Waterfront Property or Public Property? by AnthonyT

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Waterfront Property or Public Property?

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Friday, June 18, 2010 12:20
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 780
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, June 17, 2010 7:28 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/17/scotus.property/index.html

Hello,

People had waterfront property once, and a private beach... and now they don't. Property value may be impacted by that fact.

On the other hand, if the state goes through the effort to create new beach area, oughtn't they own the fruits of their labors?

Perhaps the property owners will be glad of this once oil starts washing ashore. Now someone else's shore.

What do you think of this decision by the Courts?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2010 1:52 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

What the hell?

Was there ever an "opt out" clause for the property owners, by which they could tell the state "no thanks" and have them NOT dump all that sand on their property, thereby making it the state's property?

If I dumb a truckload of dirt in your yard, is it now MY yard?

This bothers me. It looks like a land-grab endorsed by the Court, and in a unanimous decision.

That's my first impression. Need to look into it more, get more info; maybe the state has a case. I'd really like to know if the state ordered this done over the wishes of the landowners, or if they begged the state to save their beaches, or what.

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2010 4:51 AM

KANEMAN

Antony "On the other hand, if the state goes through the effort to create new beach area, oughtn't they own the fruits of their labors?"

The fruits of their labors? I don't get how the state COULD create a new beach on private property. Talk about tyrannical.....Property rights? anyone....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2010 6:09 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

The most fair assessment I can make is this:

1) The property line ended at the water, previously.

2) Where the property line ended, the government constructed something (more land.)

3) That construction project changed a fundamental aspect of the original property (water access.)

4) The government should compensate the land-owner for that fundamental change in aspect (no longer has private water access.)

I'm fairly certain that the removal of water access will change the property value by hundreds of thousands if this is a moderately high income area. Possibly by millions, depending on the region. Rich folks like to park their yachts on their private piers and sun-bathe on their private beaches. That's part of the appeal of the property, now gone.

It's not just a matter of building an adjacent power station or airport or whatnot. An intrinsic aspect of the property has been changed, and the landowner has a right to be compensated.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2010 7:01 AM

KWICKO

Anthony, I agree with you...

HOWEVER -

In light of the recent Eminent Domain (or should they just call it "Imminent Domain", since they're going to take what they want anyway, and you can't stop them, hence it becomes imminent?) case involving Connecticut, this just looks like another Court-sanctioned land grab.

In many cases, these are multi-million-dollar homes and properties, now made substantially less desirable by the addition of access to the property by "undesirables". I'm not trying to be elitist here; just pointing out that many of the people who bought these properties bought them to get AWAY from the hoi polloi, as is their right. To now say that those same teeming masses have a right to camp out essentially in their backyard severely diminishes the worth of the property, and beyond that, it makes it essentially WORTHLESS to the people who bought it for its exclusivity.

As such, I'm sure some of them wouldn't want to stay no matter how much you compensated them for the diminished value. The property is now valueless, tainted.

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2010 7:02 AM

FIVVER

Anthony,

I think it's a little more complicated than that. First a quibble. I grew up in Florida and the law is that your property line ends at the high tide line, not at the water. If you can gain public access to a beach you can then walk forever below the high tide line.

In this case here's what may have happened:

1. You bought a home on the beach 20 years ago with 50 feet of private beach front.
2. Over the years it's been eroded to 30 feet.
3. The state comes along and, using taxpayer money, restores the beach to it's original 50 feet.

So who owns that restored 20 feet? Are the taxpayers on the hook to keep your up your private property? The two closest scenarios I see to it are where a person lets their property become over grown and the local government can come in and mow and clean it up and bill the owner for the cleanup cost or if the property has gotten too bad the government can condemn it and claim title. Both of those break down in this case under the sheer volume of owners involved. Florida has hundreds of miles of coast with thousands of owners. You'd need and entire court system dedicated just to handling this.

I'm a constitutional fundamentalist and a rabid supporter of individual property rights (Kelo vs New London was one of the most hideous Supreme Court decisions I've seen in my life) but I'm thinking they got it right on this.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2010 7:23 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I wonder if the property owners were notified in some way, and given an option.

