I think Vinod's kinda being a douche here. All of the positive street cred he is getting for his promotion of green energy is being lost to this fight. I mean, is it worth having the private beach? Why not keep it open to the public, upgrade the access, and actually reap some positive PR from this?
This is the kind of stuff protesters hate about rich techies. Apparently, this beach was historically used for a long time to teach surfing by local surf schools. A guy swoops in, who probably will rarely use this beach/vacation home, buys up the land, and closes off access. Attempts to "hack" the legal system through a loophole to achieve an exception to the state wide public beach system.
If he had been appreciative of the history of the beach and local surfers, he could have actually got some benefit out of it, maybe built some local facilities people would pay to use, add some exhibits on Khosla investments, etc. It would have generated positive press and positive externalities instead of negative press and negative externalities.
I like Vinod, but this just comes off as being a rich jerk.
I like Vinod, but this just comes off as being a rich jerk.
Someone who is that rich doesn't do it by being a nice guy, and that drive which makes him so rich bleeds over into non-business parts of his life because it's impossible to be nice for some things and ruthless in others.
When I was young and naive, I thought serial entrepreneurs were just like other people, just really smart and driven. After meeting a bunch, I realized they are very different than me and most other people I'd met. They are driven beyond imagination, and that warps their sense of almost everything. Things we shrug off (losing some negotiation) becomes a really big deal to them.
That isn't my experience. I know several serial entrepreneurs who are much nicer than most people (probably the majority of >2 successful company people I know are "nice"). Most of the genuine assholes I know are unsuccessful, outside of a few horrible industries.
Being an asshole isn't required to be successful. It's a nice think to think the world is "fair" like that, that anyone who is successful has to be an asshole (or that smart people are ugly, or that successful people are unhappy, or whatever), but it isn't true from experience.
There are certain industries which are win/lose, corrupt, and generally horrible, but I don't think tech, especially startup venture-funded tech, is one of them. Would you want to join a startup for below-market-rate pay with high risk of failure and spend 100h/wk for a few months around people who are horrible?
I know both types of people, nice rich guys and what you would call "assholes".
However, I'm qualifying "assholes" because the few I know are actually very, very charming... but are in fact sociopaths/exibit some sociopathic traits, like being extremely artful manipulators, using half truths and lies, etc.
Examples: the CEO of a multinational company. As an example of his behaviour, much like Scott Thompson, he lies about his degree. He also skims off the company profits.
I also know of a few enterpreneurs that are really nice if you meet them , but work their employees to death and then cheat them out of profits (I think it has been discussed to death here on HN)
BTW I agree with rdl, I believe sociopaths will be more common in large, established companies, than in startups.
If you work in such dysfunctional environments (for example certain financial industry companies, or governments), yes, you'll end up believing that to be succesful it's required to be an "asshole".
Being an asshole isn't required to be successful. It's a nice think to think the world is "fair" like that, that anyone who is successful has to be an asshole (or that smart people are ugly, or that successful people are unhappy, or whatever), but it isn't true from experience.
I think the conversation has changed. I never used the word "asshole" and didn't for a reason. I don't think Kkosla is an asshole, and I don't think anyone (at least, when I read the comments) was calling him one. Quite the opposite. It was a douchey move, but he's not an asshole. He is driven to win more than most people can imagine, and that plus his intelligence are two huge factors in his serial success.
I'm glad you've had a better experience than I. I really am. I know my sample is small, but I'd done a lot of reading over the years. Steve Jobs, for example, fits my profile to a t, along with the people I've had direct contact with. (The group I'm talking about can be assholes, and I think Steve Jobs was one. It's not required, though.)
Let me add an angle. I started a company almost 30 years ago. It's still going. We've been profitable almost every year, but not wildly so. If I were to give the name, most here would say it is not a successful company. I'm by no means rich. We have never missed a payroll in that 30 years. Not once. Yes, I've fired people. I've done layoffs. I've never done one thing that I can't live with at night when I go to sleep. None of my decisions keep me awake.
However, I was presented with many, many forks in the road. One road (the one I took) was a "good" one. The other would have allowed me to profit, sometimes much more than the other decision. I've watched very successful people over the years and I came to realize that they often take that more profitable road.
Because of the types of decisions we make, outsiders call us a "family" business. That is CEO-speak for we can't make the hard decisions needed to increase profits, often at the expense of the people that work for us. I've had long discussions with serially successful people, and their primary advice, stop being a family business, don't be friends with your employees and start squeezing everyone for productivity and profit. It's what potential investors and buyers want to see, they say.
