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.
The 'how would I?" is answered by the fact that I don't own beach front but have read and/or heard about the issue for many years ...sort of a 'public knowledge" thing to many people in states with coastal property.
Sorry if that wasn't the case with you. It is a problematic thing on both sides.
Privately owned versus public property is actually pretty cut and dried. That's what legally recorded plats of survey are for.
Privately owned versus public property is actually pretty cut and dried. That's what legally recorded plats of survey are for.
Of course it is and no one has the right to be on your property. (Accessing the public portion is the contentious factor.
If you erroneously thought you privately owned right up to the water (regardless of tide marks)or if what is the public portion was changed after you bought, that's a different issue.
Of course it is and no one has the right to be on your property. (Accessing the public portion is the contentious factor.
If you erroneously thought you privately owned right up to the water (regardless of tide marks)or if what is the public portion was changed after you bought, that's a different issue.
Of course, not. I know I own up to the mean high water mark (19 year National Tidal Datum Epoch average), what's known as the "dry sand beach," and that everything towards the water from that point, the "wet sand beach," is public beach for anyone's use.
Again, here's an illustration that explains the difference:
The problem is that the public trespasses on the privately owned dry sand beach, and local/state authorities encourage that trespassing. Why? It means a lot of tourist $$$$$$$ revenue for them and business owners.
We'll see what happens with Knick v. Township of Scott (SCOTUS). If landowners can bypass local and state courts, which clearly have a conflict of interest, and go straight to federal court with a Constitutional Rights (5th Amendment takings and just compensation) case, this all could easily be sorted.
We went all over England this year. In the northern farm country there was mile upon mile of open fields divided by hedgerows. There, anyone is allowed to cross anyone else’s land. The only rule is you must close the gate behind you.
I think that’s nice. I am not in favor of invading the privacy of property owners, but If I owned forested land, for example, I wouldn’t mind if someone wanted to walk through it.
You find the same situation in numerous parts of the US.
You find the same situation in numerous parts of the US.
An occasional hiker through privately-owned wooded land is VERY different from hordes of beach-goers who leave their trash behind (remember, private property, so no gov-provided trash cans or trash pickup, and yes... that means dirty diapers and even medical wastes are left behind), and urinate and defecate on private property because there are no public restrooms anywhere along the long stretches of beach lined by privately owned property.
What's worse is that several neighbors have found that the public beach-goers uses their outside showers (common for oceanfront and oceanside properties to wash salt and sand off before going inside) as restrooms to eliminate bodily waste. Mine has a combo padlock, so I've escaped that problem. Others have had to lock their outside showers, too.
No. There is no recorded public use easement on the recorded property record.
I have no idea what your current state requires relative to property disclosures. Obviously, public use of your private property is not a state requirement.
I assume you did not ask. Perhaps it never dawned on you to do so given private beach front property ( Lake Michigan) in Illinois ( your home state) upholds private property rights and restricted access. Your real estate agent and closing attorney ( if used) could have disclosed the historical public use of beach front property, especially given it has an impact on the value of the property.
I agree. That is the solution. But think about what you're saying. The state would have to pay just compensation as required by the 5th Amendment to take all that privately owned property. Easily in the billions if not trillions of dollars. How does that get funded?
An occasional hiker through privately-owned wooded land is VERY different from hordes of beach-goers who leave their trash behind (remember, private property, so no gov-provided trash cans or trash pickup, and yes... that means dirty diapers and even medical wastes are left behind), and urinate and defecate on private property because there are no public restrooms anywhere along the long stretches of beach lined by privately owned property.
What's worse is that several neighbors have found that the public beach-goers uses their outside showers (common for oceanfront and oceanside properties to wash salt and sand off before going inside) as restrooms to eliminate bodily waste. Mine has a combo padlock, so I've escaped that problem. Others have had to lock their outside showers, too.
I have no idea what your current state requires relative to property disclosures. Obviously, public use of your private property is not a state requirement.
They skirt it by calling it a "policy" issued by a regulatory agency. It's not actually a law, for obvious reasons: it's a violation of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause.
What will be important is to see how SCOTUS treats Knick v. Township of Scott. If Knick prevails, that opens the door to NC private property owners suing local and state governments in federal court for the violation of 5th Amendment Rights.
Quote:
I assume you did not ask. Perhaps it never dawned on you to do so given private beach front property ( Lake Michigan) in Illinois ( your home state) upholds private property rights and restricted access.
As do nearly all US states.
Quote:
Your real estate agent and closing attorney ( if used) could have disclosed the historical public use of beach front property, especially given it has an impact on the value of the property.
There is no historical public use. If there had been, that was erased by the legal recording of private property deeds with the corresponding plats of survey that didn't list any public use easements. No one has ever legally challenged that regarding my property or that of anyone else I know, locally.
They don't have the extra billions or trillions in tax revenue that a buyout would cost, and the costs of borrowing it would be prohibitively expensive and damage the state's credit rating and economy.
Don't you think California or any other state would have already done it if it could have been done?
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.
