Supreme Court rejects Florida beach owners' claim

[FISHEYE]

Supreme Court rejects Florida beach owners' claim
Justices rule that Florida law trumps property rights in a case in which the state added sand to an eroding beach, turning oceanfront property into ocean-view property.




8:03 p.m. EDT, June 17, 2010



Reporting from Washington —
The Supreme Court rejected a property rights claim from some disgruntled owners of beachfront in Florida on Thursday, upholding instead the state's authority to pump new sand onto an eroded shoreline without paying compensation.

This extra sand became a new strip of public beach. That in turn prompted a group of property owners along Florida's east coast to sue, contending that the state had taken away their rights to a private beach. What was once oceanfront property had become ocean-view property, they said, demanding compensation for their loss.

In something of surprise, all the justices, with one abstention, ruled for the state, concluding that under Florida law, the state owns the sand it has added to the beaches.

In December, when the case came before the court, several of its conservatives said they were inclined to protect the private property rights of the owners in Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc. vs. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. In the end, however, they decided that the state law trumped these claims.

Get more stories like this. Sign up for home delivery today.

The ruling was a victory for environmentalists and state officials, and a disappointment for those who believed the Roberts court would move quickly to strengthen property rights. But because the ruling turned on how Florida law treats beach property, it is not certain it will have a direct effect on other states.

If it does, however, it could discourage property rights claims from being filed in Gulf Coast states in response to the oil spill offshore. State and federal officials in Louisiana and nearby states have moved to create sand berms along the coast to protect marshlands from oil. The court's decision says newly created sand dunes become the public's land, and their presence does not take away the rights of a beachfront property owner.

Doug Kendall, president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center in Washington, said the ruling supported the government's effort in the gulf region. By supporting "Florida's efforts to restore eroded beaches, [the ruling] preserves the ability of state and local governments to respond to changing environmental conditions," Kendall said. The oil spill shows that "it is crucially important that the government have the authority to step in and to protect our beaches and coastal communities," he added.

The Pacific Legal Foundation in California has long advocated for stronger property rights for coastal owners. "We are disappointed that the Supreme Court did not vindicate the rights of the Florida property owners," said James Burling, a lawyer for the group. He took comfort from one part of the opinion, however.

Led by Justice Antonin Scalia, four justices said that the Constitution's protection for private property forbids state judges, like other public officials, from taking property without compensation.

Justice John Paul Stevens sat out the case because he owns a condominium on a Florida beach that could have been affected by the ruling.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/la-na...tory?track=rss

[Reef Dawg]

So, let me see if I get this right;

If the State of Florida has a dump truck trespass and pull on to my yard, dump a pile of sand over it and then rake it about, they then own my property?

This decision that was handed down should scare the pants off of anyone who believes that they have property rights.

The Supreme Court is nothing but an extension of the Global Order.

There is no way, on God's green earth, that our Forefathers would have ever agreed with this.

Does anyone know where I can buy a .50 Caliber machine gun to mount in my front yard? LOL

[jeff k]

So, let me see if I get this right;

If the State of Florida has a dump truck trespass and pull on to my yard, dump a pile of sand over it and then rake it about, they then own my property?

This decision that was handed down should scare the pants off of anyone who believes that they have property rights.

The Supreme Court is nothing but an extension of the Global Order.

There is no way, on God's green earth, that our Forefathers would have ever agreed with this.

Does anyone know where I can buy a .50 Caliber machine gun to mount in my front yard? LOL

That's not what the court said. Florida extended the beach area, so that extension is now public beach. The landowners still own their land out to the extended area. The landowners are mad because they now have a public beach in front of their private beach. They should be happy that the public beach is now protecting their property from erosion.

[Reef Dawg]

JEFF K

So if I come to your private property, extend the property boundary with fill and then make it public, that would be alright with you?

I just read the case decision online and the precedent set by this case is plain and simply dangerous at the very least.

Talk about erosion, our rights are eroding each and every single day and we agree with this stuff?

Not this man.

[FISHEYE]

Reef dawg,

I have a ready to fire 30mm vulcan muzzle loader cannon in my front yard

The reason why i posted this is now its good for us treasure hunters since we now have access to MD private property on a public beach next time a storm starts to erode the new renurished beach away.

[Reef Dawg]

That's very true Fisheye.

You know me, I just don't like Big Brother Government. LOL

Great posting though. I didn't hear about it, so it sure taught me something.

[FISHEYE]

You learn something new every day.I dont like Big Brother Government either and at this point in time with the way the economy is,i think alot of other people are thinking the same.Everyday prices for everything is going up,property values are going down,cities are taxing everything they can,cops/feds are busting people for petty/stoopid stuff.Big gov controlled companies destroying the environment and nothing they can do about it.There is going to be a breaking point sometime in the future since alot of people here in the USA arent going to take this crap anymore.Its about time for another revolution!

[Mackaydon]

If the property owner's ownership extends to the mean high tide mark and the State decides to add sand thereby extending the mean high tide mark further out to sea, then, the owner's title should extend out accordingly. In the reverse, if erosion takes the mean high tide line further up the beach, the adjacent private owner then looses title to that displaced land. What am I missing?
Don.......
PS: And isn't 200 feet of beach width wide enough??

[capt dom]

and folks wonder why I have put together a business plan
called - CSMS - standing for Coastal Sand Management Systems
and a not-for-profit Florida Corp called CHUMS standing for Coastal
Historic Undersea Management Society.....
Take a look at:

http://jupitercoins.com/CHUMS.html

Organized crime in the 21st century is the government!
Legislators institutionalize "bribery" under the guise of "lobbyists"
and now unlimited corporate campaign contributions....

