數(shù)字時(shí)代的加州“海灘惡人”

It sounds simple. For nearly a decade, venture capitalist Vinod Khosla has been fighting in court to keep the public off a piece of beach that abuts his property on the Pacific coast. What could be more familiar than another case of rich Californian versus the oceangoing citizenry?

聽(tīng)來(lái)簡(jiǎn)單。近十年來(lái)，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資家維諾德·科斯拉(Vinod Khosla)一直在法庭上抗?fàn)?，不許公眾踏足他在太平洋海岸一處私人物業(yè)附近的海灘。又是一起加州富豪對(duì)陣賞海民眾的官司，還有什么比這更耳熟的嗎?

But the first thing you need to understand about this absurd war is that it did not begin with Khosla buying a beach house. Just south of Half Moon Bay, Khosla bought an entire beach village — forming a limited liability company that owned the land beneath about 47 cottages, and a little shop that at one point sold ice cream, and the only viable path to the sand.

但關(guān)于這場(chǎng)荒謬的爭(zhēng)拗，你首先應(yīng)該了解的是，事情的起因并非科斯拉買了一套海邊宅邸。在半月灣南邊，科斯拉買下了海邊的一整個(gè)村子，組建了一家有限責(zé)任公司，持有47座小屋和一家從前賣冰激凌的小店鋪之下的所有土地，以及通往沙灘的唯一道路。

The next things to understand are that he bought the place on what he says was a whim, has never spent a single night there, and regrets it enormously.

其次你應(yīng)該了解的是，他聲稱自己買下這個(gè)地方是心血來(lái)潮，他從未在此住過(guò)一宿，而且非常地后悔。

And the last thing — given that the case has wound itself to the Supreme Court and could upend one of California’s most sacred promises to its citizens — is that Khosla is willing to keep litigating this for the rest of his life and has about $3 billion to spend on it.

最后——盡管官司已經(jīng)打到了最高法院，并且可能推翻加州對(duì)其民眾最神圣的一個(gè)承諾——科斯拉愿意終此一生把官司打到底，而且有30億美元可以花在訴訟上。

Over the years, successive California titans have come up against the vexing fact that the beach cannot be privatized. The state constitution establishes that property below the mean tide line belongs to the public, and the Coastal Act of 1976 enshrines this, mandating that public access be maximized consistent with (and here is the tricky part) “constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.” Khosla, through his LLC, is being sued by a nonprofit called the Surfrider Foundation over the matter of whether a permit is needed to block the road, and the thrust of his defense is that his property rights are being violated.

多年以來(lái)，加州大亨不斷地遭遇海灘不可私有這個(gè)惱人的現(xiàn)實(shí)。州憲法規(guī)定平均潮位線以下的地方歸公眾所有，1976年的《海岸法》明確規(guī)定了這一點(diǎn)，要求在符合(這是最棘手的地方)“私產(chǎn)所有人受憲法保護(hù)權(quán)利”的前提下，使公眾利用最大化。就關(guān)閉海灘道路是否應(yīng)先獲取許可證的問(wèn)題，名為“弄潮兒基金會(huì)”(Surfrider Foundation)的非營(yíng)利組織經(jīng)由科斯拉的有限責(zé)任公司起訴了他，而他的辯護(hù)主旨就是他的產(chǎn)權(quán)受到了侵犯。

If every generation in California gets the beach villain it deserves — if the producer David Geffen’s battle in Malibu at the turn of the century epitomized the last, Hollywood-based era of wealth creation — then Khosla is the sandy antagonist of the digital age.

如果說(shuō)加州的每代人都要遇到各自的海灘惡人，如果說(shuō)世紀(jì)之交時(shí)制片人大衛(wèi)·格芬(David Geffen)在馬里布海灘的惡戰(zhàn)標(biāo)志了最后一個(gè)依憑好萊塢的財(cái)富創(chuàng)造年代，那么科斯拉就是數(shù)字時(shí)代的沙灘敵手。

Geffen, humiliated in the press and shamed by his community, eventually gave up his fight. But Khosla, who by co-founding Sun Microsystems cemented his place in history as an inventor of the commercial internet, seems immune to criticism. Almost since the day in 2008 that he bought the 53-acre hillside known as Martin’s Beach, he has been in court, enduring attacks from multiple parties and crashing through obstacles using every legal tool available. He is driven by an almost manic belief that things must be done right and must be done fair. And somewhere along the line, the state of California triggered him.

