Beerball Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 What do you folks think of this? The state of Florida restores beaches including private ones (I assume without asking permission though that's not stated in the article). They added 75 feet of sand and deemed that strip public. Homeowners have taken the matter to the Supreme Court. Looks like Fla is gonna lose, but I'm interested in hearing what you think. link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 What do you folks think of this? The state of Florida restores beaches including private ones (I assume without asking permission though that's not stated in the article). They added 75 feet of sand and deemed that strip public. Homeowners have taken the matter to the Supreme Court. Looks like Fla is gonna lose, but I'm interested in hearing what you think. link All beaches should be pubic free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 How can a coastline be private? Now I can see on a lake or other inland water within the state.... There are riparian rights. But the coastline? Not sure what is gonna go on here... Technically the state border stretches out into the body of water... Can't the state add a strip of land/beach? Again... Can a border be private?? How do the riparian rights apply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Here is an interesting section on riparian rights in the US... From Wiki... Interesting and confusing too! Land beyond the low water mark belongs to the state government in the case of the 13 original states. Lands between the high and low water marks are subject to the police powers of the states. (see United States v. Pennsylvania Salt Mfg. Co., 16 F.2d 476 (E.D. Pa., 1926)). In the case of the original 13 states, upon ratification of the United States Constitution, title to these lands did not change, it remained vested in the several states. However, these titles became subject to the "Commerce Clause" of the Constitution which created an easement or "servitude" benefiting the federal government for the purpose of regulating commerce on navigable bodies of water. Borax Consolidated, Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, 29 U.S. 10, 56 S. Ct. 23, 80 L.Ed 9 (1935). As new lands were acquired by the United States, either by purchase or treaty, title to the beds of all navigable or tidal lakes, rivers, or their tributaries became vested in the United States, unless they had been validly conveyed into private ownership by the former sovereign. McKnight v. Brodell, 212 F.Supp 45. During the territorial period of these lands, the United States held these title "in trust" for the benefit of the future states which would be carved out of the territory. Hymes v. Grimes Company, 165 F. 2d 323. Each of the states were to come into the Union on an "equal footing" with the original thirteen states. Under the "equal footing" doctrine, territorial states are vested with the same sovereign title rights to wetlands as the original thirteen states. Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212, 3 How. 212, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845). However, during the territorial period, the United States could convey certain of these lands under the limited circumstances of promoting commerce. Brewer Elliot Oil and Gas Co. v. U S., 260 U.S. 77, 43 S.Ct 60, 67 L.Ed. 140 (1922). Any questions as to the ownership of these lands was resolved by Congress passing the Submerged Land Act, 43 U.S.C.A. 1301, which confirmed and quit-claimed title in various states to the beds of all navigable bodies of water. While this act conveyed navigable waters to the states, non navigable waters outside the 13 colonies remained the property of the United States. Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tides, but which are non navigable passed to the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 All beaches should be pubic free All beaches should be nude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 All beaches should be nude. The ramifications of this are horrifying. Haven't been in a Walmart lately, have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 "the state had helped property owners by restoring their eroded beaches." Sorry, when you took that money, you voided your 'exclusivity'. Go repair your OWN beach if you want it to be private- we don't need to give out welfare to those who have more than enough money to hire their own workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 The ramifications of this are horrifying. Haven't been in a Walmart lately, have you? Yeah a zoning variance must stipulate the difference between nudity and obscenity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 The ramifications of this are horrifying. Haven't been in a Walmart lately, have you? http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 People who shop at walmart, I agree But I think it was playboy a few years ago that did a workers of Walmart spread that had some nice ones in it, thank god they used cashiers though and not the greaters There some similar stuff going on like this right accross the border in Fort Erie, fighting over public and private beaches. Theres many properties along Lake erie that are "private". There were some big fights over the public beach area by the old Crystal Beach park that the town is developing and people were fighting cause they thought they were going to take away the public beach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 People who shop at walmart, I agree But I think it was playboy a few years ago that did a workers of Walmart spread that had some nice ones in it, thank god they used cashiers though and not the greaters There some similar stuff going on like this right accross the border in Fort Erie, fighting over public and private beaches. Theres many properties along Lake erie that are "private". There were some big fights over the public beach area by the old Crystal Beach park that the town is developing and people were fighting cause they thought they were going to take away the public beach That is Canada, whole 'nother world! Don't worry... When the Falls finally reaches the head of the Niagara at BFLO and becomes just rapids... Lake Michigan and Lake Huron will drop 150' in elevation giving everybody there lots of beach front property and probably flooding Fort Erie?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiew Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 There some similar stuff going on like this right accross the border in Fort Erie, fighting over public and private beaches. Theres many properties along Lake erie that are "private". There were some big fights over the public beach area by the old Crystal Beach park that the town is developing and people were fighting cause they thought they were going to take away the public beach Sherkston Shores....great memories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 That is Canada, whole 'nother world! Don't worry... When the Falls finally reaches the head of the Niagara at BFLO and becomes just rapids... Lake Michigan and Lake Huron will drop 150' in elevation giving everybody there lots of beach front property and probably flooding Fort Erie?? Aren't they going to be doing some work to the falls soon to protect it from eroding? I think I remember hearing in school a few years ago about how they were going to shut parts of the falls off to put a concrete coating over the clif to protect it and slow down the erosion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Aren't they going to be doing some work to the falls soon to protect it from eroding? I think I remember hearing in school a few years ago about how they were going to shut parts of the falls off to put a concrete coating over the clif to protect it and slow down the erosion I am not sure. The big thing I suppose they would want to do this is for the dam and power works... Sure it may take a long time... They don't want the falls eroding too far upstream and messing with the position of the intakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts