For those of us impatiently awaiting Tom “Kristallnacht” Perkins’ successor, Vinod Khosla has arrived not a moment too soon. It’s his beach, and he’ll sue all the way to the Supreme Court if he has to.
There’s even a wonderful mine, mine, all mine cosmic convergence here: For years, Khosla worked for Tom Perkins’ venture firm.
***********************
Khosla has progressive academia’s endorsement as a trustee of Berkeley’s Blum Center (and Mr. Blum... eh. Nuff said.)
Maybe Robert Reich, who has been eloquent on the corrosive social and moral effects of income inequality, can take Khosla aside for a chat. Reich too is on the Blum board.
September 25th, 2014 at 10:00PM
No, it’s not his beach, nor does he claim that. The land that surfers wish to have the right to cross to get to it is his. This is not a simple “1%” vs “the real people” issue.
September 25th, 2014 at 11:36PM
John: The road that allows the only access to the public beach (all California beaches are public) is not his. In (now illegally) continuing to close it off, he asserts, in effect, ownership of the beach (there’s no other way to get to the beach).
And yes, I think this will do nicely as a one percenter issue. Note that Khosla simply bought this beachfront land and does absolutely nothing with it – has no plans to do anything with it. That is, he cuts off access to a beach because he has bought land – with which he does absolutely nothing – simply because it pleases him to cut off access. That’s pretty twisted as ownership philosophy goes… I mean, it’s about as high-handed and uncivic and withholding as it’s possible to imagine a person being… And that is what makes this in fact a perfect one percenter story.
September 26th, 2014 at 5:30PM
Perkins made claims for immunity from criticism and greater voice based solely on his wealth. That’s preposterous… and can only accrue to wealth.
Khosla makes a claim for control of property rights based on property rights,whether or not disputed. Those accrue to even the holders of the most meagre property
and you see no difference?
September 27th, 2014 at 1:01AM
John: Plenty of difference in the two cases. What they have in common, however, is a clueless and overweening sense of entitlement. No one’s complaining about property rights, of course. People are complaining about a complete lack of civic sense.