格芬飽受媒體羞辱，他所在的社區(qū)也以他為恥，他漸漸罷手不再斗下去。但聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始太陽(yáng)微系統(tǒng)公司(Sun Microsystems)奠定了科斯拉商業(yè)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)發(fā)明者的歷史地位，他似乎不受外界批評(píng)的影響。幾乎從2008年他買下名為馬丁海灘的53英畝坡地那天起，他就一直在法庭上，承受相關(guān)各方對(duì)他的抨擊，用所有可用的法律工具碾壓各種阻礙。他的動(dòng)力是一個(gè)近乎瘋狂的信念，事情必須做得正確，做得公平。而在事情的某個(gè)環(huán)節(jié)，加州觸怒了他。

Now, by dint of his character, which ticks all the major boxes of the venture capitalist archetype — aggressive, shameless, obsessive and optimistic — Khosla could disrupt the entire California coastal system. The stakes are both enormous and hilariously low.

眼下因?yàn)樗男愿?mdash;—符合風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資家的所有典型特征：咄咄逼人、不知羞恥、執(zhí)拗和樂(lè)觀——科斯拉可能會(huì)顛覆加州的整個(gè)海岸體系。賭注高的嚇人，同時(shí)又低得可笑。

If he wins, he could reshape the laws that govern 1,100 miles of shore. And if he loses, all he would be forced to do is apply for a permit to change the hours of operation on a single gate. The legal volleys would undoubtedly continue; Californians do not easily give up a good surf spot. But the last person against whom to wage a war of attrition is Vinod Khosla.

如果打贏，他可能改寫治理著1100英里海岸線的法律。如果他敗訴，他被迫要做的不過(guò)是申請(qǐng)一紙批文來(lái)更改一道門的開(kāi)閉時(shí)間。法律上的你來(lái)我往無(wú)疑會(huì)繼續(xù)下去;加州人不會(huì)輕易放棄一處優(yōu)質(zhì)沖浪地點(diǎn)。但維諾德·科斯拉是一個(gè)最不應(yīng)該與之打持久戰(zhàn)的對(duì)手。

The tea awaits Khosla on a bright purple leather coaster. The glass walls of the conference room at Khosla Ventures, his investment firm, are the same shade. The banister, too, the sofa downstairs, a hose cord outside, all that exact purple.

科斯拉的茶放在亮紫色的皮質(zhì)杯墊上。他的投資公司科斯拉風(fēng)投(Khosla Ventures)的會(huì)議室玻璃墻也是同樣的色調(diào)。樓梯扶手也是，樓下的沙發(fā)、外邊的一根軟管，都是那種紫色。

Khosla is on time. He’s 63 years old and thin, with close-cropped white hair, and when he pops into his chair, he has no interest in small talk. We already know each other. Khosla is loath to give interviews about Martin’s Beach and it is certainly not in his best interest to do so given that I have told him for years that he is making a fool of himself with this beach, a place he does not even like, and that his quest offends me, a native Californian.

科斯拉準(zhǔn)時(shí)到了。他現(xiàn)年63歲，瘦削，一頭白發(fā)剪得很短，只要他坐上他的椅子，就不會(huì)淺談?shì)m止。我們本來(lái)就是認(rèn)識(shí)的?？扑估辉甘茉L談馬丁海灘，跟我談就更沒(méi)好處了，因?yàn)槎嗄陙?lái)我一直告訴他，他在海灘這件事上是在丟人現(xiàn)眼，那地方他自己甚至都不喜歡，而且他的訴求也得罪了我，一個(gè)土生土長(zhǎng)的加州人。

But now Khosla wants to tell his side. He wants me to know that he is right. And where some shy from conflict, Khosla seeks it, almost destructively. So he invited me to his purple lair.

但眼下科斯拉想講出他的立場(chǎng)。他想讓我知道他是正確的。有的人害怕沖突，而科斯拉幾乎是破壞性地尋求沖突。所以他請(qǐng)我去他的紫色老巢。

“A billionaire is a bad word in this country now,” he said as his tea cooled. “And that pains me.”

“如今在這個(gè)國(guó)家，億萬(wàn)富翁是個(gè)壞詞了，”他說(shuō)，與此同時(shí)他的茶正在變涼。“這讓我很痛苦。”

He does not want the beach at all, really. He does not swim. For fun, he hikes.

他根本不想要那片海灘，真的。他不游泳。要消遣，他就去健走。

“I mean, look, to be honest, I do wish I’d never bought the property,” Khosla says. “In the end, I’m going to end up selling it.”

“你看，說(shuō)真的，我真希望沒(méi)買那片地，”科斯拉說(shuō)。“到最后我還是會(huì)賣掉。”

“If this hadn’t ever started, I’d be so happy,” he adds. “But once you’re there in principle, you can’t give up principle.” He frames the struggle in the Silicon Valley patois of contrarianism. “I’d rather do the right hard things now that I’m in,” he says, “than the wrong easy things.”

