillion-dollar property purchases encroaching on these beaches. Like many states combating this recent phenomenon, California law provides that, under certain conditions, long-term public access through private property may result in the establishment of a permanent public easement. Through this public easement, beaches “under certain conditions” cannot be considered completely 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 in many court cases that favored both sides. Without coherent decisions, this major legal case is an ongoing battle between Surfrider Foundation surfers and Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla. The final ruling, in this particular case, will likely set a legal precedent that could shape the future of California's beaches, and has the ability to apply to public spaces as a whole. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay IntroductionSince the dawn of this country, people have devoted time and resources to protecting private property rights. This continued emphasis on private property over community good has not ceased and has led to the disappearance of some traditionally public areas, including coastal beaches. In more recent years and in the evolution of legislation, there has been extreme tension arising from the relationship between public access across private land. Fortunately for the public, this legislation, in most coastal areas, takes precedent and replaces any previous access restrictions. These laws are called public easements and can be enforced not only along coastal areas, but also where recreational use is significant enough. These are the laws that have helped define and protect public beaches from resorts and landowners seeking beach property. In some situations there may be laws or court decisions that disprove the public easement, such was the case with the lawsuits and conflict regarding Martins Beach. The final decision, whatever the outcome, of the “Battle for Martins Beach” will have far-reaching effects on coastal areas, recreational areas and public spaces throughout the United States. Background on public/private relations on beaches Public easements in general provide the public with the right to use a particular space. Public easements have traditionally been used for roads, paths and airspace, but recently they have been controversially used to protect beaches for public use. In most areas, beaches from mean 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 in areas not protected by universal wet sand laws: beach accesses, as well as recreational locations inland from the beach. TheseNew public easements, dubbed “dry sand laws,” are beginning to take shape along the California coast thanks to the introduction of the California Coastal Act in 1976. The decision whether or not to grant these easements has the ability to shape beaches, and public space, along the entire California coast and set the standard for the rest of the West and East Coasts as well. Martins Beach, California is a surfing destination located west of Palo Alto and just south of Half Moon Bay. Many surfers in the area have learned to surf on the beach and are therefore very attached to the beautiful seaside landscape. The 2008 decision not to grant the easement led to the privatization of the popular surfing destination, Martins Beach, and thus the blocking of public use. Today, many groups in the area continue to delve deeper into these public easement laws and how they can affect and be used to reopen the beach. There are two ways in which beaches are appropriated to the public: one way involved purchasing the land as a park and the other as a public easement. Government purchasing waterfront land for public use can be extremely expensive due to increased land values ​​along the coast, costs for monitoring, waste cleanup and safety requirements. Despite the costs, this is the only guaranteed guarantee that the land will be fully public through state ownership. Public easements, on the other hand, do not require the purchase of the property and are therefore much cheaper. The purchaser of the easement “acquires only the right of use” rather than title to the land (Mckeon 567). In this case it is possible to build houses and resorts on the plateau and both guests and residents can enjoy the beach, ideally promoting compatibility between public and private use. Since these easements can be acquired for free, or at least much cheaper than purchasing the land, “it seems a more promising method of providing public access” (McKeon 567). In California the precedent for easements was set with the passage of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Proposition 20) which led to the creation of the California Coastal Commission and enormous impacts on beach accessibility throughout the state (California Coastal Commission). They created a program of public prescriptive rights, similar to public easements. Prescriptive rights refer to public rights to private land acquired through use. Historically the public has used numerous coastal areas; for example, paths to the beach, informal car parks, beaches and other areas that offer recreational opportunities. The prescriptive right of use is “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 those areas of use that are substantial enough to guarantee prescriptive rights. Section 30211 of the California Coastal Act states that "development shall not interfere with the right of the public to access the ocean..." As demonstrated by the Coastal Act, it is obvious that California is very committed to the preservation of beaches and coastal features for public use.Martins The 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 a property including the beach was donated to Jose 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, which led to the first conflict over this land. Maria's brotherAlviso, Jose Antonio Alviso, filed a claim for the land containing Martins Beach, which went all the way to the Supreme Court, but was ultimately upheld and no public easement is mentioned in the decision. At the beginning of the 1900s this land was sold to the Deeney family who rented it to the Watts family from 1930 to 1991. The Watts family began the tradition of Martins Beach as a surfing area by opening it to the public simply by paying for parking. Once the Deeneys regained control of the land, they continued to allow people to pay