Public vs Private Beach
- Thread starter BlueMtnBeachVagrant
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Gosh I'm surprised Shelley didn't jump all over you for that comment coming from a real estate professional!! (granite counter tops and all).;-)
Today, I believe it is the other way...
Perception changes greed (c)2008 BMBV
Would one not consider the victory of Save Our Beaches (vs. Walton County) as part of history?
That's a good question. I would say not yet since the Supreme Court has taken it up to see whether it is a valid decision since the lower court decided with the County and the appeals sided with SOB. Plus, the Supreme Court did not issue a stay like the SOB's wanted and the project was allowed to be completed.
Coincidentally, that is funny!
But on the thread subject, even if Save Our Beaches does win the rights to accretion argument, that does not mean the beach is off limits to the public.
if one lived next door to the RV beach access, one could just hop on the shuttle to go get coffee. how easy is that?
So what's your take as to the hold-up on their decision?
Question: Regardless of who prevails in the State Supreme Court, could this thing go to Federal Supreme Court?
Last edited:
As for part 1, I think it is because they also see public/private OWNERSHIP vs public/private USE is a huge issue for the state. Also, the ECL requirement is a state requirement and if it is invalidated then the state could either be subject to statewide takings claims (their are over 375 miles of restored beaches with ECL's) or have to deed land.
As for part 2, my understanding was "no" due to the "type" of lawsuit it was it would stay at the state level but I don't know all the details.
Wow! That is a lot of restored beach. I am certain a good chunk of those areas were in dire need of (re)nourishment. It obviously would not be good for the state if there was a reversal on the ECLs.
I see a possible dilema:
Walton County has already expended public funds to nourish private beaches with the "expectation" that they will prevail in court. However a negative decision can and will affect the entire state as well as just Walton County.
Do you think that if Walton County just folded up their case and walked away before the Supreme Court ruled, that the existing decision (in favor of SOB) from the District Court of Appeals would affect the rest of the state regarding ECLs assuming no more cases were filed in those areas? I really don't have any idea on this.
Regarding part 2, I've wondered why the situation in Oregon, for example, didn't rise to the Federal Supreme Court. So I think you're right; there seems to be a reason that it's held back at the state level. Thanks.
Actually in this case Walton County is only one party to the lawsuit and is actually the more minor party. The state of Florida is the more major party because the appeals court ruling invalidated a state statute. So whether or not Walton Cty wanted to continue the state would still have to defend their state statute. As for public funds, from a legal standpoint that is irrelevant, the material issue is that the state statute requires an ECL line and that ECL line is required no matter who pays.
One quick note as far as nourished beaches in Florida, you would be hard pressed to find many sandy beach areas in Florida that are not a state park, or federal land that has not been restored or is in some phase of planning for restoration.