ABC News Article Concering Beach Erosion

Re: ABC News Article Concerning Beach Erosion

"Destin and Walton county officials encountered an unusual obstacle when a handful of beachfront property owners challenged their joint nourishment project, contending it was a ploy to grab private shoreline for public use."

What exactly does this mean?

Re: ABC News Article Concerning Beach Erosion

"Destin and Walton county officials encountered an unusual obstacle when a handful of beachfront property owners challenged their joint nourishment project, contending it was a ploy to grab private shoreline for public use."

What exactly does this mean?

I was wondering exactly the same thing. Does anyone get this?? :idontno:

They were afraid that if beach was added in front of their homes, they wouldn't be able to keep people off of it because it would be considered public beach.

They recently lost the case and were considering appeal, until their beach disappeared altogether recently. One of the parties to the suit appeared before the BCC last week and admitted he was wrong to hold up renourishment.

Probably had something to do with the fact that his house is about to become a reef.

http://www.waltonsun.com/doah_ruling.htm

I don't mean to sound cold, but it's difficult to feel too sorry for him :roll:

They were afraid that if beach was added in front of their homes, they wouldn't be able to keep people off of it because it would be considered public beach.

They recently lost the case and were considering appeal, until their beach disappeared altogether recently. One of the parties to the suit appeared before the BCC last week and admitted he was wrong to hold up renourishment.

Probably had something to do with the fact that his house is about to become a reef.

http://www.waltonsun.com/doah_ruling.htm

Actually, according to the Destin Log, some of them are sticking to their guns even after Dennis, and are continuing the suit, although they do not have a snowball's chance in Hades of winning, in my view. I admire their intellectual consistency. Their neighbors who want the project are really, really exasperated.

Most of their argument seems to be based on a view that the gulf-front owner owns everything to the water line.

>>Most of their argument seems to be based on a view that the gulf-front owner owns everything to the water line.<<

And with the recent erosion--that would be just short of their living room sofa. :razz:

And with the recent erosion--that would be just short of their living room sofa. :razz:

Seriously! It would be very satisfying to let them have their way and watch their homes sag and fall into the Gulf. I don't get it... more sand, more land, right? I'd think this would be good for them. Being greedy never pays... :nono1:

I seriously dont believe it is greed, these people paid premium prices for their beach, I would never be able to afford this luxury, but if I did, I would want to preserve the property that I worked for to purchase! Thats not greed, it is very hard work to afford such a property! People who work this hard to afford this type of property should not be looked down on, this is not greed. Givethem a break! :bow:

The greedy part is not that they want to preserve their property. It's being so worried about others possibly having access to it, that they refuse to allow the preservation in the first place. :confused:

I seriously dont believe it is greed, these people paid premium prices for their beach, I would never be able to afford this luxury, but if I did, I would want to preserve the property that I worked for to purchase! Thats not greed, it is very hard work to afford such a property! People who work this hard to afford this type of property should not be looked down on, this is not greed. Givethem a break! :bow:

The greedy part is not that they want to preserve their property. It's being so worried about others possibly having access to it, that they refuse to allow the preservation in the first place. :confused:

Right. Their argument against the restoration is based upon their view that the gulf-front property owner has the absolute right to prevent anyone on "their" beach, no matter where the mean high water line is. That is simply incorrect.

I am not a big fan of renourishment (jury's still out), but their rationale smacks of arrogance. What's odd is that beach renourishment will increase the owner's beach, the way I understand it. So, public funds are being used to give gulffront owners more property. I do not understand why some gulf-front owners feel that they should get all the benefits of gulf-front ownership, but not have to bear any of the burdens of gulf-front ownership, which rather should be borne by the taxpayer. I admire the dissenters because at lteast they are consistent--they accept they have the benefits and the burdens.

And, yes, I can afford gulf-front property.

And, yes, I can afford gulf-front property.

Hey buddy - can you spare a dime?

Hey buddy - can you spare a dime?

:floor:

Right. Their argument against the restoration is based upon their view that the gulf-front property owner has the absolute right to prevent anyone on "their" beach, no matter where the mean high water line is.
--snip--
So, public funds are being used to give gulffront owners more property. I do not understand why some gulf-front owners feel that they should get all the benefits of gulf-front ownership, but not have to bear any of the burdens of gulf-front ownership, which rather should be borne by the taxpayer.

More than a few analogs to this - outside the beachfront context. I "own" the property on which my home resides out to the street, yet I don't truly "own" from a few feet back from the sidewalk out to the curb. Anybody can walk on the sidewalk, but I have to mow the grass, either pay for or directly repair the sidewalk and/or curbs, and it all has to be maintained in conformance with various locally established standards. My financial exposure is context relative - expensive neighborhood, higher and/or more complex standards, cheap neighborhood, the reverse.

Re: ABC News Article Concerning Beach Erosion

I thought this article might interest some of you.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Weather/wireStory?id=952593

Thanks Kathy!!! good read :cool:

If it was just the holdouts own homes and businesses that would be affected, then let them refuse. But with how close all the homes and condos are to each other, the holdouts are hurting a lot of other beachfront landowners who do want and need renourishment. It's not like you can just pick and chose which 50-75' lots are going to get the sand. It's all or nothing for half mile to several mile stretches of beach.

There are a lot of beach owners who are very pro-renourishment because they feel the additional sand is desperately needed in order to preserve their homes and rental properties, and are extremely angry that the holdouts dragged out the case long enough that Ivan, Arlene and Dennis came through and did more damage than they would have done with a better bermed and renourished beach.

Exactly. Many land owners deal with this in one form or another. We deal with it twice. Our land legally extends into the middle of our road, but we can't "claim" or control the road or ditches. The public has access to it. Our land also includes a gas pipeline, and while it's our land and we must pay taxes and upkeep on it, we aren't allowed to close it off to pipe workers, fence it in, or build anything on it. It's just part of owning land.

More than a few analogs to this - outside the beachfront context. I "own" the property on which my home resides out to the street, yet I don't truly "own" from a few feet back from the sidewalk out to the curb. Anybody can walk on the sidewalk, but I have to mow the grass, either pay for or directly repair the sidewalk and/or curbs, and it all has to be maintained in conformance with various locally established standards. My financial exposure is context relative - expensive neighborhood, higher and/or more complex standards, cheap neighborhood, the reverse.