One of my pet peeves that plays out all over our society - those who claim they alone built their wealth and resist tyrannical governmental encroachment while failing to realize or acknowledge that so much of what they have came from public funds. This is a great categorical if not a specific example - the beautiful Pinellas barrier island beach municipalities. There are many, and historically they have been hotbeds of petty corruption and graft in municipal governance, many scandals over the years, many of those prosecuted. This is more silly and abusive local ordinance, banning beach umbrellas. But this passage, among others, caught my eye. “They refused to make any concessions for us. And so they gave us no alternative but to sue them and defy,” Yoli Redero said. “I mean, that’s what America is about.” On a recent Friday, Belleair Shore’s beach was almost empty — a mile of sand and water fronted by 57 properties, including multimillion-dollar mansions adorned with terraces, gated courtyards and rows of palm trees. At the town’s northern boundary, where Belleair Beach begins, a thicket of umbrellas, tents and canopies sprang up. In 1995, Belleair Shore earned national notoriety for prosecuting a mother and daughter sipping iced coffee on the beach. A year later, then-Mayor Robert Clayton flashed a gold-plated badge at two beach visitors and told them to leave, shouting, “I am the police.” And in 2018, the town debated removing turtle nests from the beach. Today, according to the U.S. Census, 76 people live there. Neighbors throw shade over beach umbrella ban - Tampa Bay Times This is valuable property, and I love the Pinellas barrier islands. Here now for a week (in North Reddington), have been going all my life. It’s cultural. And I am sympathetic to those that have built their lives and businesses here on the not unreasonable assumption the beaches would remain. But they would have been long gone, along with the value they bring, without the US Army Corp of Engineers regular renourishment, which is happening less often since Bill Young died. He used his position to het the Pinellas beaches higher priority and more regular subsidized renourishment than other beaches in the nation. Like subsidized flood insurance, this is a subsidy that almost exclusively benefits upper income brackets. And yet they grumble when asked to acknowledge any public purpose to “their” beaches. Like allowing public access or protecting turtle nests. Sic transit Gloria mundi.
That is an accurate summation of this particular umbrella issue, but they also love the massive subsidies while looking down at those with less that pay rather than benefit from the subsidies
Well sure, these things exist (along with other ownership subsidies or taxbreaks to people further down the ladder economically) to let other people in on the act. You gotta let as many people as possible be their own petty tyrants for the system to keep going. The more people concerned with real estate value, the more you are in thrall of the cops, the market, anti-tax rhetoric and the interests of the wealthy in general.
When we were in Lagos, Portugal, this spring we were struck by the fact that between the road and the beaches, no homes were allowed. An influx of wealthy Brits and Americans are trying to change that "socialist" idea.
More on it today - all the Pinellas beaches may fail because some won’t grant limited public access to obtain subsidized benefits. Sign of the times. So perverse Beachfront slips beneath the lapping waves - Tampa Bay Times
Off topic I guess, but the Algarve area is a beautiful spot. We loved the Benagil caves. I do recall a lot of Brit tourists. Not really a good sight.
Interesting post. I’m familiar with that area and you are correct about the on going battles between beach goes and land owners. When the beach is renourished the ACOE surveys the original “wet sand” area and that line is supposed to become, at a minimum, the public use area as the new beach is built up waterward. But you still get the occasional idiot putting up “no trespassing” along the beach behind their house where it should be public. The new battle ground I read about recently is single owners refusing to sign off on the renourishment projects, or groups suing to stop it, because they’d rather the beach wash away than have beach goers behind their homes.
That new battleground is what the linked piece is about. Especially the second one. And there was a great letter to the editor today in the Times. I was going to post it but it did not seem like anyone else had the interest in the issue I did. That's fine, but I wasn't going to just keep posting the same thread by myself. I'm out on my evening walk now. I may try to post the letter later.
I don't know about Portugal, but along the Costa del Sol, many of the small villages have other nationality personalities. By that, I mean that there are tons of second homes usually from one nation, such that one small town we'll have a British newspaper and television channel, another one will have German equivalent, and so on. It's the vacation destination for Northern Europeans, and you end up having your own culture transplanted a bit. There's a much lesser version of that on the Pinellas beaches. Some of the resorts that are timeshares have a substantial Canadian patronage and will actually put out Maple Leaf flags
Those are million dollar houses who have shut the masses out, but expect those masses to pay for their beach. I hope the whole thing wastes away. mad far as the turtles, here’s the story on it. What kind of a person doesn’t want to help a threatened or endangered species because a small flag is placed on the beach? The narcissism is mind boggling, most folks would be thrilled.
