Professor Frank talks to L.A. Times about Supreme Court's rejection of beach case

Professor of Environmental Practice Richard M. Frank commented for the Los Angeles Times about the Martins Beach access case, which the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take.

On Oct. 1, the high court rejected Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla’s attempt to block the public from access to Martins Beach in San Mateo County. The previous owners of the 89-acre coastal property had offered public access to it for a fee. Khosla, who has owned it since 2008, continued the practice but shut the gate leading to the property after losing money on the public-beach operation. A flurry of lawsuits resulted, followed by a string of California courts saying Khlosla needed state permission to block the road.

Frank told the Times that although the clash between property-rights and beach-access advocates has been highly publicized and politicized, the legal issue in question is narrow and clearly did not intrigue the Supreme Court justices.

“It only requires four votes, so if the conservative wing of the Supreme Court had voted as a block, their four votes would’ve been enough,” Frank said. The court’s move will not end battles over beach access in California, he added: “It’s a zero-sum game: The more you protect private property rights, the more public access is constrained or challenged. And the opposite is equally true.”

Richard M. Frank ’74 is a leader in the field of environmental law, professor of environmental practice and the founding director of the California Environmental Law and Policy Center at UC Davis School of Law.