“如果這一切還沒(méi)開(kāi)始，我會(huì)很高興，”他補(bǔ)充道。“但原則上你已經(jīng)走到這里了，你就不能放棄原則。”他用硅谷所說(shuō)的逆勢(shì)操作來(lái)表述他的斗爭(zhēng)。“我寧可做正確的難事，就像我現(xiàn)在的情況，”他說(shuō)，“而不做錯(cuò)誤的容易事。”

The “beach issue,” as it is called internally at Khosla Ventures, has surprisingly not been a problem in the office. “It’s an incredible negotiating tool for me,” said Samir Kaul, another partner at Khosla Ventures.

令人驚訝的是，科斯拉風(fēng)投內(nèi)部稱為“海灘問(wèn)題”的這件事在辦公室里并無(wú)忌諱。“這對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō)是個(gè)絕好的談判工具，”公司的另一位合伙人薩米爾·卡烏爾(Samir Kaul)說(shuō)。

When a company was trying to “screw” the firm, Kaul brought up news articles about the beach at a meeting. “I said: ‘My boss is going to the Supreme Court for a beach he’s never gone to. We’re not posturing here. This guy’s not going to settle,'” Kaul said. “And then I just sat there.”

有一次另一家公司想要“搞”他的公司，卡烏爾在一次會(huì)議上提起了海灘一事的新聞報(bào)道。“我說(shuō)：‘我老板要為他從來(lái)不去的一片海灘上最高法院。我們不是在這兒做樣子。這個(gè)人是不會(huì)跟你和解的，’”卡烏爾說(shuō)。“然后我就坐在那兒。”

Khosla’s legal team now includes Paul Clement, the former U.S. solicitor general, who since 2000 has appeared before the Supreme Court in more cases than any other lawyer.

前美國(guó)總檢察長(zhǎng)保羅·克萊門特(Paul Clement)眼下就在科斯拉的法律團(tuán)隊(duì)里，自2000年以來(lái)，他在最高法院出庭的案件多于任何其他律師。

His skills are being applied to a dispute that began with the most minor of directives. After buying Martin’s Beach, Khosla was told by the county that he had to either (a) keep open a road that the public used to get to the beach and not charge more than the 1972-era rate of $2 a car for parking, or (b) apply for a Coastal Development Permit to change access. He chose (c) neither and was sued by his fellow citizens.

他的技能被用來(lái)解決一樁由最微不足道的官方指令引發(fā)的沖突。買下馬丁海灘后，縣政府告知科斯拉他要么選擇(a)保持公眾前往海灘的道路開(kāi)放，收取停車費(fèi)不得高于1972年時(shí)的每車2美元，要么選擇(b)申請(qǐng)一份海岸開(kāi)發(fā)許可來(lái)變更公眾使用權(quán)。他選了(c)a、b都不選，讓他的同胞起訴他。

Khosla went on to sue the California Coastal Commission as an entity and its officers in their personal capacity. He sued the State Lands Commission and San Mateo County, and, again, its officers. He alleged extortion and infringement of his rights. In his view, the government was forcing him to operate a money-losing parking business. In one legal maneuver, he traced the property back to the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo between the United States and Mexico, claiming it supersedes the Coastal Act.

科斯拉隨后起訴了加州海岸委員會(huì)的實(shí)體及其官員個(gè)人。他起訴了州土地委員會(huì)和圣馬特奧縣，以及——再一次地——其中的官員。他聲稱自己遭到了勒索，權(quán)利受到侵犯。在他看來(lái)，政府強(qiáng)迫他經(jīng)營(yíng)賠錢的停車生意。作為一個(gè)法律策略，他將這處地產(chǎn)追溯至美國(guó)和墨西哥之間的1848年的瓜達(dá)盧佩-伊達(dá)爾戈條約(Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo)，聲稱這一條約在法律上取代了《海岸法》(Coastal Act)。

Khosla won, and for a time closed the gate across the beach road. California’s Legislature and governor stepped in to reopen the beach by passing and signing into law legislation to thwart Khosla. This move required purchasing an easement from him; the State Lands Commission estimated the cost at $360,000, but Khosla estimated at one point that his loss of privacy was worth at least $30 million. The parties remain at an impasse, and in June, California passed a budget that included language about using eminent domain to take the road if Khosla does not agree to a price.

