Oct. 2
San Francisco Chronicle on beaches belonging to all Californians:
Blocking the public from a lake, mountain meadow or rocky stream wouldn’t cause nearly the stir that locking up Martins Beach has. After nearly a decade of lawyering, tech billionaire Vinod Khosla may finally be realizing just how protective California can be about its coast.
Khosla lost his long shot bid for a U.S. Supreme Court hearing on his wish to stop people from crossing his land to reach a prized cove on the doorstep of the Bay Area. For generations, the beach near Half Moon Bay was open, originally for free and then with a daily charge, via a gated road that Khosla padlocked after he bought the property. Anglers, beachcombers and surfers who once had the run of the place remain furious.
Since 2008, when he bought the land and a collection of houses, he’s cited property rights and even a 1848 Spanish treaty in defending his decision to cut access. He’s poured unknown sums into years of legal challenges, pursuing his case up the ladder until this week.
His outlook shows a pure disconnect with the rest of the state that has established a Coastal Commission, development rules and a string of state parks all designed for the same purpose of giving the public easy access to the sand and rocks along a 1,000-mile coast. Khosla is unmoved by the public’s feelings.
His case stirred an assemblage of outdoors groups to oppose him with the Surfrider Foundation behind the latest case in court. Khosla’s challenge drew unease for another reason: He has essentially ignored the hypervigilant Coastal Commission in taking his actions. If his property rights arguments and claims of an unfair “taking” or loss of control prevail, the stature and power of the commission would be in doubt. Similar barriers might sprout up and down the state, ending years of efforts to keep the coastline within reach.
That prospect pushed Martins Beach beyond sandy access and into a much wider legal realm. With the Supreme Court setback, Khosla will need to go in a new direction that leads to the commission in asking for a road cut off. Given the coastal agency’s track record and its guiding principles, a win for him should be unlikely.
But Khosla clearly has the means and stubborn mind-set to sustain a continued fight. “This battle is not over,” said Joe Cotchett, the lead lawyer opposing the billionaire’s claims. “This battle’s beginning.”
It’s a fight worth engaging. Khosla should read the public’s mind and the legal future and unlock the gates.
California’s coast is a treasured asset, not for sale to the highest bidder at any price.
___
Oct. 1
Los Angeles Times on Justice Department suing California over its new net neutrality law:
Moments after Gov. Jerry Brown’s office announced that he had signed a bill to restore net neutrality protections in California that the federal government abandoned, the U.S. Department of Justice sued to block the measure from going into effect. California lawmakers saw the measure (Senate Bill 822) as an important step to protect internet users in the state; the Justice Department saw it as yet another effort by the loony left state to dictate policy for the entire country.
The feds argue that the Federal Communications Commission, not the states, decides how the internet will be regulated (or not regulated). And having a uniform national policy on internet issues would indeed be a good thing. But that uniform policy should be one that preserves the status quo, protecting both consumers and the companies that offer content and services online from interference by local broadband providers such as AT&T, Spectrum and Comcast.
Last year, the FCC’s Republican majority went about as far as humanly possible in the other direction. It not only repealed a net neutrality rule the commission’s previous Democratic majority had adopted in 2015, it said the FCC had no authority to regulate broadband providers beyond requiring them to disclose accurately how well their networks perform, how much they charge and how they manage their networks. The move renounced the commission’s efforts over the previous decade to crack down on broadband providers that improperly favored some content, services or applications on their networks over others.
The FCC’s action was particularly galling in light of the near-monopoly control that many broadband providers enjoy in their local markets. Typically, consumers have two options at most for the ultra-high-speed connections demanded by high-definition video streaming, online gaming and numerous other applications. If a broadband provider decides to impose fees that tilt the online playing field in favor of established, deep-pocketed content and service providers, their customers may have little or no way to escape this warped version of the internet.
That’s one reason California enacted SB 822, which bars broadband providers from blocking, throttling or otherwise discriminating against legal content and services online, effective in January 2019. Although it drew most of its provisions from the 2015 FCC rules, it went further in a few areas, most notably barring wireless broadband providers such as Verizon and T-Mobile from favoring their own sites and online services when charging for broadband data use.
Bear in mind that while the internet is global, the broadband services that connect consumers to the net are local, involving a set of wires (and, for wireless users, antennas and transmitters on poles) in each community being served. States have long overseen local telecommunications services offered to the public, while the federal government had jurisdiction over interstate ones. The issue here is the FCC’s declaration that broadband access is not like a local phone line but like voice mail, internet calling or online fax services, which only the federal government may regulate.
The legal battle is going to hinge on that declaration, which the commission contends preempts states from setting rules even as the FCC claims it has no authority of its own to regulate broadband providers. And it may be the case that federal telecommunication law overrides the state’s traditional power to protect consumers buying local services.
But we reached this point because Congress has repeatedly refused to set a clear national policy promoting net neutrality and ordering the FCC to preserve it. That’s why net neutrality rules and enforcement actions have been tied up in the courts for years - including the FCC’s decision last year to all but deregulate broadband services. Although they differ on some details, broadband providers, tech companies and consumer advocates all agree that the smart way forward is for Congress to enshrine net neutrality into federal law. Until it does, states like California are right to test the boundaries of their authority to protect internet users.
___
Oct. 1
The San Diego Union-Tribune on police misconduct no longer being able to be hidden in California:
In 2006, in response to The San Diego Union-Tribune’s lawsuit seeking information about the disciplinary hearing of a sheriff’s deputy fired for misconduct, the California Supreme Court rejected the idea the public should have any access to such official records. The American Civil Liberties Union said the ruling in the Copley Press v. Superior Court of San Diego County case “effectively shut off all avenues for the public to learn about misconduct involving individual police officers.” Even prosecutors faced significant obstacles in obtaining the personnel records of officers.
This decision may have been justifiable based on precedents cited by the court, but it was awful public policy. Now, finally, legislation has been signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown that sets up new rules under which the public has access to the results of investigations of officers’ use of force, including shootings, as well as to internal probes that confirmed incidents of sexual assault and lying by officers while on duty.
The public benefits of this bill will be buttressed by another measure signed by Brown, which requires that video and audio records of incidents in which officers used serious force must be released within 45 days, unless that would interfere with an ongoing investigation. This overdue transparency will help law enforcement agencies rebuild public confidence that’s been shaken by videos of officers behaving questionably or worse in recent years.
The police unions that oppose such reforms on dubious officer-safety grounds need some deep introspection. Transparency is only rarely a bad thing - and it is crucial for accountability.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.