So, my sample is relatively small, but I've talked with lots of potential investors, VCs and just plain successful people, and I've definitely seen a real pattern.
It's the road I wanted. I couldn't live with myself by doing those things with I feel would have been selfish. I'm not rich, but I'm not poor by any stretch. I've done well.
And, to answer your question: no, society wouldn't be better off. It would be worse off, because those decisions would have caused other people distress while bring me more power or money.
Being an asshole isn't required to be successful. It's a nice think to think the world is "fair" like that, that anyone who is successful has to be an asshole (or that smart people are ugly, or that successful people are unhappy, or whatever), but it isn't true from experience.
[I am only taking issue with this portion of your response and not the entire narrative]
Would you care to elaborate on this? Would you list some striking success stories - besides the Hastings' and the Hoffmans' of the startup world - that have prominently animated our collective imagination and have generally informed us of what special kind of a person it takes to truly strike it big, in the big leagues of startup triumph?
I ask genuinely and without a heightened degree of cynicism.
Woz (yes, Jobs was an asshole, but they got to a pretty high level of success when Woz was in a key role, and probably could have gotten to the Apple II stage with Woz + anyone -- not Mac/iPhone/etc., but that's reasonable).
Diane Greene, by all accounts, is a great person. VMware is pretty successful (ok, they're dicks now under EMC to some extent, but she also left long ago)
Dr. Amar Bose (Bose audio, not Bose physics) was one of the most amazingly good people I've never encountered; Bose doesn't make the best audio equipment in the world, but it's a successful company.
Stripe is pretty successful so far; the Collison brothers are widely regarded as decent people.
YC itself has been quite successful; none of the YC partners are dicks.
There are clearly counterexamples (Zynga alone makes up for a lot...), but I think it's pretty clear being an asshole isn't necessary to be successful. It might be somewhat correlated, or not, but I think there are a lot of other traits which are far more predictive of success or failure.
There are countless examples (your list is great). Here are some more people I instantly thought of.
Gabe Newell.
John Carmack. While he doesn't have the reputation of being a super-nice person, he certainly doesn't come off as being an arrogant dick.
Marc Andreessen. Similarly to Carmack, doesn't necessarily have the reputation for being super-nice, but certainly isn't a dick.
Mendel Rosenblum (Diane Greene's cofounder).
Max Levchin.
There are countless others, really. People in these positions typically have to make some really tough choices (should I fire Bob?) and you can't reach any significant level of success without leaving a trail of disgruntled people behind you. Being forced to make choices that leave some people unhappy isn't the same as being dick, though it might look that way from afar.
I wouldn't call Woz a serially successful guy, though. Brilliant. Amazingly nice. Talented. But not serially successful in starting and making businesses valuable.
It is one thing to do something great and be successful. It's another to do it over and over again. The former is much easier than the latter. Sometimes it's just being in the right place at the right time. Doing it over and over requires great skill and intelligence and drive. (I don't put myself anywhere near that category.)
I think a lot of that is wanting to do it again. A lot of people who make huge amounts of one startup are just not at a point in their lives where, now knowing the costs, they want to try again.
Yo, I love the work that billg is doing with his foundation, but as a company CEO, he made plenty of dick moves, like trying to dilute Paul Allen out of his wealth, not to mention the whole Netscape-crushing kerfuffle that led to an anti-trust lawsuit and the near-dismantlement of the company...
Netscape's founders had a 4.2 billion dollar exit that closed higher...following a 2.3 billion dollar IPO. Between internal decisions and the culture infused from AOL, suicide is a more apt analogy than homicide at the hands of Gates. I''ll take a moment to point out that it was Silicon Valley companies [don't forget "look and feel" from Apple] that were focused on litigation rather than innovation just a few years ago.
Anyway, few people who reach Gate's age have done nothing blameworthy. That's just the price of adulthood.
He's made a turnaround perhaps greater than Rockefeller or Carnegie from probably being well over the line of ethical behavior in business, to an immense force for good in charity. It's pretty amazing.
Warren Buffett, on the other hand, seems to have gotten rich through being basically fair but brilliant (and of course lucky, and hard working), and is making huge charitable contributions as well (both before pledging his wealth to the Gates Foundation and after).
In this case, using old Spanish/Mexican land grants/law to get around historical community access makes Vinod a giant douche. The approach to being above the community and it's history is a prime example fueling frustration amongst many against the riches Silicon Valley has helped fuel.
I had hoped he would be above being an ass, understanding community, history, and honoring the way things were. Nope, hiding behind a holding company? Par for the course it seems.
