The Fifth Season

这几天在看房地产的书，看到下面大姐的海滨之旅， 想起前几年的一个公案：

Littoral water rights govern an owner’s rights to water on land bordering … however, the determination of the property line relies on the high-water mark. …

更准确地说 是 “ Average ” High Water Mark ！

海啸和东南亚的那次Tsunami 不算！ （ 如果不经常发生的话！）

这就是说： 每天被海浪打到，又被晒干的海滩，就是Publicly Owned !

既然是Public, 你就可以晒太阳，涂防晒油，顺便干一些不太“有伤风化” 的事情，反正“水”所能及！

但，的确是有私人海滩存在的！:o

因为这个世界上还有一样东西：

可望不可即！

前面一片豪宅挡路， 密密匝匝，有身无插翅，只能“望洋兴叹！"

这就是真正的“私人海滩”的由来！

你可以在Public 湿地上享受你的公共权力， 但穿堂入室, 如果人家不同意， 至少在这里，以Trespass的名义叫警察是很容易的！

（伞翼滑翔的鸟人， 和会潜水的蛙人不算，也不包括“停船坐爱”！）

至少加州是这样立法的！

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass

Rolling Eyes， 所以，诀窍就在这里！

难题也在这里：

Public Access to Beaches

那么，向来开创民主先锋的加州是如何为民请愿的呢？

嘿嘿，我们下回分享！

*Riparian Rights - Non-navigable Stream 又是两会事了！l

http://www.buzzardsbay.org/access.htm

Supreme Court rules against homeowners in Florida beach dispute

The Supreme Court ruled against a group of waterfront property owners who said the state of Florida owed them money because it pumped sand onto beaches eroded by storms, lowering property values.

By Warren Richey, Staff writer / June 17, 2010

A group of beachfront land owners on the Florida panhandle have lost their bid to receive government compensation in the wake of a state beach erosion control program that converted their land from waterfront property into waterview property.
Skip to next paragraph
Related Stories

* Supreme Court takes up property-rights case
* Supreme Court case: Florida v. beach property owners

In an 8 to 0 decision released Thursday, the US Supreme Court rejected the land owners’ claim that the Florida Supreme Court had engaged in what is called a “judicial taking” of private property when it upheld a state-authorized “beach renourishment” plan.

The property owners insisted that the State of Florida was obligated to pay them fair compensation for the lost value of their land.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion is sympathetic to the property owners, but he ultimately concludes that under existing Florida law the property owners must lose.

“The takings clause [of the Fifth Amendment] only protects property rights as they are established under state law, not as they might have been established or ought to have been established,” he wrote.

In addition to ruling against the property owners, Scalia and three other justices – Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito – formed a plurality recognizing for the first time the potential that a state court could rule in a way that would require payment of fair compensation from a state government.

The four justices announced their position after deciding with the other four justices participating in the case that the Florida Supreme Court had not engaged in such a judicial taking.

Justice John Paul Stevens did not participate in the case.

The case, Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, arose in 2003 when Florida officials proposed pumping new sand onto 6.9 miles of beach near the City of Destin and in Walton County, in Florida’s Panhandle region.

State officials said the beach had been severely eroded by a string of hurricanes and tropical storms. But not all land owners agreed that the "beach renourishment" plan was warranted.

Amid the dispute, Florida officials invoked a state law, the Beach and Shore Preservation Act. The law allows the state, under certain circumstances, to change the boundary between submerged public lands and private waterfront property.

Once the new line is established, all new sand pumped onto the beach on the seaward side comprises state-owned land under Florida law. In the process, beachfront landowners lose their right to claim any accreted land seaward, and their property is no longer in direct contact with the sea.

At issue in the case was whether the property owners were owed compensation under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The takings clause is generally directed at forcing the executive branch or an executive agency to pay fair compensation when private property is taken for public use. In the Florida case, the question was whether a state court decision could trigger a fair compensation payment.

The case presented a clash between littoral rights of private property owners and the rights of the State of Florida to fill its own submerged lands.

Littoral rights are the rights enjoyed by property owners fronting a lake, bay, or sea. Most submerged lands are owned by the state. So what happens when the state decides to fill its submerged land in a "beach renourishment" project that diminishes the littoral rights of adjacent property owners?

The Supreme Court studied Florida law and concluded that in such a contest the state wins.

"There is no taking unless petitioner can show that, before the Florida Supreme Court’s decision, littoral-property owners had rights… superior to the state’s right to fill in its submerged land,” Scalia wrote. “Though some may think the question close, in our view the showing cannot be made.”

Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, praised the high court decision for preserving the ability of state and local governments to respond to changing beach conditions.

"As the oil spill now ravaging our nation’s coastlines vividly demonstrates, it is crucially important that the government have the authority to step in to protect our beaches and coastal communities,” he said.

[Editor’s note: The original headline mischaracterized the decision.]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0617/Supreme-Court-rules-against-homeowners-in-Florida-beach-dispute

By Michelle Quigley

Fellow blogger Laura mentioned the other day that walking on the beach is something she likes to do when she doesn’t really feel like exercising. I love a good beach walk. I used to wonder whether I should feel uncomfortable walking along the beach behind private homes, but really, do I feel uncomfortable walking on a street lined with private homes?

The Florida Constitution says that the state holds the title to “beaches below mean high water lines…in trust for all the people,” and state law ensures “the public’s right to reasonable access to beaches.”

There is no Florida Statute 16D2. There is a Florida Administrative Code chapter 16, but no 16D2.

Some states go further in protecting unrestricted access to beaches, guaranteeing public access to all beaches up to the dune line and protecting physical and visual access to the beach from private development. Florida has a long history of litigation over control of access to beaches, but without a state law explicitly defining what “reasonable access to beaches” means and what violates that access, private landowners will continue to erect signs like the one pictured at right.

The Surfrider Foundation is a grassroots organization “dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of oceans, waves and beaches.” Florida chapters have worked to get a beach access bill through the legislature, and the Palm Beach County chapter worked with other organizations to block a beach renourishment plan in Palm Beach and is now working with the town to come up with a better plan.

So my plan is to continue walking on the beach whenever I can, and to support the Surfrider Foundation in its efforts to make sure that I can keep on walking.

Tags: beach, law, public access, Surfrider Foundation, Walking

This entry was posted on Friday, August 7th, 2009 at 11:40 am and is filed under Cardio. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/step-by-step/2009/08/07/these-beaches-were-made-for-walking/

The Fifth Season :: Jun.19.2010 :: Uncategorized ::

Trackback URI | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed