Your earlier thread. I can merge if you want Private property rights and governmental subsidies | Swamp Gas Forums
I agree with you completely as a matter of philosophy. At the same time, selfishly, I grew up going to the Pinellas beaches, staying there for a week. We're going again this year. Selfishly, I hate to give that up, even though I acknowledge that your reasoning is correct.
I agree that's the reasoning. But I think it's ultimately hubristic. Some things cannot be controlled. It's also incredibly insensitive to their neighbors
Well I suppose they can do that but pretty sure if I wanted to walk down the beach I could. They aren't allowed to build walls along their property line to stop me. They have a boundary survey that shows what they own and what they don't. They can't stop people from sitting on the beach behind their house. If the issue is they have to kick in extra money to add sand and preserve some more beach, then that is where the gray area starts. If the nourishment adds beach that they don't own, should they have to pay for that? That's the gray area.
I don't see why they have to have the easement to do the beach work. The property owners don't own the beach beyond the tide line anyway. Is the easement for giving access to the beach from the street, through the property? I can see where property owners would have an issue with that easement.
the point is there will be no beach after hte rest of the sand is washed away up to the property line. they own up to mean high water which has been established based on a 19 year average. odd term, no doubt MHWstatutes.PDF (labins.org)
If they don't want people sitting on the beach that happens to be their property, then put up a fence along their property line to stop it from happening just like everywhere else. Ohhh, but that ruins their view of the gulf, tough shit. Either live with the nice view and let people sit there or be a dick and block it off with a fence and lose the view.
as erosion continues, there will be no beach outside their property line. that point seems to be getting lost
Then the beach reclamation process should continue and they should let people sit on the beach behind their house. Allowing people to walk through their property to get to the beach is another issue.
In a lot of places you can't get to the beach without the easements. If the public is paying for the beach, the public should have access to the beach.
Even if it isn’t fully necessary to get the work done or there are workarounds for the necessary equipment to work, a public beach access is a fair trade off if the public is funding the beach re-nourishment. Which itself may be irrational given the problem will just keep getting worse until it finally becomes insurmountable. If it isn’t a public beach, what business does the govt have at all? This is a very bastardized concept of “property rights”. These people want public handouts to maintain private beaches and then say FU to public access to beaches? Not just no, but hell no.
It really is that simple. I can understand why property owners want free handouts (and some might be property rich but cash poor). Can’t fathom why anyone else who doesn’t own beach property would see their position as reasonable or rational.
the reclamation involves placing sand on their property. acoe will not pay for that and you cannot just leave a trough at their property and put sand outside their property
some motels or hotels may also desire their guests have a private beach. The State does not just let folks build sea walls as far out like they used to. However, a seawall may be the most sustainable solution until it too is over washed. Better, build a house elevated on durable pilings until your 'property' becomes part of the ocean.
This is crazy… a land owner generally owns to the mean high water line, and that line changes as sand is naturally and slowly created or removed due to natural forces — ItS different if a hurricane suddenly destroys land, but we are not talking About that here. So when the federally government “fills” the beaches as part of renorishment, they are creating “new land” over land that was once public water ways. The upland owner should have no claim to new beaches.
Nit my area of expertise, but I don’t understand why they can’t just skip those properties for the replenishment? Anytime I have seen it it’s either a dredging operation that’s fairly specific on where it’s targeting, or they bring sand in.
Yes, I didn't say it was "constantly" changing, but the mean high water line does move with slow changes over time dues to accretion and reliction. That is why these beach renourishment projects don't (or shouldn't) affect the ownership, it's called alluvion, which is a sudden change, and is an acception to the accretion/reliction rule.