Edit: At least Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs were up front with changes they wanted to make with historic properties - constructive or not.
I know, I know I sound like a dick here, but I think this is one of those cases where his being born and raised in India is a contributing factor. Indian culture is vastly different than ours, including a very high "power distance" measurement compared to typical Western nations.
In India, if you're rich (or even middle class), you have servants and you do what you want. In his view, this is his, and he doesn't have to share it with the lesser people.
Sure, many people born in America would do this too, but they would possibly feel a bit more guilty about it.
Yeah, I know this is just an Internet forum so who cares what's said right? But ...
But Ask the Korean made an excellent point about culturalism: "The term "culturalism" is my coinage ... is the unwarranted impulse to explain people's behavior with a "cultural difference", whether real or imagined. Because the culturalist impulse always attempts to explain more with culture than warranted, the "cultural difference" used in a cultural explanation is more often imagined than real. To paraphrase Abraham Maslow, to a man with a culturalist impulse, every problem looks like a cultural problem."
Yes, sometimes people ascribe things to culture which aren't due to culture, and sometimes the converse is true too.
It's one thing to say "No, actually you're ascribing something to culture which isn't part of Indian culture at all. This is just him being a tool" but you've made no effort to explain why you think his actions aren't in line with his cultural upbringing.
PS: As a child of immigrants, I constantly see how culture is the root cause of a lot of my parent's "bad"/unacceptable-in-America behavior.
Actuallly, he's kind of a dick anyways. He once gave an interview with the BBC about IIT's where he said that the IIT's were so difficult that he "cruised through the CMU master's program". Later, it was revealed that at the time he attended, the IIT's had a 5 year bachelor's program; something that he conveniently forgot to mention.
The IIT example is probably misplaced. My dad went to the IIT at roughly the same time. Based on conversations I have had with him, the IITs had a 5 year program at that time because the students who got in had very different levels of some fundamental skills especially ones related to English and Communications.
My dad, for example, studied K-12* in a school where his medium of instruction wasn't English. He got into IIT because he placed first in his school district/state but he couldn't converse fluently in English and spent his first year basically learning English and "mapping" math/science concepts he had learned in our native language to English.
* - My recollection is weak on this, but I think India (or some parts of India at least) may have had a K-11 system at this time instead of a K-12 system.
We have a 5 year bachelor's here (Uruguay) for all engineering degrees (including Computer Science which is bundled with engineering here), and many have told me it's equivalent to a Master's in the US.
So you mean you agree that it's a "culture" specific to India that rich people don't think they should give back to lesser privileged? You are sadly mistaken. Being rich, anywhere makes you less compassionate (there are studies). On the other hand, almost everywhere in the world there have still been many rich people who were very kind. Azim Premji, Rattan Tata are examples off top of my head of big businessmen who gives back too much. On the other hand, rich people like Steve Jobs and many more in the USA were not at all kind from any reference. Kindness is not a cultural trait. It's a personal trait.
No, he must be a racist, since he's saying exactly what I said. After all, you are ascribing a motive to me, so why not him? You self-righteous whiner.
You are a racist. He is talking about his own race, so can't logically be. However, he is just being an elitist here. A lot of Indian people start thinking high of themselves once they arrive to the US. It's in our blood, since we were ruled by Europeans for 190 years. :)
The thing common between you two here is that both are drawing wrong and uneducated conclusions here. There is no causal relationship between being an Indian and being 'unkind' (Yes, I still know you didn't use a direct word, but you didn't reply to my next comment to you, so I assume you meant something very similar to that).
Really? You are accusing me of thinking I am superior based on genetics (which is essentially what racism is), because I made a cultural observation which you don't agree with?
I don't like the culture in the United States' Deep South, so I guess I'm a racist for that too. I don't like Saudi Arabian culture either, again I'm racist, right?
If you don't like me ascribing things that are personal to an entire culture, then have at it. But to infer that its based on race is absurd. One of my main mentors in my career is a man who came to this country from India. I have immense respect for him, and according to you he falls into the "elitist" category due to his withering criticism of Indian culture. I'm sure that because he was born to a Dalit family you would call him biased. I think he just gets it.
I love how when a person of Indian descent disagrees with you, you label him an "elitist."
No True Scotsman. Look it up.
By the way, the diplomat who got arrested here deserved it. She should have done what everyone else in America who can't afford a live-in servant does. Don't have a fucking live-in servant. Wash your own damn dishes like the rest of us do.
I in fact strongly defended the arrest of the diplomat and supported your last line in contrast to what a lot of my Indian friends said in what turned out to be a heavy argument. Of course, she shouldn't have had a live-in servant if she couldn't afford. But then again that doesn't mean a stupid generalization should be made where it doesn't belong. You went too far saying "since they have servants and all ... they are generally like ... don't want to share their things when they become rich". And you surprisingly believe it's an attribute specific to Indian culture. Indian culture might be having many problems, but this cannot be one of them. This argument of yours somehow reminded me of this girl's interview. Don't know why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
Wow. So having servants and being a douchebag are the same things, that you straight away conclude since they have servants they are heartless? Do you use services of carpet cleaners? Car cleaners? Two men and a truck? Professional Lawn mowing services? Do you get your oil changed, tire rotated by servicemen and pay them money? Servants services in India are not much different than that - there are just professional cooks, professional dish cleaners, or professional house cleaners - just like the cheap Mexican house cleaning services your people use. Some of them in India live in (and of course charge more) - and eat with the family. of course in the western countries they are blown up saying Indians are heartless. It is claimed these servants are cruelly made to work more than 40 hours, but no one realizes it's a developing country, resources are scarce - even those middle class 'owners' of those servants are working for more than 60 hours a week. Why wouldn't their servants work that much voluntarily to earn a living? Sure, you haven't seen poverty. In India it's still about survival, in US of A it's not.
I hope people in India can conclude the same about all Americans on one isolated incidence of Steve Jobs being an asshole (much more than this Khosla is). Or one Monsanto Corp. ready to compromise global health and life for money.
Yes, sir, you are not 'being' a dick, you are a dick.
Yeah, I never said anything like what you are ascribing to me. That's all in your interpretation. Heartless? I didn't say that, YOU did.
I grew up in a rural household. We never once hired anyone to do any of the things you mentioned, by the way. We did them ourselves. The cultural difference is there, and your weak attempt to draw parallels is absurd.
Ha. Yes, you didn't say any name at all. So what name would you ascribe to "if he is rich .... In his view, this is his, and he doesn't have to share it with the lesser people". 'Unkind' would be a good approximation? Or you'll find some euphemism? And your interpretation is that Indians feel less guilty about it as well. So sure, Americans do it, but feel more guilty. How sweet :).
You might not have used these services. I was clearly talking about "yours" culture, which you are using to draw differences. But you'd be living in a cave if you don't think that most of the Americans who can afford use these services. But still, let's blame Indian culture without knowing much.
Cultural differences are always there. The important thing, however, is to know where does it apply and where it doesn't.
Edit: And why doesn't my example of the unkind Steve Jobs doesn't apply here - because you don't like it? Did he share anything of what he earned with the 'lesser people'? :) In fact, he shut down all the philanthropic activities that were going on in his company instead. So why shouldn't I, by that analogy, generalize that to be the "American culture"? I think my argument definitely applies here and there's certainly a similarity. You might not want to accept that, of course.
I think you like the idea of a private beach more than the beach itself. Having grown up in a state full of beaches (FL) I choose the public beaches. Beaches are expensive, if you have a multimillion dollar tourism industry it makes sense to spend millions dredging sand, cleaning, and sanitizing.
Guys like Khosla will want their private beach and want the state to fix it for them as well. Florida is full of entitled rich guys like this. It's their beach until a storm washes the sand away. Then it's our beach because the state has to dredge sand to backfill the hightide mark.
It's because he knows he can turn around and sell it to a rich international buyer for double if he can market it as having an effectively private California beach. That's all there is to it.
You mean being promoted from tiny dick with nothing to massive dick with private beach? :)
That would be a no brainer.
In Vinod's case he bought an investment property and probably tried to minimize general public's pooping and loittering activities that always comes with a shared territory.
At least I understand his angle of view after spending $20+M for something.
The judge's ruling skirts the fundamental conflict between the rights of private property owners and the rights of Californians to access the shoreline. Instead, Judge Buchwald rooted his decision in the land's history during the mid-19th century. Since there was no public easement attached to the property at the time the United States acquired California from Mexico, the judge reasoned, the question of whether the California Constitution now guarantees access to the beach is immaterial.
The original owner of the property was Jose Maria Alviso, who received a provisional land grant from the Mexican government in the late 1830s. He later transferred the property to his brother, Jose Antonio Alviso, whose rights to the property were upheld under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War. The U.S. government challenged Alviso's land patent, but the Supreme Court confirmed Alviso's ownership in 1859.
All that complicated history led Buchwald to a basic conclusion: The nation's high court exempted this property from the full reach of California law.
If you read on, the situation is actually even more complicated than just this part of the explanation. Yes, the state Constitution guarantees access, but what can the state really do if someone rightfully owns property blocking access that doesn't contain an easement?
It sounds to me like the typical course of action is that the costal commission won't issue permits for any modifications without strings attached (i.e. an easement). So, Khosla may be able to hang on to his land with no easement, but he won't be able to do anything with it, close the road, or build on it without negotiating with the CC. There is a second lawsuit pending regarding the closure of the road that may make more headway on this basis.
And this isn't even the bullshitty "a larger tax base is a valid use of eminent domain" argument either, where the state takes something for cheap, then sells it for cheap to a developer who then builds a giant resort. This is the ACTUAL, PROPER use of such an authorization in the law.
I'd be totally okay with this. If I owned a beach the last thing I'd do is to build a condo there. Just keep the current infrastructure (looks way more than enough) and maybe bring a sleeping bag if you want to sleep under the stars.
I think this is the smartest solution. It would be a pyrrhic victory if he continues on this course. Not to mention, he could cause a higher court ruling that he doesn't want.
As a bay area tech worker I'm hurt twice by this. First I'm robbed of access to a beautiful beach and second my standing in the community is tarnished further. With leaders like Perkins and Khosla I can hardly blame bay area natives for thinking we're all entitled and out of touch. The worst part is we have to take the brunt of the rage while we get on the bus to make more money for these people.
Have you seen what happens when holiday food drive barrels are brought front-and-center to techie venues? Basically empty. Go to any Midwestern state whether an office or a supermarket, and these same barrels are most often overflowing. The generosity and consideration of the less fortunate should shame and humble more people than it does.
An overflowing food barrel represents very little in value, compared to the large cash donations made by wealthy techies. Cash donations are buying entire warehouses of food that you just aren't seeing.
My girlfriend volunteers full-time for the local food pantry. It was formerly an independent nonprofit, but a few years ago it was taken over by United Way.
Since then, any and all cash donations, given on site at the pantry itself, are funnelled to United Way. The pantry never sees a single cent of the money and United Way does not provide any food (UW employs two people and sends a truck periodically that delivers food from an unaffiliated food bank). No one who works there has any idea where the money goes or what happens to it. The employees there are not allowed to explain this to donors. The donors, of course, have no idea either.
The pantry is only allowed to keep tangible foodstuffs that are donated directly to them, which they can then give to people who need it. The pantry often runs out of certain types of food. When they do, there's nothing they can do but hope someone will donate more of that specific item, meanwhile watching as the cash donations that could be used to buy it get sent away.
I realize this sounds implausible and I can't cite any sources for it[1]. Just be careful about the assumptions you make regarding where the money goes. Food is food and people can eat it. Money can get funnelled or turned into other things, and unless you're there to watch it happen, you don't know what's going on.
[1]: Howevever, if you haven't already, read the Wikipedia page on United Way sometime and see if you can figure out what it is that they actually do, other than collect money, build bureaucracy and get involved in major scandals.
You could check http://www.charitynavigator.org/ to see what ratio of the money goes to programs vs. admin costs and funding costs. The navigator has many entries for United Way as it seems each region has its own organisation.
Understood and agreed with, but you know as well as I do that advertising matters. You said it yourself, people "just aren't seeing" the entire warehouses of food. Empty donation bin means a snap judgement to "heartless."
According to the weekly Kroger ad for their store in north Fort Worth (Texas), a can of Simply Organic beans (very tasty beans, I should add) is $1 with a Kroger card; the same goes for a can of Hormel chili (no beans in chili, please). My back-of-the-mousepad calculations say that approximately 37 regular cans will fit in a 55-gallon drum, the kind usually used for these food drives. That means that, in a regular 8-story office building with two deposit locations per floor, filling all of them to the brim will cost $592. If you go the other way and just put three cans in the areas visible to the public, that's $111 to make a small but visible impact.
Yep, it's advertising and showmanship, but that food also does go to people who will actually use it, so it has the benefit of doing a little bit of good, unlike most advertising.
I understand your argument but frankly I don't buy it. I don't think filling up inefficient bins of food on closed tech campus is visible to anyone outside the company; I don't see the potential for impact.
I'll be completely honest: I think much of this anti-tech sentiment (such as: tech people don't give) is wishful thinking and willfully divorced from reality. Most large tech companies have public giving foundations and publicize their donation programs. Here are a few examples:
These kinds of programs are strongly promoted at most tech companies. A large amount of giving happens outside these programs as well, but they do help establish a baseline well in excess of any food drive.