科斯拉贏了，并一度關(guān)閉了海灘路對(duì)面的大門。加州的立法機(jī)構(gòu)和州長(zhǎng)介入，通過(guò)制定和簽署法令來(lái)阻止科斯拉，以重新開(kāi)放海灘。這一行動(dòng)需要從他那里購(gòu)買地役權(quán);州土地委員會(huì)估計(jì)花費(fèi)為36萬(wàn)美元，但科斯拉一度估計(jì)，他在隱私上的損失至少價(jià)值3000萬(wàn)美元。雙方一直僵持不下。今年6月，加州通過(guò)了一項(xiàng)預(yù)算，其中提到如果科斯拉不接受一個(gè)出價(jià)，就會(huì)使用土地征用權(quán)來(lái)拿下這條路。

After a decade’s worth of billable hours, those in legal combat with Khosla are somewhat awed by his determination. 在10年的律師計(jì)費(fèi)工時(shí)之后，那些與科斯拉打官司的人對(duì)他的決心有些敬畏。

“All he had to do was apply for a permit to change the gate hours,” said Angela Howe, legal director at the Surfrider Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates beach access causes and is Khosla’s primary antagonist. “It’s really, like, wow,” she said. “Now, if the Supreme Court takes it up, it could rule about every coastal management program in the United States.”

“他只需要申請(qǐng)一個(gè)許可，更改開(kāi)大門的時(shí)間，”安吉拉·豪依(Angela Howe)說(shuō)。她是弄潮兒基金會(huì)的法務(wù)總監(jiān)，該基金會(huì)是一個(gè)非營(yíng)利組織，倡導(dǎo)公眾對(duì)海灘的使用，是科斯拉的主要反對(duì)者。“感覺(jué)就是，哇，你可真行，”她說(shuō)，“現(xiàn)在，如果最高法院接手，它可能是在對(duì)美國(guó)所有的海岸管理項(xiàng)目進(jìn)行裁決。”

Khosla was born in Pune, India, in 1955 and grew up the middle-class son of an army officer. He says his parents accepted his personality early on, though they also learned he could be a liability.

科斯拉1955年出生在印度浦那一個(gè)中產(chǎn)階級(jí)家庭，是一個(gè)軍官的兒子。他說(shuō)，他的父母很早就接受了他的性格，但他們也知道他可能帶來(lái)很多問(wèn)題。

“The priests would effectively say, ‘If you donate this much money, God will bless you.’ How crooked is that? If I ran into a priest, I’d say, ‘Oh, you’re a crook,'” Khosla says, recalling being 12 years old.

“牧師們真的會(huì)說(shuō)，‘如果你捐這些錢，上帝會(huì)保佑你。’這有多蒙人?如果我遇到牧師，我會(huì)說(shuō)，‘哦，你是個(gè)騙子。’”科斯拉回憶起自己12歲的時(shí)候說(shuō)。

After a master’s degree in biomedical engineering at Carnegie Mellon University and an MBA at Stanford Graduate School of Business, he founded the electronic design company Daisy Systems and then, in 1982, Sun Microsystems. The company sold servers and workstations and created Java, the programming language that formed the foundation for much of today’s internet. Later, Khosla nurtured the creation of Juniper Networks, which built the routers and switches upon which the internet flourished.

在卡內(nèi)基梅隆大學(xué)(Carnegie Mellon University)取得生物醫(yī)學(xué)工程碩士學(xué)位，并在斯坦福大學(xué)商學(xué)院(Stanford Graduate School of Business)獲得MBA文憑后，科斯拉創(chuàng)立了電子設(shè)計(jì)公司Daisy Systems，然后于1982年創(chuàng)立了太陽(yáng)微系統(tǒng)，該公司銷售服務(wù)器和工作站，并創(chuàng)建了Java——這種編程語(yǔ)言構(gòu)成了當(dāng)今互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的基礎(chǔ)。后來(lái)，科斯拉培育和創(chuàng)建了瞻博網(wǎng)絡(luò)(Juniper Networks)，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)靠著這家公司打造的路由器和交換機(jī)蓬勃發(fā)展。

He became a hero of the political left last decade after investing early and heavily in clean technology and by funding efforts in biofuel, energy storage and solar. Some of his bets succeeded; others failed spectacularly. He has continued to support and invest in eco-friendly startups.

過(guò)去十年里，他在清潔技術(shù)方面進(jìn)行了大量的早期投資，并資助了生物燃料、能源儲(chǔ)存和太陽(yáng)能方面的項(xiàng)目，成為左派政治的英雄人物。他的一些賭博成功了;另一些則一敗涂地。他仍在繼續(xù)支持和投資環(huán)保初創(chuàng)企業(yè)。

His life plan now is to “reinvent societal infrastructure.” He has recently gotten interested in the YIMBY movement, a pro-real estate development cause that stands for “yes in my backyard.” Khosla wants to 3D-print houses for the homeless to be installed above parking lots. He sketches this for me on one of the perfect whiteboards.