Letter I was referring to Your beach, your problem It’s normal for most — myself included — to stand up for property rights. However, in the case of the beachfront owners suffering from beach erosion, my sympathy stops at the water line. Their million-dollar properties are worth the exorbitant premium in their value because of the beach. I think it’s unconscionable that some of them have the arrogance to demand that significant public dollars be spent maintaining their slice of heaven for their exclusive use. I understand they place a high value on protecting their property from public access, but the minute they lobby to replenish their beaches with sand dredged at public expense, their selfishness must give way. If they won’t agree to public access, I say we replenish the public beaches and let those with private beachfront fend for themselves. Your beach, your problem One of them is not like the others Who is their teacher? - Tampa Bay Times
I have had this issue come up several times while fishing on beaches and even around docks. Each time, I plead with the owner to call the police and let them sort it out. I have even called the authorities myself so that they could explain it to the owner. It is public access up to the high water line or if it is a navigable water body, that is settled law. Another interesting twist is CDD's (Community Development Districts). Many private, high end communities were funded through the use of CDD's. As such, any infrastructure funded with CDD funds has public access. I have had to explain that to authorities before who then forced the guard to allow me to have access to the project. If you are a CDD, you benefit from publicly funded bonds (guaranteed by tax base) and are required to have any gate manned 24/7 with guards trained to allow access to anybody that requests it. If your rec facility was funded with CDD funds, the public has access to it.
I posted on this before but cannot find the thread through search. Essentially, the Pinellas barrier islands rely on regular renourishment though federal dollars (ACE) to have actual beaches. Bill Young, when he was alive and headed Appropriations, made sure Pinellas had priority. The new hitch is that the ACE requires that the property owner grant a perpetual easement granting public access in exchange for renourishment. Most agreed. But there are holdouts, believing they should receive public dollars for personal benefit, proving that they have the true American business mindset. So it’s not going to happen, and Anna Paulina Lima is hopping made at the federal government’s disrespect for property rights. Lower level ACE was willing to waive, but not at the top, and I don’t blame them. The very definition of nation and community is at issue. Last month, U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna blasted the Corps in a letter, calling the easement rule “an ill-intentioned attempt ... to strip property rights from homeowners.” She’s drafted language, which Levy shared with the Tampa Bay Times, that would require the Corps to move forward without easements as part of a funding request for the project. The Army Corps of Engineers has denied a waiver that would have let a massive, already-behind-schedule beach renourishment project move forward in Pinellas County. The thumbs-down from the Corps’ headquarters signals that it’s digging its heels in amid a yearslong standoff with the county over the replenishment of sand on a critically eroded stretch of coastline. It may also mark a turning point, with county officials turning their eyes toward other potential sources of money so they can do the project without the Corps. Pinellas needs a new solution to beach renourishment Pinellas needs a new solution to beach renourishment - Tampa Bay Times For more great content like this subscribe to the Tampa Bay Times app here:
My congresswoman Kat Cammack would say the solution to the problem is obvious, they need to take care of the border in Texas and buy more guns.
Not sure why people would have an issue with an easement. Those exist all over the place for electricity and other utilities. If the process for sand nourishment happens completely off shore, then why would they need the easement in the first place? But if they need an easement to access the beach from the street and the it doesn't impact an Owner's normal setback then there shouldn't be any problem with providing the easement.
My understanding is you only own the property to the highest tide point(there is a term I don’t remember). IMHO beach renourishment if payed for by the public should be for the public not for the further enrichment of the already rich.
Private beach property should not be renourished with public funds. The easement criteria is a sound criteria, IMO. aerials from 80+ years ago may reveal the historic shoreline since reduced due to incremental sea level rise. Senseless to rebuild a beachline beyond the current natural line. And that natural line will continue to move inland as the sea level rises.
they don't want the public on the beach behind their house. they would rather build a seawall at their property line and let the ocean come to them and stop public acces