Get your heads out of the sand.... boys and girls....
The rats most certainly are guarding the cheese!
and we all put them
and keep them there!


21st century "Federalists" with a Supreme Court in their Pocket!

[billinstuart]

oceanfront property owners own the land to the mean high water/dune line. Period. They do NOT own the beach..the public owns the dam beach! There isn't a SINGLE property rights issue here..widening the PUBLIC beach from 50' to 200' is the right of the PEOPLE of florida, not some candy ass property owner.

What we should be concerned about is the destruction of our public beaches from renourishment, and the lack of public access to our beaches. While both St. Lucie and Indian river counties..treasure coast central.. have renourished their beaches, the tight asses at Indian River county go out of their way to prevent the public from accessing "their" beaches.

[ivan salis]

PSST with the state owning the beaches * --it bars "private" beach front landowners from sueing BP for their fiscal losses (loss of homes resale value) due to BP's oil messing up the value of their "beach front homes"--now only the state can get the money since the "state" / public owns the beaches --rich ocean front home owners will not be able to pull a "mega class action suit now" on BP -- only the state / federal govt can --the little guys (the home owners whos home values are tanked) get hosed once again

[FISHEYE]

If the oil reaches the gulf coast and keys and the east coast the state is going to have a very hard time finding sands offshore that are good for beach renourishment.No one is going to let them pump oil soaked sand onto the beaches.That means the only place they can get sand is from land.The turtles arent going to like them dumping incompatible land sand on their beaches anymore.So if i adopt a sea turtle and make it my dependent,can i sue BP and/or the state?Manatees can be adopted too.FL state is thinking about moving all the manatees to 1 location soon away from the oil.Thats gonna cost some $$$.

[Treasure_Hunter]

If the property owner's ownership extends to the mean high tide mark and the State decides to add sand thereby extending the mean high tide mark further out to sea, then, the owner's title should extend out accordingly. In the reverse, if erosion takes the mean high tide line further up the beach, the adjacent private owner then looses title to that displaced land. What am I missing?
Don.......
PS: And isn't 200 feet of beach width wide enough??

Someone who builds a home on the edge of a beach can not expect the public to pay to protect their private property from the sea. The sand dumped on the errosion was paid for by public funds, all of the beach the sand was dumped on is public beach.....Florida's beaches are owned by the public.....

[capt dom]

JUST REMEMBER..........

This logic is followed through that everything embedded
in that sand is also owned within the public domain and
the Chapter 267 of Florida Law states that cultural resources
embedded in that sand also belong to the people of Florida...

As does the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1988 - within the 3 mile limit...

and are to be protected, inthe case of Florida, by the DHR and
further more, that it is illegal to remove
any such objects..... and you are subject to fines and confiscation of your
equipment if caught attempting to disturb any of this"peoples space"
yada, yada, yada.....

So, boys and girls - following the "people own the beach" logic
puts treasure hunting on it, out of business!

[Treasure_Hunter]

Sir, with all due respect to you, and your commitment to your treasure hunts which I fully support, as long as I have the legal right to walk that beach, I'm not too worried about what I find there. Local and state governments already know people find stuff lost by people at the beach or washed up on the beaches along our shores from off shore wreaks, I have never seen a report or read an article where they were forced to give something they found on a public beach to the state.

Sorry, Mr Government, all I found was pull tabs, bottle caps and a few coins..............

[capt dom]

No Worries.....

I do not have thin skin. The "law of finds" applies to
items recovered on public beaches. It is another matter for
designated State Parks and Federal lands.

The point some of us are trying to make is there is a trend
in government in the 21st century, to miss use the concept of "protecting the public interest".

While nourished beaches are there, (in place) the public who paid the freight to have them there should
have every right to use it. They should not have the right to traipse over private property
to get at the transiting beaches. This is common sense. And, I am sure not the intent of the ruling.

I do not believe the ruling titles interest in the private land within the deeded parameters of an existing
property to the public... but what do I know....

[Treasure_Hunter]

While nourished beaches are there, (in place) the public who paid the freight to have them there should
have every right to use it. They should not have the right to traipse over private property
to get at the transiting beaches. This is common sense. And, I am sure not the intent of the ruling.

In total agreement.... If the access to that public beach is a mile away, then you are required to access it that way, and not over private property...

[billinstuart]

I believe there's a "coastal setback" definition in place that also defines where improvements can be built. An interesting argument would be the movement of "mean high water" line, but I believe that's well defined also. I know that if their oceanfront is eroded to the point they can't build on the lot, they're SOL. Ohhh wellll....

[ivan salis]

if all beach is state owned * can a private citizen type home owner that owns a "beach front" area type home sue BP for the losses of value to their homes that occured because of the BP oil thats going to destroy the beaches in front of their homes ? --i mean who's going to want "beach front" property that you can not use / enjoy the beach at? --- and if the state "owns" the beach -- can only the "state" collect for damage to the "public's" beach ? --with the state to decide who if anyoneis damaged and how much its worth (after they line their pockets and give jobs dealing with handing out the cash from the damage "payments" to their cronies)

[architecad]

Reef dawg,

I have a ready to fire 30mm vulcan muzzle loader cannon in my front yard

The reason why i posted this is now its good for us treasure hunters since we now have access to MD private property on a public beach next time a storm starts to erode the new renurished beach away.

In Pompano beach has the same problem. You can't detect in that area because the Baby boom retired condo owns the beachfront and there is no way to get a parking and walk thru the beach. Fair?

Arch