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.
You see this quite often. People don't want to pay for the apparatus that he uses to keep people off the beach but he sure doesn't have any problems using it.
It really comes down to a simple question-who owns the beach? If the county is charging taxes on a property as being oceanfront property-it is exactly that. If the value is reduced and it is taxed on a smaller lot and as "secondary" waterfront, then you have a case for "public" ownership. In many (most?) states, property ownership is to the "mean high-water line".
One would think a professed follower of Christ would at least not take away what belongs to all people! Huckabee is a pig!
The only part of the beach that is public is the wet sand beach, with the privately-owned property boundary line existing at the National Tidal Datum Epoch high tide line. Exceptions are Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia, in which it is the NTDE LOW tide line that demarcates public use land from privately-owned land.
Private property owners have just as much of a right to disallow the public use of their land as people who lock the doors on their homes to keep out uninvited intruders. There's no difference whatsoever.
I am certainly not going to click on Mother Jones for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which they come from practically a communist viewpoint.
However, for the sake of argument, lets assume the story has some merit and your thread title is close to the article.
Many people from both ideological perspectives have been having these "fights" whether it be in Florida or the beaches in Malibu, CA.
I understand both perspectives in that most beaches should be open to the public, but private property rights must also be considered.
Many places do not allow private ownership on the beach, certainly not all the way down to the waters edge at low tide.
Yet if you are paying millions of your hard earned money to live beach/oceanfront, you also do not want strangers in your backyard.
Normally compromises work best, but some of these cases have taken many years and a lot of money to resolve.
Interesting point. Here's how Malibu and other coastal California areas handle it:
The public is allowed to use the wet sand beach up to the National Tidal Datum Epoch high tide line, at which point the beach is privately owned property. Oceanfront property owners may VOLUNTARILY grant a public use easement on their property, but they don't have to do so.
If Florida wants to own the beaches, they will have to stop titling and taxing to the mean high water line... til then, the beach belongs to Huckabee.
Nearly all coastal states/counties/cities/towns have the same problem. They titled and tax the land up to the NTDE high tide line (in some states, as I previously noted, private ownership ends at the NTDE LOW tide line) as privately-owned property. Not for public use, just like homeowners don't have to let the public live in their privately-owned homes. There's no difference.
The only part of the beach that is public is the wet sand beach, with the privately-owned property boundary line existing at the National Tidal Datum Epoch high tide line. Exceptions are Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia, in which it is the NTDE LOW tide line that demarcates public use land from privately-owned land.
Private property owners have just as much of a right to disallow the public use of their land as people who lock the doors on their homes to keep out uninvited intruders. There's no difference whatsoever.
.
Greedy....Selfish....Entitled....
These are the words that I think of when these millionaire/billionaires try to take away beaches that should be enjoyed by everyone.
If they want their own beach, they should buy a private island.
IF that was the case, WHY did the judge need be involved?
Huckabee filed a quiet title action to "clear" title to his property.
What Does a Quiet Title Action Accomplish? A quiet title lawsuit results in a judgment, signed by a Florida judge, that is filed in the real estate records to demonstrate that a judge has ruled and declared that all adverse legal interests to a specific piece of property have been removed. The chain of title is cleared of the encumbrance or lien in the real estate records. The title has been “quieted.”
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.
