Pretty interesting, I can't wait to see what the supremes decide.

On one hand if the home owners were subject to beach erosion and were in danger of losing their houses, they'd be crying for renurishment (where you and I pay for their ocean view and it causes problems down stream in the littoral drift), but if it means that the hoi-ploi get to use the beach, the state is taking away their rights and they are against it.

I bet everyone can figure what the folks in Vilano would say...

EC

Just finished reading the transcript from the oral arguments and I'm not sure these lawyers should be arguing this case. From what I understand the petitioners (STOP THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT, INC.) are saying that they have the right to contact the water from their property that extends to the Mean High Water Line... And that this right has been taken from them due to the renourishment of the beach. I must admit I don't know all the details about the case but what I do know is that the MHWL (The intersection of the tidal plane equal to the average height of the high waters over the 19 year tidal cycle.) is not a fixed position on the beach. When the beach changes due to storms, renourishment, etc. the intersection of the MHWL in relation to the beach changes.

I think the problem is that these home owners are pissed that the beach was renourished (widened) and now they have more dry beach below the MHWL or just more dry beach in general and they have a harder time keeping people off what they thought was their own private beach. The ability of the homeowners to access the beach was not impeded and there is nothing blocking their view of the beach and from my understanding of what I have known is that from the MHWL seaward the beach is public (State) property. In the transcript they kept mentioning "contact" with the water... Like the homeowners property was meant to extend to the water's edge and I have no idea what they are talking about.

I may read the transcript again but it sounded like the State told the homeowners that the renourished dry beach is now public land because it was placed there with public (State) funds but depending on where the MHWL falls on the renourished beach the homeowners should be entitled to whatever beach is landward of the MHWL. There was some mention of an Erosion Control Line and it sounded like this was some new line meant to over-rule the MHWL but I don't know enough about that.

I don't believe that the State was trying to do anything underhanded and "take" property away from the homeowners, nor do I think the homeowners should be in any way compensated for having their upland property protected, that should be compensation enough. It will be interesting to see how things unfold. From reading the transcript it is I'm not sure anybody knows what in the hell they are talking about. I wonder if they are allowed visual aids to help explain what they are talking about... Might help because from the arguments the lawyers on either side didn't do a good job of explaining their sides.

I was trying to wrap this case around my head and decided I needed to see the problem so I decided to put these slides together to illustrate the case between the homeowners and the State (or at least my humble interpretation). It comes down to the homeowners disputing the establishment of the Erosion Control Line which delineates the between private and state owned property in areas where beach restoration projects have occurred. Again, this is just a visual that I put together and not by any means endorsed by either of the parties in dispute...

Taken from the Wall Street Journal Blog:

In Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the court had some potentially bad news for anyone with beachfront property. It ruled unanimously that a government program to restore 6.9 miles of beach lost to erosion did not violate the Fifth Amendment right of beach property owners. The owners, who banded together as "Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc.," alleged that the program would constitute an unconstitutional government taking of private property without compensation because it would cut their land off from the ocean. While it was not a good day for those with timeshares in Florida, the way things are going in the Gulf, a little distance from the water may not be the worst thing in the world..

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1151.pdf

Thanks for the simplification, Adam. But I still wonder if I'm misunderstanding something because it seems like it should be hard for anyone to oppose the renourishment project.

The people who oppose this want either: A) the state and taxpayers to fund the maintenance of their property and ask nothing in return, or B) to let their property erode in order to keep the strip of public land between their property and the water as thin as possible?

A is bad for the taxpayer and B is bad for the property owner. It seems like these people will change their tune when high tides begin undermining their foundations? I don't want to view the people behind Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc as A-holes if they aren't. Is there another point of view that I'm not aware of? Ed? James?

Nope, Brad, that seems to cover it. People are people.

EC

wow. it just boggles the mind how stupid some people are.

If I were king for a day, I would order the construction of a nice long jetty at the border between ponte vedra and jax beach. That's what I would do if I were king for a day.

Not to mention being able to openly enjoy cocktails on the beach in AB.



EC

Oh, I would definitely enact a savannah style public beverage rule fo' sho'. No doubt about that.

LPD world would be pretty awesome...