While trying to dig up the data for some of the bigger tech companies in the area I also stumbled across this report, which claims that area workers not only donate above the average but spend significantly more of their time actually going out into the community http://ef.siliconvalleycf.org/blog/bay-area-companies-giving... The article throws around the term "average" a lot which tends to raise my eyebrows, but it does mesh with my anecdotal experience that tech workers on the whole care a lot more about their community in the bay area than workers in general in other regions of the USA.
Companies do a fair amount of giving, but on an individual level, the Bay Area isn't particularly generous. San Mateo county is in the bottom 1/3 for '% of income given', Santa Clara in the bottom 1/4, SF is a bit better and is in the 42nd percentile for counties.
No, it's not dumb. It's merely suboptimal along the one metric you've chosen to measure. I'm including "show of good will" as a secondary metric, hence why it's perfectly sensible to donate in both forms.
It also creates expectations of help, which can also be very harmful in the long term. Helping others should be voluntary, not done because of expectations.
Pardon, but it's very clear. Take a look at the charitable donation foundations at various tech companies, many of whom publish their donation levels. Or get out and talk to some charities in the area and ask them where their money comes from.
I think the youth has a lot to do with it, more so than the industry. I live in DC, and there is a stark contrast between buildings with 20 somethings and buildings with older residents (the 20 something are split between a 5% that give tons and a 95% that do fuck all, while the older residents on general give far more on the aggregate.)
Just living in a building with 20 somethings shows that they are much more self-involved, no matter what industry you are in. The typical giving 30 something was probably the same way in their 20's.
As a bay area tech worker I'm hurt twice by this. I'm robbed of access to a beautiful beach and second my standing in the community is tarnished further. With leaders like Perkins and Khosla I can hardly blame bay area natives for thinking we're all entitled and out of touch. The worst part is we have to take the brunt of the rage while we get on the bus to make more money for these people.
I agree that the bus rage is completely misplaced. Google peons are more accessible targets, while the people who are actually destroying everything remain out of reach to the angry masses.
You guys have to overthrow your "leaders". Hit them hard and decisively, and free technology from them. The world will support you if you do.
Who are these people "destroying everything", and how are they related to the SF housing crisis? IMHO this crisis is caused by a large increase in housing demand, correlated with a mostly fixed housing supply (more people want to live in SF than there are apartments). This could either be solved by building more in SF, or building more in Silicon Valley (but without the high density of SF).
1. I founded a company called Evernet in the 1980s, funded by Kleiner Perkins and others. Vinod negotiated against at least one founder, me, hard. Then KP made sad but traditional VC errors along the lines of changing the company's strategy from a good idea to a bad one, bringing in the wrong operating management and all that.
2. So I tracked news and anecdotes. Vinod prided himself on being a tough negotiator on behalf of his portfolio companies. But various other stories of negotiating hard against entrepreneurs were out there.
I should clarify that in the 1980s, even more than recently, there was a general screw-the-founder philosophy among VCs. I once asked a popular and likeable VC what some rules of thumb were for equity splits. After some back and forth, the VC said "You don't get it, Curt -- it's whatever we can get away with." But Vinod seemed like a particularly tough exemplar of the trend.
3. I advise 20-30+ tech companies at a time. Most are VC-backed startups. Khosla is the 2nd-worst target of negative VC anecdotes I hear, details of which must however remain confidential.
I've heard that he's "incredibly cheap" (i.e. valuation sensitive), but haven't heard anything particularly negative other than that. If you're going to make a non-specific accusation, why not be more specific?
I truly don't understand how this can be an okay state of affairs... Beaches, at least here in Australia (and at least where I live in south east Queensland) are public. Even though yeah there are millionaires that own beautiful properties on the beaches here on the Gold Coast, we all get to use them, and access them via paths that the city council own.
Can someone explain how blocking off access to a beach works here? Is it because the access paths are privately owned?
It isn't an OK state of affairs. The gentleman is apparently breaking the law but the only remedy within the law is through the state agency that is preparing to sue him.
It looks like he's not technically breaking the law: the beach remains public, the issue is gaining access to it, which there's apparently no public mandate for (the article notes that previous owners of the property charged a small fee to go through).
Real estate law varies from place to place. It's common to require that a blocking property allow access to the blocked property (an easement). This guy's property seems to be blocking access to public property.
Lawyers will huddle, and I'm guessing in the end that people will again have access to public property.
Apparently, this became a private beach when California was part of Mexico, and there is apparently a treaty that says that the titles granted by Mexico would remain valid when the land became part of the United States. Hence, it appears that California's laws that make beaches public do not apply here. They are not powerful enough to override treaties that predate California.
To be consistent with this logic, most of California should be returned to Mexico. And if there were a serious effort for it, it's a safe bet that some other contrary excuse would be trotted out.
(When bullshit arguments are used, use them against an adversary and raise the stakes.)
People should arrange endless, cheap, just-legal boat parties on and off-shore. Just-so-loud music and the like. I'm sure there'd be a lot of takers, especially when they heard the cause. Would probably make for quite an enjoyable protest.
Problems with private access to public beaches still happen here (Australia) though. Especially in Sydney, where technically the harbour beaches are public but access to many if them is difficult or almost impossible by land.
Judging by the article, beach is only accessible through private road, dude bought the property containing the road and closed the road. Perfectly within his rights. And this rhetoric about "billionaire putting a strain on a state agency" is laughable.
Yep (well, maybe, I don't really know. But for the sake of argument: Yep). But dick moves are the type of thing that cause bounds of rights to be changed.
We're not lawyers here (or are, and are already aware that we're not before a court). In a conversation of what actions are tolerable to a society, laws can be changed. Without going on pedantic tangents about this or that, I just want to point out that: in general appealing to the law without making a case for the law looks like circular reasoning because changing the law (or using other, existing, laws to alleviate problems caused by the first one) is within scope of the conversation. That's probably why your post is currently gray.
I can't argue with the perfectly within his rights part, but why is the later issue 'laughable?' It's not rhetoric. It's a matter of fact and not opinion that state agencies have limited resources. I don't have their legal budget at my disposal, but I would take a bet that it's less than his.
Because they wouldn't blink an eye and strongarm a small business or individual that don't have legal budget. They even hint at it when "we were surprised he didn't settle since he has to come to us for permits anyway". Now that opponent actually has legal budget, they play the victim and "oh, now, this fight that is actually within our legal framework is not fair!"
If your property blocks access to another's property, you have to give up a slice of your land to provide access for the other property's owner. You can't simply buy up all the land around a property and then close off access. This is called an easement.
In this case the other property is the beach, which is owned by the government, no different than any other property. Khosla has no right to deny access to this property just because his home abuts it. The only issue here is an obscure treaty, apparently, but that will sort itself out.
Good point, some things are not completely clear though - there is still access by water, and since they own all coastland, by definition they have access through their own property.
Bingo, you are correct. Beaches are public property in CA, although apparently there is nothing preventing people from hiding the entrances or putting up "Private Property: Beware of Dogs" signs.
It depends on how much $upport Vinod gives to reelection campaign$ vs. public vocality. If there's enough sustained outrage, it could force their hand or at least slap it in the direction of honesty.
Did you read the story? -- it went to court and Khosla won. Apparently the land rights stem from the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which predates California statehood, therefore the CA Constitution doesn't apply.
Yes just skimmed it again. Maybe I missed a reference but I can't see it. I did read the MercuryNews link posted elsewhere, interesting stuff, but my conclusion is still the same: Vinod Khosla is being a real jerk here.
Q: How should the public access beaches and shorelines that are blocked by houses?
A: If private homeowners are obstructing existing public rights-of-way to the shoreline, HRS § 115-9 provides a remedy and up to a $2000 penalty for that kind of situation.
Something like how California does prop 65 warnings would be awesome; 50% of an $x000 fine for each violation reported by each person, per day. I'd be happy to spend an hour or two every morning racking up a new violation (and swimming), and I'm sure busloads of poor people could do the same.
I lived on the island of Hawaii for years and around the western side of the southern tip, there's a large area of lava fields, with sparse development and larger land-holders, presumably speculating that hotels will eventually want to buy big tracts of coastal property. There are still a number of beautiful, mostly deserted beaches along that coast and great fishing spots, accessible only by boat or across rough ground-down lava tracts. Property owners would put up large iron gates blocking the paths every once in a while, and without fail, a few days later you'd drive down the path past the gate flung off to the side after someone brought down an Oxy-fuel setup and just cut it to pieces. It is well understood, ocean access is primary, no one will wait for court battles and fines to mount. Just cut it down and get to the ocean. Whether it's NJ towns that charge a fee to even be on the beach or states that allow exclusive ownership or allow owners to block public access, there's nothing by the people, for the people in any of it. It's a stain on our notion of a democratic-self. If a regulation exists that's clearly against the interest of 99+% of the people, then there's clearly something inherently wrong with the system that allows it.
With only a couple of very narrow exceptions (Malibu, Stinson), California beaches are indeed publicly accessible by law (which is the main point of this situation).