"The property erosion must be repaired, or we will do it for you, etc."

Were the owners given the opportunity to fix the erosion themselves?

Was there a vote amongst all these property owners as to whether they wanted their land erosion corrected?

And clearly, their property no longer ends at the high tide line.

I still think they deserve to be compensated.

Then, if they find their property valueless, they can sell it and buy at another beach.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2010 7:41 AM

KWICKO

Fivver - Thanks for that response. There's much in there to think about. And Anthony's response to your response, too.

This IS a thorny issue, isn't it? I'm starting to see WHY it ended up in the SCOTUS's docket.

And, like Anthony, I wonder if the owners were ever given any kind of options. Could they have opted out (not likely, since beach erosion impacts more than just them), did they have an opportunity to hire private contractors or do it themselves, or did the state just come barging in, proclaiming that they were going to fix the problem, and then afterwards claiming that the land they just fixed now belonged to the state, not the property owners?

But as Fivver pointed out, if they own the property, they're responsible for its upkeep as well. Property ownership implies certain rights, but it also incurs certain responsibilities.

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2010 11:06 AM

DREAMTROVE

Mikes right, mostly. Kelo vs the City of New London affeively ended property rights in the US. It noteworthy that the City of New London Corporation made the case on a claim of increased profitability, but in reality went bankrupt a couple years after the ruling, having not completed it's original goal.

Still, there are several states which ban the implementation of Kelo because it is against the state constitution. This is also worthy of note, because it represents a fairly profound legal trend that everyone should be aware of : the federal govt is no longer the guarantor of rights, the state govt. is.

As per the shoreline, the govt is charged with defending the shores, and that should include against water or oil. If it fails to do so, it has little purpose in existing, but none in land regulation or security. If the govt shores up the shoreline, it should grant the land to the original parcel. The parcel typically extends into the water if it is waterfront property, and does not reduce due to erosion, so I can see no reason for the claim, unless the land is extended beyond the original parcel, or the data is so old as to be geographically irrelevant.

If the govt is going to claim the shoreline, it should give the homeowner the opportunity of making the change themselves, though this seems like a pointless expense if it is unnecessary.

Also, this issue would need to address the govts. Responsibility for shoreline damage, such as shoreline erosion in hurricanes, which is often radical. Also, back to the tax parcel, it may matter whether the owner was paying tax on the sea, and should they have to pay tax on the sea anyway? Maybe seashore should be a separate property right. If so, it should be grandfathered to all extant shorelines.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2010 12:10 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, libertarians and conservatives are gonna jump down my throat, but here goes:

In some areas in CA, beachfront is government owned, as in "public access". In other places, it is privately owned (or was, not sure if that's the case now, but I think it still is). As a result, if you wanted to go to the beach and were in an area where it was privately owned, tough titties. I KNOW it's that way out on Stinson Beach, where an entire development goes out from Bolinas between the bay and ocean, and on that side, you can't walk. Luckily there's a smaller public beach on the Bolinas side where the hoy-paloy can enjoy the beach.

I believe in Oregon NOBODY can own the beach, it's a public trust. Personally, I wish it were that way everywhere. I acknowledge the loss in property value and the probable wrongness in the government "taking over", but having been someone who cannot access the beauty of a beach, I wish it were all public access.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

To our President: “Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.... oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President” ...Raptor

To Anthony, unquestionably the most civil person on this forum: “Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. ...Raptor

To Frem: “You miserable piece of shit.” ...Raptor

To Niki: “My guess is it won't just be your ugly face you dislike.....Well, it's true......if you had a soul.” ...Raptor

To Kwicko:" You're the putrid slime which oozes between troll's toes, you're so low.” ...Raptor

...Remember, remember, the ugliest member...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 18, 2010 12:20 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I have no problems with the government declaring a part of the shoreline as a preserve or public park, but I think people should be able to purchase some waterfront property if they can afford to do so. Beaches included. If you don't have access to a beach in a state with beaches, then the state didn't select its public parks very well.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE