Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is it theirbackyard or is it a public space that taxpayers are sinking 100 million dollars into.
What typically legally happens in that scenario is that the private property owner stops acquiring oceanward land by accretion at the point of publicly funded beach nourishment/augmentation, and their property line ends at the point of public improvement instead of continuing to accrete towards the mean high water mark line. Therefore, any subsequent accreted beach belongs to the public and not the private property owner. The public gains from publicly funded beach nourishment/protection projects, not the private property owner.
For example... Accretions of sand add land ownership to privately titled owners as the MHW Mark moves seaward. However, under North Carolina law, the title to any addition to the portion of the ocean beach seaward of the MHW Mark which is caused by a publicly funded beach nourishment project vests in the State of North Carolina, as is any subsequent natural accretion.
§ 146-6(f).http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_146/GS_146-6.html
There is still the legal liability issue of a public use easement on privately owned property. I posted the NY Times article discussing exactly such. It's a big problem for the private property owner.
The problem lies with the dysfunctional local, state, or federal governments which failed to have the foresight to provide publicly owned access points to public beach areas, not with the private property owner trying to protect their legal property rights.
There is still the legal liability issue of a public use easement on privately owned property. I posted the NY Times article discussing exactly such. It's a big problem for the private property owner.
The problem lies with the dysfunctional local, state, or federal governments which failed to have the foresight to provide publicly owned access points to public beach areas, not with the private property owner trying to protect their legal property rights.
If you want to avoid that issue, don't buy land abutting a public beach.
If you want to avoid that issue, don't buy land abutting a public beach.
Makes no sense. How is that any different than a landowner buying land abutting a public park? Does that mean the public can just trespass through his privately owned yard to get to the public park? No, it doesn't. There are publicly owned entrances provided to public parks. Likewise, there are publicly owned beach access points to public beaches. Private property owners are under no obligation to provide public access across their land.
Makes no sense. How is that any different than a landowner buying land abutting a public park? Does that mean the public can just trespass through his privately owned yard to get to the public park? No, it doesn't. There are publicly owned entrances provided to public parks. Likewise, there are publicly owned beach access points to public beaches. Private property owners are under no obligation to provide public access across their land.
Fine - instead of condemning an easement across the land, condemn the public access path entirely.
Fine - instead of condemning an easement across the land, condemn the public access path entirely.
Won't be so easy to do. Taking private property like that is unconstitutional.
Quote:
"The difficult cases are generally those where government regulations, enacted to secure some sort of public benefit, fall disproportionately on some property owners and cause significant dimunition of property value."
No it's not - as long as they are justly compensated.
SCOTUS cases don't always go that way. The determining factor seems to be if some property owners are more adversely affected than others. Unless the local, state, or federal government plans on declaring public access on every private oceanfront property owner's land in the locale under question, it won't be a slam dunk case.
Hypothetical... You own property abutting a state road. Should your neighbor who lives behind you have the right to drive his car through your privately owned yard to get to the state road merely because your land abuts the publicly owned state road?
How many of you would say yes to that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
