US Supreme Court to consider Fla. beach dispute

[AlphaCentauri]

Source: AP

The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments over whether a nearly seven-mile stretch of beach in Florida is public or private.

The justices will hear arguments Wednesday in the latest property rights case to be taken up by the nation's high court. Beach residents and the state of Florida disagree over whether the beach is public after the state poured more sand on the shores because the beach was eroding.



Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jR37NbRYyvjQayincxcfA3xkxfHwD9C9VEDO2

---

No private beeches for the poor

[n2doc]

1. I say, ok, it is yours

No more beach replentishment, and no gov't supported insurance, or roads, or other support. They would be gone after the next Hurricane hits.

[imdjh]

7. Get rid of national flood insurance, and the property values drop 50%. NOLA becomes worthless.

[polichick]

2. This will be interesting. I've always wondered how New Jersey towns...

...are able to collect daily fees for people who step onto the sand.

[imdjh]

6. I think it's an iffy area of law. What authority does a lifeguard have to tell you to come in?

The lifeguards (thank god we don't have them here) on the Delaware Beaches blow whistles and order people to swim in the roughest part of the surf or not at all. I have long wondered exactly what their authority is and where it comes from. But cops have been known to write tickets for people who disobey the lifeguards. Like I said, I'm glad we don't have lifeguards here. Oddly, we have no problems without them.

[dbonds]

3. They have beaches in Florida still?

I lived there for 17 years and watched as the beaches were walled off to the public by giant side by side high rises. If you didn't have a beach side condo or stay at a beach side hotel you couldn't see beaches anymore. For everyone else you were just living in the walled off, 100% humidity, hot as hell swamp land.

[imdjh]

5. What beaches are you talking about?

[dbonds]

8. Daytona Mostly, but also Gulf Shores (brother lives there)

I lived in Orlando.

[imdjh]

9. We have lots of condos in St Pete/Treasure Island, but plenty of beach access

I have never seen this many people on the beach. I have no idea who took this shot or when. From the water color, I would say it's winter.

[imdjh]

4. The beach build up should have been conditional.

Here in Bellair Beach, the waterfront property owners (a small enclave who retain waterline deeds) didn't want to give access to the beach, so they didn't get the sand. Let the next storm take their houses.

I can't understand why the folks in Destin got their beach done without being required to convert their deeds.

[Igel]

10. I've seen the opposite argument.

Not all land is eroding. Some is being deposited--sometimes artificially, sometimes naturally. So if you have property stretching to the water line and an additional 10 feet is added is it yours or the state's? Does it matter if you dumped dirt and stuff there or not?

Most of the ones that argued that the added land is the states would have argued that any loss is obligatorily the private landowners. The state can only win and private landowners only lose. I always took the attitude that added land, like lost land, was the landowners. Anything else puts the state in the position of fretting over 1" gains here--and what if one portion of the shore erodes 1" while another part grows 1"? Leave the platting alone until next time the property's sold, for good or for bad--or give the citizen the benefit of the doubt.

As for this case--did anybody *ask* the landowners if they wanted the stuff dumped? If yes, bill them. If no, figure that it serves a public good--if you left the hole there sand would wash from public beaches to fill it in.

[11 Bravo]

11. Because only good things happen when the SCOTUS intervenes in Florida, right?