IIRC, his argument is that the path that leads to the beach is actually his property, and he is effectively being required to pay to upkeep/monitor/secure this area on his property on his own dime.
Feels like an edge case to me. Not exactly something someone who buys a private property would think would be possible e.g. to have to pay for upkeep for public property.
Seems like the gov’t should figure out some sort of reimbursement program in situations like this.
Amazing that his lawyers are more versed with the concept of land deeds dating back to pre-California Mexico, than they are of easements.
And the government has never demanded he maintain, at his own expense (mind you, he spent months paying $10k/day fines over this). Just that the access is there.
it's not really my point. the law is deficient in the sense that it doesn't cover this edge case. so why not address the edge case?
IMO Khosla should present some numbers on how much it would reasonably cost to maintain whatever land he owns that would be used by the public to get to the beach and the gov't should agree to reimburse some reasonable expense on a quarterly basis.
