It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Landowners

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Landowners



In an 8-0 decision, the nations highest court ruled that beach
renourishment along the Florida Panhandle does not amount to a taking
of private property. When the state deems a stretch of beach "critically
eroded" it brings in new sand to replenish the beach in an effort to protect
against storm damage. The problem, as several waterfront property
owners saw it, is that the newly created beach is public property. So,
according to landowners, what was once private waterfront property
now stops at the beach and the waterfront is public. In an April "It's
Your Land" Fox News investigation before the ruling, landowner Linda
Cherry from nearby Destin, Florida said, "We want to be able to keep
our beach; it's what we paid for, it's what is described in our deeds...
When we buy property on the beach we assume that Mother Nature
might take our backyard. We don't expect the government to take our
backyard."


liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com...




posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
absolutely disgusting

if gov cant take it one way
they will take it another way.

A true setback for justice



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   

When we buy property on the beach we assume that Mother Nature might take our backyard.


But...
Mother nature did take their backyard. Their property is gone. If the beach had not been replenished it would still be gone. Losers weepers.


[edit on 6/18/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Historically eminent domain was used for public works projects, like railroads or airports or anything that the public at large would use.

So if these people water front properties washed away then the government came in and reclaimed or rebuilt the beaches they should be for everybody.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   
now question:

if the land owners had of footed the
bill for the replenishment, would it
still be considered the government's???
or even a public beach???



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 

How very hypothetical.
But I would think not.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
now question:

if the land owners had of footed the
bill for the replenishment, would it
still be considered the government's???
or even a public beach???


Of course not, it would have been a capital improvement on Their Property, but since they didn't do this the government had to act to protect the coastline for everybody.

*edit to add* One more thing!!!

If the government came in and took there land to allow jiffy lube or walmart to build a store here I would be out raged, and btw this according to the supreme court is the law today.

[edit on 18-6-2010 by LDragonFire]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Deleted

[edit on 18-6-2010 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:48 AM
link   
I dont think anyone should be allowed to own a beach or a river bank..

In Australia you can walk along any river.
Private property ends 20 metres from high tide..



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Why should a select few be entitled to own the world's resources?

You cannot get on the beach at St. Simon's Island unless you either own the house on the beach or pay big money to stay at the ritzy hotel. And there is no access to the beach any other way.

The resources and natural wonders should belong to everyone. But there must be some regulation because many people are careless litterers. And that's just as bad as those who feel entitled to "own" our natural resources.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by virgom129
 

Hawaii has no private beaches and shoreline access is required by State law.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


And thats how it should be...

Let the rich have a nice view of the ocean but the beaches belong to all..

BTW, there are a few private beaches in Australia,
but they were granted decades ago..
You couldn't get the permits today...



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

so if I understand you correctly
it all boils down to whose money
was used to do the work.
If that's so, then didn't the landowners
pay property tax to cover that portion
of land washed away? That tax did not go down
when the shore washed away.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 

No.

The landowners paid property tax for a lot of things (including running the local bureaucracy), not just the beach replenishment. They, and others who don't live on the beach, also paid for the beach replenishment. So now they, and every one of those other taxpayers, "own" the new beach.

[edit on 6/18/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Good point...
Maybe we are supposed to get something for our taxes..



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


This is just insane.

I think this goes to show that the Supreme Court is a bunch of communist toolboxes.




top topics



 
2

log in

join