This sort of thing has been happening in the U.S. probably ever since there has been a U.S. At common law, the waters of the state were held in trust by the state for the public, and the beach between the water and high tide line were part of this trust. People were held to have a right to access and use this public property for purposes like fishing, bathing, cleaning clothes, etc. This concept dates back to Roman times. There is an amusing case in 1892, where the Supreme Court reversed a sale by the City of Chicago of the submerged land along the shore of Lake Michigan to a railroad company, holding that the transfer was invalid because the public trust land could not be alienated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Central_Railroad_v._Il....
Because this concept is well-entrenched, rich people, have resorted to buying up the land adjacent to the public beaches and cutting off access that way. Some states have responded by requiring private property owners adjacent to beaches to provide reasonable access to the public through their property. This particular conflict isn't any different than conflicts that are happening all over the country over beach access. Incidentally, it's quite amusing to me to watch Silicon Valley techies' sense of "but no, really, we're different!" idealism slowly come crashing down as they realize that there is nothing new under the sun. "Rich guy tries to block beach access" wouldn't even elicit a reaction from a Floridian.
I wonder what the future is of the homes on Martins Beach.
A few years ago, I was considering buying a home near Half Moon Bay, and at the time a few different "houses" on Martins Beach were available...for incredibly low prices. Forget that the homes are basically one bedroom cottages, they're on the beach!
I inquired about it and learned that the homes are on leased land, and the leases were guaranteed only for another 12 years. No idea what happens when they expire, and if this deal is something Khosola is interested in continuing.
Note that he can only keep people out who want to cross his land to reach the beach. If they come in by boat, and stay between the ocean and the high tide mark, he's got nothing.
I wonder if one could make a profit with a shuttle boat service to bring people to and from the beach for a small fee?
Twice a day you'd need to move (and during any heavy waves); you have to stay below high-tide. Building structures in the water itself is itself a CC permit activity (as well as potentially involving the coast guard and army corps of engineers).
It'd be interesting to see the government just build a road to the beach as a workaround.
If there is the political will, the government can win regardless - they could, if for no other reason than to deter future land-owners, make a tourist attraction out of this beach and completely ruin it for the land-owner.
This assumes the title of the "original owner" of the land was valid. Somehow I think there just may be some legitimate claims that go further back than to someone of Spanish descent in the 1830s.
What's that I smell? It smells like... opportunity!
Find a parking lot somewhere along the coast. Run a boat from there to Martin's Beach. Charge enough that you make a bit of money, but don't be greedy. You'll get to be on the beach every day, making money while you're at it.
Yeah, I know, you're going to have to get a commercial license and all, but... somebody ought to go for this.
Beaches have to be public in almost all countries. It is a very sensible thing to do. Private Property rights are sacrosanct but if every buyer knows that he can not have a private beach, he can refrain from buying it in first place.
Vinod Khosala should allow public access to the beach with slight modification. Just charge $3000 access fee per person. If state didn't mind previous owner charging $3, charging $3000 should not be issue.
As far as I'm concerned, this sort of move merits Paris 1793 treatment.
The new good-ol'-boy network, the cancer cells of humanity's body, have made a statement: "We're going to take more and more every day, and we're not going away unless you force us". Time for some hard-core chemo. It's painful, but sometimes it's the only option for survival.
The statement is clear. So why waste time arguing? Why foolishly believe that you can peacefully outperform them when they will fund your competitors to spite you, use their own social contacts to ruin your reputation, and continue to corrupt every institution (high-minded or base) from government to education to business? Time to fuck some shit up. If there is a God, these are times to live by his (or her, or its) law.
I'm sorry but I'm just sick of the fat fks who need to drive to a beach then trespass across someone else land because they are so lazy any attempt at adventure doesn't satisfy their need for instant gratification.
Why not leave the beach as it is, a secluded beach you need to kayak to, or take a motor boat if you really must be lazy.
Things earned have value, this constant need to have a road to everything I find so sad.
This is the kind of stuff protesters hate about rich techies. Apparently, this beach was historically used for a long time to teach surfing by local surf schools. A guy swoops in, who probably will rarely use this beach/vacation home, buys up the land, and closes off access. Attempts to "hack" the legal system through a loophole to achieve an exception to the state wide public beach system.
If he had been appreciative of the history of the beach and local surfers, he could have actually got some benefit out of it, maybe built some local facilities people would pay to use, add some exhibits on Khosla investments, etc. It would have generated positive press and positive externalities instead of negative press and negative externalities.
I like Vinod, but this just comes off as being a rich jerk.