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.
They "assert" the former, and then use that to justify the latter. The fact that some area governments have started charging the public fees ($50 to $150) to drive and park their 4WDs on other people's privately owned property while not giving the property owners the proceeds collected will look pretty bad in court. Not only are they taking private property for public use without paying just compensation, but now they're generating revenue from that taking, too.
Where are these vehicles parking that they're parked on private property and not on a street? And why is that allowed? Or are you saying they're driving onto the beach?
Are people even paying those public fees? Do they require a visible sticker or something?
The state's Coastal Management Agency forbids it. No structures within 30 ft of the vegetation line on the seaward side of the dune (except for a dune walkover). No structures on the owner's dry sand beach. So... the owner has very expensive land on which they're highly taxed, but can't build anything on a rather large percentage of it. That's not at all unusual in coastal areas, though.
There, so you know you don't have the same rights as those who own property inland. There are certainly special circumstances with beach property, and fewer rights for the property owner. People are still willing to pay premium for beachfront property, despite these rigid regulations.
I don't think they ever should have built beach front dwellings. It has caused nothing but problems.
Where are these vehicles parking that they're parked on private property and not on a street? And why is that allowed? Or are you saying they're driving onto the beach?
They're driving onto the beach, and then driving and parking on private property to picnic, tailgate, fish, swim, surf, etc.
Someone used the argument earlier in the thread that to deny these rights would impact tourism. Apparently not - these are locals, right? Aren't there any public beaches for people to go to? And if there are - do they allow these vehicles to drive onto the beach?
Someone used the argument earlier in the thread that to deny these rights would impact tourism. Apparently not - these are locals, right? Aren't there any public beaches for people to go to? And if there are - do they allow these vehicles to drive onto the beach?
The states that allow this use the argument. They are very adamant stopping the practice will cause severe impact on the state financially. It would be unpopular that a few people with vacation homes would stop beach tourism and cause financial chaos to the state and its residents.
Florida did it. I suppose it depends on the state and how many public beaches exist, and how much it really depends on beach tourism.
There, so you know you don't have the same rights as those who own property inland. There are certainly special circumstances with beach property, and fewer rights for the property owner. People are still willing to pay premium for beachfront property, despite these rigid regulations.
I don't think they ever should have built beach front dwellings. It has caused nothing but problems.
The state never should have allowed dry sand beach land seaward of the dune to be subdivided and sold off as private property lots. If the state wanted the entire beach seaward of the dune to remain in the public trust for public use, they should have made sure it was owned by the state (the public). They can't, when demand for public beach use began and then skyrocketed and there's nowhere for the public to go, arbitrarily announce that private property lots are now public use land. Remember, just a few decades ago, this was a very remote area. The town I live in wasn't even incorporated until after the year 2000. There are no public park beaches nor public beach access points in my town. All oceanfront property in my town is privately owned. There are also no town-owned roads. All roads are either privately owned or owned by the state.
Additionally, this isn't a problem in states that actually recognize and respect property rights. California does. They have a patchwork quilt of public use easements on some oceanfront lots (granted by the property owner, NOT unconstitutionally taken by the state) but not on others. I've posted the map. Florida had issues with this, too, and had to pass a law specifying exactly when and how a so-called "customary use" implied public use easement exists on a private property lot. Each property owner must be taken to court, one at a time, to prove the assertion.
Dry sand beach in a coastal state. According to all documentation, dry sand beach is privately owned up to the officially recognized mean high water mark in most states (19 year epoch), and up to the low water mark in some states (Virginia, etc.). Owners pay property tax on the land, are responsible for the maintenance, waste collection and disposal on the land, etc., but some municipalities insist that privately owned land is open for public use, at will.
Texas has Beach Access Laws - only for the Gulf Coast Beaches - the beach is a public easement.
Building codes are strict on property that borders a beach easement - the landowner can deed the easement part of their property to the State, City or County and then they no longer pay any taxes on that portion or have responsibilities to it ..... that is a choice and many ways to to do it. A bigger issue appears to be the access to the beach. Areas I'm most familiar with have no problems with access - but those lands have long been (before they were ever developed) publicly owned.
I grew up on the Texas Gulf Coast -- most of the land (if not all) is either State Park, National Park, County Park or City Park. Only fools would ever attempt to build right next to the water anyway.
I suspect there a lot of grumbles about Galveston Island - but most of the beaches I'm familiar with in Texas have a road/highway that divides building and beach/water. Not all, but many.
Something everyone needs to understand about any property on a beach or river is that the water can move the property line. Floods, storms can change the topography.
For the Hunters -- try going on to Private Ranches in Texas to Hunt/Fish/Camp and you could get killed.
Try camping or swimming in a backyard or deciding you want to take up residence in another persons home .... same thing.
Someone used the argument earlier in the thread that to deny these rights would impact tourism. Apparently not - these are locals, right?
It's a mix. There are daytrippers from elsewhere, too, hence having to bring all their gear in their 4WDs and drive and park on the beach.
Quote:
Aren't there any public beaches for people to go to? And if there are - do they allow these vehicles to drive onto the beach?
Yes, there are plenty of public beaches in the surrounding nearby towns. They're usually very crowded in good weather so the overflow invades private property, and the state condones that invasion. The only public park beach that allows 4WDs to drive and park on the beach is the National Park about an hour's drive south of here.
I think Informed Consent is itching to became an AnCap due to all this.
Do AnCaps insist that local/state governments abide by the US Constitution and respect private property rights (5th Amendment Takings Clause)?
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.