to park and surf on the beach. (Kinney) Throughout this time as a public beach there have been several generations of surfers who have taken advantage of the beach access. The beach landscape and surfing potential drew attraction. It's truly unique, hidden from the highway and brandishing shark fin-shaped rock formations. It has built a reputation as a good place for beginners and a great place to take the family, surfers or not. Access to the beach remained public in 2008 when the new owner, Vinod Khosla, purchased the property. After yielding more than a thousand vehicles between July and September 2008, public access didn't last and the beach gate was permanently closed in 2010, prompting a fury of lawsuits that still remain unresolved. Case Study: Martins BeachAs mentioned, Martins Beach is considered the home of many surfers because it is an excellent place to learn surfing and teach it to your family. Because of this attachment, emotions flared when Silicon Valley investor Vinod Khosla purchased and blocked access to the beach, which led to two lawsuits against Khosla (Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach 1, 2 LLC ) and the possibility of further actions in the future. True “ownership” or right to the beach is unclear. Both parties make valid arguments and are supported by legislative precedent. The battle on the beach has become a tug of war through lawsuits and acts of defiance, with each side gaining the advantage on several occasions. With the lawsuits unresolved, the beach's public appearance remains uncertain. The numerous lawsuits and threats of legal action have been the headlines of many news sources as the story continues to develop. This has led to a complicated timeline of events that continue to unfold every day. It all started in 2010 when Khosla closed the gates, thus blocking the road leading to Martins Beach. This prevented visitors from accessing the beach for the next 3 years, which was needed to organize and file a lawsuit against Khosla. In October 2013, the formed group, Friends of Martins Beach, filed a lawsuit against Khosla, or Martins Beach 1,2 LLC. They sought a public easement for recreational use on Martins Beach Road and the dry sand along the beach, and also to prevent Martins Beach LLC from interfering with public use of these easements (Friends of Martins Beach v. Martins Beach LLC 2013) . The judge in this case ruled in Khosla's favor due to the original claim to the land in the mid-1800s, because this agreement did not speak to easements or any type of public land. The state was also not mentioned in the title as having any type of title to the land and therefore the land “is not subject to the laws of Congress relating to public access” (Standen). After losing the first case, due to Spain's previous ownership of the land and its reacquisition by Jose Antonio Alviso, the Friends of Martins Beach reorganize with the Surfrider foundation in an attempt to bring Khosla back to court. Surfrider Foundation vMartins Beach 1, LLC; Martins Beach 2, LLC was a citizens' lawsuit under the California Coastal Act closing the gate and preventing access previously granted to the public. The appellant, the Surfrider Foundation, attempted to reconcile three grounds of appeal. The first involved declaratory relief or essentially an acknowledgment that a law had been violated. The judge agreed with the Foundation because, under the California Coastal Act, any development that changes public access or use of the beach, water and/or shoreline requires a permit, which Khosla does not possessed or attempted to obtain. The second cause of action was for injunctive relief or a legal remedy to the problem. In this case, obviously, the injunctive relief was to permanently open the gate. Although the judge denied permanence, he agreed that the gate should be opened and unlocked at the same times and to the same extent as when Khosla purchased the property. Ultimately the Surfrider Foundation attempted to make Khosla pay a fine for his behavior, but this third lawsuit was dismissed. On the other hand Khosla, or Martins Beach LLC, sought to indict the Surfrider Foundation for unauthorized entry onto the property, but there was no significant evidence that the people who entered were at all involved, directed, or ratified by the foundation, so the judge denied that cause of action. Simply by looking at news articles, one can hardly be sympathetic to Khosla and his position, but after looking more deeply his position represents two long-standing American ideals of the time: historical legal precedents as well as the strong value of land ownership and of private property rights. The historic ownership of this parcel of land is extremely unrestricted and without any mention of government or public easement it can be understood as full and complete ownership. The act granted to Alviso was also drafted long before the California Coastal Act entered the legislature and the Commission codes went into effect, in turn strengthening Khosla's case. If the status of this particular beachfront property was based on Alviso's earliest documentation from hundreds of years ago, as in the original case, then the status of most beachfront properties could be called into question. This would result in little, if any, public access beaches anywhere along the coast. Not only did the original deed imply all-encompassing private property rights, but the judge in the Friends of Martins Beach v. Martins Beach LLC case also ruled that the land was completely private, thus providing judicial precedent. The historical information and judicial decision provide a compelling argument. Although it was overturned in Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach 1, LLC; Martins Beach 2, LLC due to prior use, the information begs the question: If there had not been public access to the beach before, would there be a conflict today or would Kholsa currently be enjoying its private beach? While irrelevant to today's situation, the issue poses past public use 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 street and parking lot due to substantial recreational use, as suggested in the California Coastal Act, what else can be converted to public lands ? How far does legislation like this go, is “significant” birding and/or hiking sufficient to give rise to public use rights in a privately owned field or woodland? Just in case.