他現(xiàn)在的人生計(jì)劃是“徹底改造社會(huì)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施”。最近，他對(duì)YIMBY運(yùn)動(dòng)感興趣，YIMBY指“就在我的后院”(yes in my backyard)，是一個(gè)支持房地產(chǎn)開(kāi)發(fā)的運(yùn)動(dòng)?？扑估Ｍ麨闊o(wú)家可歸者建造3D打印房屋，安裝在停車場(chǎng)上方。他在一個(gè)完美的白板上為我畫了這個(gè)構(gòu)想的草圖。

He wants people to think bigger, he says. Meanwhile, at Martin’s Beach, he is pursuing a scorched-earth campaign around whether a gate needs a permit. In February, Khosla petitioned the Supreme Court to rule on his case, citing the First Amendment and also the Fifth (the takings clause) and 14th (his right to due process). The justices are now deciding whether to hear the case.

他說(shuō)他希望人們想事情能大一些。與此同時(shí)他卻在馬丁海灘為了一扇門是否需要許可證而展開(kāi)焦土作戰(zhàn)。二月，科斯拉向最高法申請(qǐng)裁決此案，援引的是憲法第一以及第五(征收條款)、第14(他的正當(dāng)法律程序權(quán)利)修正案。大法官正在考慮是否聽(tīng)訴。

One recent cold summer Sunday, the rusty gate stood open. A few yards down, someone was collecting $10 from incoming cars. The cottages of Martin’s Beach have windows that are thick with salt from the air; some of the houses are small and modest, with peeling paint, and others are more fixed up. The decks were full of barbecues, wicker furniture and driftwood art.

最近一個(gè)涼爽的夏日星期天，生銹的大門敞開(kāi)著。幾碼遠(yuǎn)的地方，有人在向進(jìn)來(lái)的汽車收取10美元。在馬丁海灘，小屋的窗子上從空氣中集了厚厚的一層鹽;有些房子又小又簡(jiǎn)陋，油漆剝落，還有一些房子則經(jīng)過(guò)了更多修整。甲板上擺滿了烤肉、柳條家具和浮木藝術(shù)品。

David Pasternak, 66, was at home making smoked salmon. “If the Supreme Court wants to take the case, they want to go after the California Coastal Act,” said Pasternak, whose family bought the cabin in 1960. “And that’s a very serious thing.”

66歲的大衛(wèi)·帕斯捷爾納克(David Pasternak)正在家里做煙熏三文魚。“如果最高法院想受理此案，他們就會(huì)從加州的《海岸法》下手，”帕斯捷爾納克說(shuō)，“而這是一件非常嚴(yán)重的事情。”

He took a sip of pour-over coffee. “What prompted California to pass the Coastal Act was so we didn’t end up like the East Coast — miles and miles without access to the water,” he said. “We live in a different country here.”

他喝了一口手沖咖啡。“促使加州通過(guò)《海岸法》的原因是，這樣我們就不會(huì)像東海岸那樣，連續(xù)幾英里的海岸線我們都不能用了，”他說(shuō)。“我們這是生活在另一個(gè)國(guó)家里。”

On some level, Pasternak admires Khosla’s conviction.

在某種程度上，帕斯捷爾納克欽佩科斯拉的信念。

“He’s become the caricature of the rich guy trying to keep people out, and that gives the Coastal Commission a lot of pleasure,” Pasternak said. But, he added, “I don’t think he’s doing this for money. I really don’t think he’s doing this out of greed.

“他已經(jīng)變成了一副“富人試圖把人們拒之門外”的諷刺漫畫，這讓海岸委員會(huì)很開(kāi)心，”帕斯捷爾納克說(shuō)。但是，他補(bǔ)充說(shuō)，“我不認(rèn)為他這樣做是為了錢。我真的不認(rèn)為他這樣做是出于貪婪。”

“All they said was he has to apply for a permit, and he says, ‘(Expletive) you, I’m not going to apply at all,'” Pasternak said. “It’s kind of — I mean, he’s awfully sure of himself. You could say he’s principled.”

“他們就只是說(shuō)，他必須申請(qǐng)?jiān)S可證，然后他說(shuō)，“[臟話]你的，我才不要申請(qǐng)。’”帕斯捷爾納克說(shuō)，“感覺(jué)——我是說(shuō)，他對(duì)自己非常自信。你可以說(shuō)他很有原則。”