Wow, this is scary.

[Jonah K]

It appears that Zuckerberg is dropping the quiet title actions...
Zuckerberg: 'We are dropping our quiet title actions' - Thegardenisland.com
Mercury News: Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg drops Hawaiian land lawsuits

[mr.magoo]

thanks for the posting ^ Jonah.

[Jonah K]

Originally Posted by mr.magoo

thanks for the posting ^ Jonah.

No problem. While Zuckerberg is dropping his quiet title actions, one case involving a co-plaintiff, Carlos Andrade, is continuing…
Facebook co-founder wins praise for decision to end suits

[No Happy]

Originally Posted by Jonah K

Unless he manages to change the law in Hawaiʻi, he can't shut down shoreline access.

It's true, but he may be able try something like that one guy did who closed off the access road to Papa'a Bay, and made it into a 400 yard hike (100 yards over rocks along the shore) to get to the beach from another route.

[Jonah K]

Originally Posted by No Happy

It's true, but he may be able try something like that one guy did who closed off the access road to Papa'a Bay, and made it into a 400 yard hike (100 yards over rocks along the shore) to get to the beach from another route.

If I remember correctly, that particular parcel didn't have anyone claiming that kuleana lands were located within it and the access road was deemed to be "privately-owned"…
Kauaʻi loses fight over access to Papaʻa Bay
Papaʻa Bay estate sold for $28M

[KauaiHiker]

I thought kuleana lands and beach access were separate issues. Those inholdings definitely need property access, and sometimes that access is the same as the shoreline access road and/or path. But there are two separate issues: kuleana owner access rights and public access rights.

Zuckerberg's property has kuleana inholdings, almost always having multiple owner shares. He found some owners that were willing to sell him their share, and then as part owner, he could start the court action to identify, notify, and buy out the other shares. It was my impression that other shareholders were under no obligation to sell once they showed up in court to say so. And since some said they weren't going to sell at any price, he backed down and tried to save face. I assume those shareholders still have the right to cross some designated access of his land to their kuleana plots. If nothing else, Zuckerberg probably increased the awareness of kuleana owners and will now have more people accessing through his land.

But I know of no public shoreline access through his land. There is however lateral access to the beaches and coastline from neighboring beaches that have road or trail access and he better not try to cut that off at his property line. What often happens is that there is a trail/dirt road slightly inland of the rocky coast areas that connects to the sandy beach areas. Since that road is on private property, owners often try to block it off and force the public access to follow the much more difficult rocky coastline.

This is what happened at the nearby Larsens beach: from the access road, the trail down the bluff to the beach cut across the corner of the property. To be accurate, the trail continued inside the property, all along in the trees behind the beach--much easier walking than on the beach itself. The landowner tried to assert his property boundaries by building a fence and sending people down a rocky and steep trail to the beach. Last I've seen, people trampled the fence down and use the old trail, and I guess the owner has backed down and let it happen again--but for how long until the next billionaire fears him millions for the land.

I think that is a travesty, and the state should do something to protect this kind of safer access. But big landowners are rich and powerful, and they exploit the courts to their advantage, and so council members and legislators don't do anything to upset them.

There is another side to this: it wouldn't surprise me if some longtime locals have keys to gates and implicit rights to cross the property on roads for easy access. This creates a legal problem of precedent and customary access for the landowners. Since they now want an exclusive and secluded property, they try to block these people as well. That's what happened at Papaa: local fishermen and native Hawaiians had used the gated easy dirt road access for years. When Gruber denied them access to the the road and the county tried to do the right thing and fight for them, Gruber won in Federal court. Then when people protested and tried to use the road, the county cops had to arrest them for tresspassing. Part of the argument is that there is still public access, but as noted that involves rocks along the shore. I think to appease the locals, Gruber said that locals who used the road before could contact his security to open the gate and let them through--access but not public.

There is another similar issue at Moloaa bay: here there is a coastal trail that starts at a beach with road access and doesn't lead to any beach anymore. It is supposedly part of the Ala Loa Hawaiian coastal trail, so when the landowner wanted to close the access so he could subdivide the property for luxury homes, the local opponents used the Hawaiian customary access argument and sort of won. The owner tried to move the trail down from the valuable land with views, and say that only Hawaiians could access the old trail, but I'm not sure that worked--again people just used the original trail. This is really an uphill battle because the rest of the ancient coastal trail has already been lost, so it no longer connects to the beaches further up the coast, having been long ago blocked by other property owners. The only reason this piece survives is because it was used by fisherman to look out at the ocean, and because the Hawaiian aunty who lives nearby remembers using the trail as a child--and so there is still a record of it.

So the shoreline access is a really fragile right. Big landowners find ways to block it off, despite public access rights, customary access, and Hawaiian access rights.