Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Beachfront property owners band together to protest the State adding sand to their beaches. Which are vanishing because of erosion. Good thinking, guys   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Florida  
•       •       •

9364 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Nov 2009 at 12:08 PM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



176 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-11-24 09:23:45 AM  
"But the Lindsays and other homeowners challenged the program because it comes with a catch: The new strips of beach belong to the public, not the property owners. They feared their waterfront view of bleached sand and sea oats would include throngs of strangers toting umbrellas and coolers."

Yeah, if the state were going to steal my beach front property right out from under me under the guise of "helping" me only to turn it into a public shiathole like every other beach out there filled with noisy children and obnoxious tourists... I'd turn down that sort of "help" as well.
 
2009-11-24 09:58:14 AM  
Subby can't read
 
2009-11-24 10:02:44 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: Subby can't read

knows how to get a greenlight.
 
2009-11-24 10:15:01 AM  

Talon: "But the Lindsays and other homeowners challenged the program because it comes with a catch: The new strips of beach belong to the public, not the property owners. They feared their waterfront view of bleached sand and sea oats would include throngs of strangers toting umbrellas and coolers."

Yeah, if the state were going to steal my beach front property right out from under me under the guise of "helping" me only to turn it into a public shiathole like every other beach out there filled with noisy children and obnoxious tourists... I'd turn down that sort of "help" as well.


THIS

Thread over in one.
 
wee
2009-11-24 11:37:27 AM  
If they were really worried about erosion abatement, then they'd un-dam the rivers. Because beach sand comes from the rivers, not from the ocean.
 
2009-11-24 11:42:16 AM  
Someone ought to show them what their "beach" will look like when all the sand finally erodes away. See how nice that looks then.
 
2009-11-24 12:13:11 PM  

wee: If they were really worried about erosion abatement, then they'd un-dam the rivers. Because beach sand comes from the rivers, not from the ocean.


Yes and I'm sure that facts like that just come pouring from your ass.
 
2009-11-24 12:14:05 PM  
Can't we just let all of Florida erode away?
 
2009-11-24 12:14:40 PM  
Geological time yawns, stretches, considers moving Florida's barrier islands over to the mainland. Eternity winks atcha.
 
2009-11-24 12:14:43 PM  
If they wore fake patriot clothes and linked beach erosion to Obama's Marxist fascist Communistic policies, they'd probably get more traction. I bet Glenn Beck would cry for them.
 
2009-11-24 12:14:43 PM  
Considering the beach probably accounts for a good amount of their property's value I would be pissed of too.
 
2009-11-24 12:15:29 PM  

jwa007: THIS


THIS is bullshiat. If there's no public parking and no public access, how can people with coolers get on your beach?
 
2009-11-24 12:15:31 PM  
The Angry Hand of God: Considering the beach probably accounts for a good amount of their property's value I would be pissed off too.

FTFM
 
2009-11-24 12:15:43 PM  

Glenford: Can't we just let all of Florida erode away?


We are, it is just going to take a bit longer than you might like.

Check back in 50,000 years and see where it is then.
 
2009-11-24 12:15:44 PM  
Bugs Bunny could fix this in a jiffy.
 
2009-11-24 12:16:35 PM  

LosinMySenses: Someone ought to show them what their "beach" will look like when all the sand finally erodes away. See how nice that looks then.


I say fark them. They'd have no problem with the government fixing their beaches if it was being done for free. Let them pay out of their pocket if they don't want their beaches eroded.
 
2009-11-24 12:16:44 PM  
Call the farking whambulance. Would they prefer the alternative of their homes being washed into the ocean?
 
2009-11-24 12:17:02 PM  

The Angry Hand of God: Considering the beach probably accounts for a good amount of their property's value I would be pissed off too.


Well, there's the conundrum. Do they pay for the new sand themselves, since they're protecting their property values and therefore being rugged libertarians, or do they have the State come in and use other people's tax dollars, which might mean the State gets some consideration for its coin?
 
2009-11-24 12:17:31 PM  

tricycleracer: THIS is bullshiat. If there's no public parking and no public access, how can people with coolers get on your beach?


Just climb over the fence. The one with the big sign on it saying "Trespassers will be shot".
 
2009-11-24 12:17:57 PM  

Talon: "But the Lindsays and other homeowners challenged the program because it comes with a catch: The new strips of beach belong to the public, not the property owners. They feared their waterfront view of bleached sand and sea oats would include throngs of strangers toting umbrellas and coolers."

Yeah, if the state were going to steal my beach front property right out from under me under the guise of "helping" me only to turn it into a public shiathole like every other beach out there filled with noisy children and obnoxious tourists... I'd turn down that sort of "help" as well.


There is a strip of beach that the public already can use if it is a navigable water. These property owners fail.
 
2009-11-24 12:18:22 PM  
After seeing the movie "Summer Rental", I can see where these people are coming from.

content6.flixster.com

/Hot like Scully's catch of the day.
 
2009-11-24 12:18:31 PM  
FTFA: Justices will examine a concept they have pondered for more than 40 years without resolution: whether a decision by the judicial branch, rather than the executive or legislative, can create the kind of taking of private property forbidden by the Constitution.

Susette Kelo would like a word (new window)
 
2009-11-24 12:18:43 PM  
Just let it erode and eat their homes then, it's their choice.
 
2009-11-24 12:19:14 PM  

Latinwolf: I say fark them. They'd have no problem with the government fixing their beaches if it was being done for free. Let them pay out of their pocket if they don't want their beaches eroded.


Considering that their property is worth a lot more than the cost of the sand, that's probably exactly what they'll do.
 
2009-11-24 12:19:22 PM  
Dammit.
Link (new window)
 
2009-11-24 12:19:29 PM  

MrHappyRotter: Yes and I'm sure that facts like that just come pouring from your ass.


You do know hes right, don't you?
 
2009-11-24 12:20:04 PM  
nice troll subs
 
2009-11-24 12:20:46 PM  
theorellior: The Angry Hand of God: Considering the beach probably accounts for a good amount of their property's value I would be pissed off too.

Well, there's the conundrum. Do they pay for the new sand themselves, since they're protecting their property values and therefore being rugged libertarians, or do they have the State come in and use other people's tax dollars, which might mean the State gets some consideration for its coin?


I personally believe they should have to fix it themselves, however I think part of the point is to retain the beauty of the beach, city, etc.

I suppose you could put in a law that you can keep your property but you have to maintain it yourself. There are plenty of other communities that can fine you for not mowing your lawn, shoveling snow of your sidewalk, and other things like that.
 
2009-11-24 12:20:55 PM  
Previously in Florida owners of beach front property owned the property all the way down to the mean hide tide line. Part of their property right included the right to access the water from their property. They also owned any natural accretion of additional beach, and faced the possibility of losing property due to erosion.

The new law is trying to set their property boundry at a fixed line, rather than at the mean high tide line. Any new beach that forms on the other side of that line would become public property. This has the side effect of taking away two rights they had previously, the right to access the water, and the right to future accretion. Oh, and if the plan to restore the beach fails and the beach continues to erode, then they'll give them back the old (eroding) property line.

If the government wants to take those property rights to promote the public use of the beach be preserving it, fine. But aknowledge that it's a taking and pay a nominal sum for the rights to access and acretion that they are losing.
 
2009-11-24 12:21:34 PM  
You can't own the water man, its god's water.
 
2009-11-24 12:22:25 PM  
There isn't public parking anywhere near them. They should STFU.

Google Map (new window)

/Thanks, PIPL.
 
2009-11-24 12:23:37 PM  
Talondel

by paying for the sand that they're adding they ARE paying that "nominal sum"
 
2009-11-24 12:24:24 PM  

JustMatt: You can't own the water man, its god's water.


The water belongs to whom?
 
2009-11-24 12:24:37 PM  

The Angry Hand of God: I personally believe they should have to fix it themselves, however I think part of the point is to retain the beauty of the beach, city, etc.

I suppose you could put in a law that you can keep your property but you have to maintain it yourself. There are plenty of other communities that can fine you for not mowing your lawn, shoveling snow of your sidewalk, and other things like that.


The problem in this situation is that the beach erosion has little if nothing to do with the beachfront property owners. As stated above, the only solution to beach erosion is to allow the material eroded inland to flush all the way to the sea, instead of allowing it to settle out in the man made reservoirs. I say that if the state dams the river, the state needs to fix the beaches. It has nothing to do with the homeowners.
 
2009-11-24 12:26:00 PM  

Talondel: This has the side effect of taking away two rights they had previously, the right to access the water,


How do they use the right to access the water? They can go down to the edge of their property, step onto the public beach and then get to the water.

I thought that all public waterways had a strip of shoreline around them that was publicly owned.
 
2009-11-24 12:26:01 PM  

tricycleracer: There isn't public parking anywhere near them. They should STFU.

Google Map (new window)

/Thanks, PIPL.


they're living on a goddamn barrier island?fark em. demolish every building on the damn thing and remove all the evidence, fill in the holes, plant palm trees and grases -

restore them to their natural state


barrier islands are not your farking real estate boom. they're farking barrier islands.
 
2009-11-24 12:26:53 PM  

Glenford: Can't we just let all of do something to help Florida erode away?


FTFM
 
2009-11-24 12:29:01 PM  

Kazan: they're living on a goddamn barrier island? fark em...


Yeah, agreed. It's like building your house on an iceberg and getting pissy that the Florida sun is reducing the acreage of your investment.
 
2009-11-24 12:29:41 PM  
As someone who has lived within 10 miles or less of the Gulf of Mexico my entire life, all I can say is:

Living on the beach is not all it's cracked up to be
 
2009-11-24 12:29:48 PM  
Frankly, I don't think there should be waterfront property in the first place, at least in Florida. It will only ever be a temporary structure anyway, what with storm damage and beach erosion.

And I HATE the sand they're using to renourish the beaches with. Could they find any coarser and uglier sand? The squeaky, sugar-white beaches on the Gulf Coast will soon be a thing of the past if they keep putting that crap sand on the beaches.

tl;dr People are dumb for living on the coast and renourished beach sand sucks.

/Can't wait to go back home and see the beaches in a couple days. The beaches around Tampa Bay pale in comparison.
 
2009-11-24 12:29:50 PM  

Talondel: Previously in Florida owners of beach front property owned the property all the way down to the mean hide tide line. Part of their property right included the right to access the water from their property. They also owned any natural accretion of additional beach, and faced the possibility of losing property due to erosion.

The new law is trying to set their property boundry at a fixed line, rather than at the mean high tide line. Any new beach that forms on the other side of that line would become public property. This has the side effect of taking away two rights they had previously, the right to access the water, and the right to future accretion. Oh, and if the plan to restore the beach fails and the beach continues to erode, then they'll give them back the old (eroding) property line.

If the government wants to take those property rights to promote the public use of the beach be preserving it, fine. But aknowledge that it's a taking and pay a nominal sum for the rights to access and acretion that they are losing.


zealot_45: The Angry Hand of God: I personally believe they should have to fix it themselves, however I think part of the point is to retain the beauty of the beach, city, etc.

I suppose you could put in a law that you can keep your property but you have to maintain it yourself. There are plenty of other communities that can fine you for not mowing your lawn, shoveling snow of your sidewalk, and other things like that.

The problem in this situation is that the beach erosion has little if nothing to do with the beachfront property owners. As stated above, the only solution to beach erosion is to allow the material eroded inland to flush all the way to the sea, instead of allowing it to settle out in the man made reservoirs. I say that if the state dams the river, the state needs to fix the beaches. It has nothing to do with the homeowners.


And why does the state damn the water?
 
2009-11-24 12:30:01 PM  

fappomatic: Glenford: Can't we just ldo something to help Florida erode away?

FTFM


yes. find the narrowest point from the NE edge of the Gulf of Mexico along the Florida cost... cut a 10-15 mile wide channel through it.

let the Gulf current and wave action do the rest.
 
2009-11-24 12:30:07 PM  

jwa007: The water belongs to whom?


It was just a Super Troopers reference, I do not actually think the water belongs to god.

/Sue me, sue me, sue me!
 
2009-11-24 12:31:02 PM  
Or, building on a floodplain and getting pissy when your house floats seventeen miles downstream. I think we've had threads were most Farkers agree that those people were dumbasses.
 
2009-11-24 12:31:03 PM  

Talondel: Previously in Florida owners of beach front property owned the property all the way down to the mean hide tide line. Part of their property right included the right to access the water from their property. They also owned any natural accretion of additional beach, and faced the possibility of losing property due to erosion.

The new law is trying to set their property boundry at a fixed line, rather than at the mean high tide line. Any new beach that forms on the other side of that line would become public property. This has the side effect of taking away two rights they had previously, the right to access the water, and the right to future accretion. Oh, and if the plan to restore the beach fails and the beach continues to erode, then they'll give them back the old (eroding) property line.

If the government wants to take those property rights to promote the public use of the beach be preserving it, fine. But aknowledge that it's a taking and pay a nominal sum for the rights to access and acretion that they are losing.


How is this restricting their right to access the water? They still have the right of way, and they still own to their previous property line. They just have to share the beachfront between their property line and the waterline with the public.

Seems to me that if the public is footing the bill to replenish the beach, it's only fair that they get access to it.
 
2009-11-24 12:33:29 PM  

zealot_45: The Angry Hand of God: I personally believe they should have to fix it themselves, however I think part of the point is to retain the beauty of the beach, city, etc.

I suppose you could put in a law that you can keep your property but you have to maintain it yourself. There are plenty of other communities that can fine you for not mowing your lawn, shoveling snow of your sidewalk, and other things like that.

The problem in this situation is that the beach erosion has little if nothing to do with the beachfront property owners. As stated above, the only solution to beach erosion is to allow the material eroded inland to flush all the way to the sea, instead of allowing it to settle out in the man made reservoirs. I say that if the state dams the river, the state needs to fix the beaches. It has nothing to do with the homeowners.


No. The problem in this situation is that they live on a barrier island. Barrier islands, by their nature, move over time.
 
2009-11-24 12:33:55 PM  

Kazan: Talondel

by paying for the sand that they're adding they ARE paying that "nominal sum"


That's great! Then there's no reason not to aknowledge that this is a taking, which is what the state is refusing to do. A taking requires just compensation. If a court finds that more sand is just compensation, that's fine, but first the state has to aknowledge that there is a taking.
 
2009-11-24 12:36:56 PM  
Talondel

it's hardly "taking" if the state is MAKING MORE LAND and then calling that new land theirs

they made it afterall.


sorry, i cannot feel any sympathy for beach-front home owners, even lesser still beach front home owners who decided to buy houses in extremely unstable over human timescales geography.


the only things that should be on barrier islands are ... PARKS
 
2009-11-24 12:37:48 PM  

bottsicus: How is this restricting their right to access the water? They still have the right of way, and they still own to their previous property line. They just have to share the beachfront between their property line and the waterline with the public.


Because they used to own property that connected to the water. Now they don't. The government owns it (in trust for the public). And the government could easily deny the upland owner the right to access the water once their land no longer touches the water.

Seems to me that if the public is footing the bill to replenish the beach, it's only fair that they get access to it.

If they had *asked* for them to fix the beach, sure. This is no different then the government coming into your yard and planting grass, then deciding that they now own the land the grass is planted on. You didn't ask them to fix your yard. If they decide to "fix" it for you (maybe you liked your dirt) they don't just get to take it afterwards.
 
2009-11-24 12:43:45 PM  

Bad_Seed: How do they use the right to access the water? They can go down to the edge of their property, step onto the public beach and then get to the water.

I thought that all public waterways had a strip of shoreline around them that was publicly owned.


You're assuming that just because the government owns it that they will leave it open to the public.

There is no guarantee of that.

Having access to the beach as a property right, and having access at the good grace of the government, are not the same things.
 
Displayed 50 of 176 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report