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.
And I rest my case. This is more complex then you represent. You are actually helping me demonstrate that with the links you have posted.
It's not complex. It's fairly well-established in all but 3 oceanfront states that the public only owns the wet sand beach area seaward of the mean high water mark line. Dry sand beaches are usually privately owned property unless actually owned by a government body.
It's not complex. It's fairly well-established in all but 3 oceanfront states that the public only owns the wet sand beach area seaward of the mean high water mark line. Dry sand beaches are usually privately owned property unless actually owned by a government body.
Good lord. Go read up on the "wet sand" beach stuff. theres a ton of complexity involving historical usage and more. Seriously, its not that simple. Read the bar link I provided, and come back and try and say that.
Then so does everyone else. Everyone should pay the same amount.
Why? Who is gaining more from the government, the property owner or the non-property owner? Without the government's threat of force your claim to any land is worth no more than your ability to back it up with force yourself.
Good lord. Go read up on the "wet sand" beach stuff. theres a ton of complexity involving historical usage and more.
I have. I became interested in the issue when, as I said, a family sued a local private oceanfront property owner when their child was injured on private property even though the child and the family were trespassing on the dry sand beach private property.
Going back to the OP's post the owners were fine with ceding part of their property for dune restoration but didn't want public access adjacent to their property. I can understand their resentment at making a private beach public if that wasn't fully disclosed but why would the federal government choose to restore the dunes to benefit the homeowner. Obviously the homeowners derived a benefit and maybe their property becomes worthless without the dunes, was there an alternative.
This issue will be played out many places in the coming years as ocean front properties are threatened by erosion.
I recall the Army Corp proposed raising the dunes in parts of NJ before Sandy hit but most homeowners didn't want their views blocked, completely different story now.
Going back to the OP's post the owners were fine with ceding part of their property for dune restoration but didn't want public access adjacent to their property. I can understand their resentment at making a private beach public if that wasn't fully disclosed but why would the federal government choose to restore the dunes to benefit the homeowner.
It doesn't benefit the private property owner. What such actually does is create a permanent defined private property line, with any accretion seaward of the point of publicly funded dune enrichment and/or beach nourishment becoming public property. It's the public who actually benefits from this.
As I've already posted, what typically happens in such a situation 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
It doesn't benefit the private property owner. What such actually does is create a permanent defined private property line, with any accretion seaward of the point of publicly funded dune enrichment and/or beach nourishment becoming public property. It's the public who actually benefits from this.
As I've already posted, what typically happens in such a situation 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
Most ocean states have similar laws.
I understand but that being the case why did the property owner agree, was their property threatened or did they just believe this made practical sense for future storms. Aside from the public access issue the fact that the homeowner was willing to give a away property seems very extreme in itself even though they derived a benefit, what drove that decision.
Every state is different by the way when it comes to property rights and high water marks
I understand but that being the case why did the property owner agree, was their property threatened or did they just believe this made practical sense for future storms. Aside from the public access issue the fact that the homeowner was willing to give a away property seems very extreme in itself even though they derived a benefit, what drove that decision.
They may have perceived a natural event threat to the structure(s) on their private property and believed ceding accretion to the public in exchange for protective beach nourishment and/or dune augmentation was worth it.
Quote:
Every state is different by the way when it comes to property rights and high water marks
Not really. Dry sand beach and wet sand beach areas are remarkably consistent. Wet sand beach is seaward of the mean high water mark line. Property rights are remarkably consistent nationwide because of the Constitution's 5th Amendment.
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.
