this came out today on bloomberg
Beachfront Property Rights May Be Backed by U.S. Supreme Court
Dec. 2 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court considered bolstering the rights of oceanfront property owners, as justices questioned a Florida program that protects against erosion by adding sand and creating new strips of public beach.
A group of landowners in the Florida panhandle contend that the program, at least as interpreted by the state?s highest court, violates the U.S. Constitution by converting their oceanfront homes into ocean-view property.
Hearing arguments today in Washington, several justices said they worried that landowners might find their once-private beaches filled with food vendors, amusement parks, portable toilets and raucous college students.
?You could have televised spring-break beach parties in front of somebody?s house,? Justice Samuel Alito said.
Other justices pointed to protections in Florida law that give landowners a right of access to the water and bar permanent structures on the new strips. The law also guarantees that affected property won?t be reduced in size by erosion.
?I?m not sure it?s a bad deal? for the landowners, Justice Antonin Scalia said. ?And they?re guaranteed against further loss of property.?
At another point, Scalia said that ?people pay a lot more money for beachfront property? to avoid having to share the beach with others.
Under Florida law, oceanfront property owners traditionally own the beach up to the mean high-water mark, while the submerged land beyond that is state property.
Hot Dogs in the Water
Those rules mean that property owners in some senses already have to share the coastline, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. ?If a hot dog vendor wanted to sit in a foot of water, it could have,? she said.
The hour-long argument gave no clear indication of how the justices will rule. Justice John Paul Stevens, who owns oceanfront property in Florida, didn?t take part in the session, creating the possibility that the court might divide 4-4.
The case concerns the constitutional protection against the taking of private property without compensation. One question in the case is whether the takings clause can be triggered by a state court ruling that marks a dramatic change in state property law.
The Florida Supreme Court ruled against the landowners, saying for the first time that beachfront property owners don?t necessarily have the right to be in direct contact with the water.
Bush v. Gore
The case bears some similarities to the Bush v. Gore case that resolved the 2000 presidential election deadlock. One issue then was whether the Florida Supreme Court had changed the state?s law when it said that ballot recounts sought by Democrat Al Gore could go forward.
As with the presidential case, some justices today questioned whether the Supreme Court should be second-guessing a state court?s interpretation of its own laws.
?In order to do that, we have to become real experts in Florida law,? Justice Anthony Kennedy said.
The case is Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 08-1151.
To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: December 2, 2009 13:21 EST
Beachfront Property Rights May Be Backed by U.S. Supreme Court
Dec. 2 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court considered bolstering the rights of oceanfront property owners, as justices questioned a Florida program that protects against erosion by adding sand and creating new strips of public beach.
A group of landowners in the Florida panhandle contend that the program, at least as interpreted by the state?s highest court, violates the U.S. Constitution by converting their oceanfront homes into ocean-view property.
Hearing arguments today in Washington, several justices said they worried that landowners might find their once-private beaches filled with food vendors, amusement parks, portable toilets and raucous college students.
?You could have televised spring-break beach parties in front of somebody?s house,? Justice Samuel Alito said.
Other justices pointed to protections in Florida law that give landowners a right of access to the water and bar permanent structures on the new strips. The law also guarantees that affected property won?t be reduced in size by erosion.
?I?m not sure it?s a bad deal? for the landowners, Justice Antonin Scalia said. ?And they?re guaranteed against further loss of property.?
At another point, Scalia said that ?people pay a lot more money for beachfront property? to avoid having to share the beach with others.
Under Florida law, oceanfront property owners traditionally own the beach up to the mean high-water mark, while the submerged land beyond that is state property.
Hot Dogs in the Water
Those rules mean that property owners in some senses already have to share the coastline, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. ?If a hot dog vendor wanted to sit in a foot of water, it could have,? she said.
The hour-long argument gave no clear indication of how the justices will rule. Justice John Paul Stevens, who owns oceanfront property in Florida, didn?t take part in the session, creating the possibility that the court might divide 4-4.
The case concerns the constitutional protection against the taking of private property without compensation. One question in the case is whether the takings clause can be triggered by a state court ruling that marks a dramatic change in state property law.
The Florida Supreme Court ruled against the landowners, saying for the first time that beachfront property owners don?t necessarily have the right to be in direct contact with the water.
Bush v. Gore
The case bears some similarities to the Bush v. Gore case that resolved the 2000 presidential election deadlock. One issue then was whether the Florida Supreme Court had changed the state?s law when it said that ballot recounts sought by Democrat Al Gore could go forward.
As with the presidential case, some justices today questioned whether the Supreme Court should be second-guessing a state court?s interpretation of its own laws.
?In order to do that, we have to become real experts in Florida law,? Justice Anthony Kennedy said.
The case is Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 08-1151.
To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: December 2, 2009 13:21 EST
