Excellent article in the globe... we all should read

[clambelly]

sorry, but i don't buy it. it sucks when you get harrassed by people when you are on the beach, or in my case, while im digging clams mostly, but taking peoples property to give it to the general public??? those folks who own those lands pay hefty taxes that support many of the cities and towns. whos going to make up all that revenue?puhlease. the last thing i want is the government taking lands more then they already do. its typical of the globe to write an article like that.

[gregory2327]

I am a conservative and strongly believe in personal rights over most everything. I think it is shame when the government takes land from people for good reason even with compensation, never mind the new ability to take private land just so the local government can make more money. But the tidal areas are a tough nut to crack

Do land owners own the land to the mean low tide mark? Should they? If yes then no body has any business being there rod or not.
If this is the case, then do the land owners have the right to fence off this area on the ocean side to keep boats out when the tide rolls in?

Do the land owners own the land to the mean high tide mark? Should they? If yes then anyone and their brother should be allowed the freedom to prance around on the low tide land -rod or not.

It is as simple as that to me. I'm not really interested in what has historicly been done because laws get enacted for all the wrong reasons all the time. I'm just interested in the way it should be done. In my humble opinion land owners should own land ot the mean high tide mark. After that they get no say about the land exposed during low tide. They pay higher taxes for the privelige to own waterfront property plain and simple. Whether they own the land to the high or low tide mark makes no difference, it is still waterfront.

That my .02 (not that it matters or that there are many people around to read this on a Friday before the holiday)!

[clambelly]

Originally Posted by gregory2327

Do the land owners own the land to the mean high tide mark? Should they? If yes then anyone and their brother should be allowed the freedom to prance around on the low tide land -rod or not.

from what i know, this is the current state of the law, at least thats what i thought. i know, in my town people come and go freely between the low and high tide water mark whilest digging shellfish. yes, there have been battles, but people are allowed to come and go freely.

[Maloney]

Texas has the "Open Beaches Act". The public owns the beach to the vegetation line.

[Mike P]

In Mass, since about 1648, the landowner owns to the mean low water mark. That is also the case in Maine, which was part of Mass until 1820.

However, the old colonial ordinance also gave a right of way between high and low water for three purposes--fishing, waterfowling and navigation. Fishing has been interpreted to include shellfishing, and also interpreted to allow the fishermen to place the tools of their trade on the shore below high water. Navigation includes portage of small watercraft. However, you can't rake seaweed, for example, or collect shells, nor can the public at large walk the beaches for any other purpose.

I believe Maine has a broader right of passage below high water.

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by Maloney

Texas has the "Open Beaches Act". The public owns the beach to the vegetation line.

Yes Texas does have this but it is being successfully challenged by the Corpus Christi city council and resort owners and as a result 7200ft of beach betweem Packery Channel and Padre Balli County Park on north Padre Island will be prohibited to vehicular access.

The only thing standing between this actually being implemented is the TOBA and lot of grassroots organizations.

Once the gov. and special interest groups get their foot in the door its the beginning of the end.After vehicular access is denied pedestrian prohibition will eventually follow.

[likwid]

If this gets pushed, all the area land owners will do and have the towns do is put up no parking signs.

No access, no beach.

And its pissing me the eff off.

[Canalman]

Originally Posted by clambelly

sorry, but i don't buy it. it sucks when you get harrassed by people when you are on the beach, or in my case, while im digging clams mostly, but taking peoples property to give it to the general public??? those folks who own those lands pay hefty taxes that support many of the cities and towns. whos going to make up all that revenue?puhlease. the last thing i want is the government taking lands more then they already do. its typical of the globe to write an article like that.

Well... I don't think you're seeing things clearly... and I'm not trying to start a big battle here, we are the ONLY state that has this weird law and... this would not take away their land, just about 10 feet of it.. low tide to high water... the ocean is everyones and this elitist attitude the shore dwellers have adopted is just ugly... but this law will not be overturned so you don't have to worry about the tax support...

-Dave

[Redsoxticket]

The ocean belongs to state (i.e. everyone) and if there was "no" easement or right of way between the high and low tide the ocean would be land locked or ocean locked in this case. The ocean is a resource just like a farm and one is entitled to its crops.

[Tagger]

No access ? Then No National Flood Insurance... Want to be private ? Then get your own flood insurance privately . That will open up some water front over time,, and a big burden off the tax payers back ,,,This idea will never fly with so many politicains owning water front .

[Backbeach Jake]

Originally Posted by Tagger

No access ? Then No National Flood Insurance... Want to be private ? Then get your own flood insurance privately . That will open up some water front over time,, and a big burden off the tax payers back ,,,This idea will never fly with so many politicains owning water front .

Brilliant! I've always had a little resentment over subsidizing Flood insurance for someone who wouldn't give me the time of day much less than invite me over. And those poor unfortunates who try to throw me off the beach, I tell them " Call a Cop". They never do.

[Sweetwater]

I am also a very strong proponent of land and property rights. However, the question here is equal parts "access" and property rights. The ocean is a public resource and when land owners deny access to public property, that is were the rights of the two parties converge and reasonable resolutions are needed.

In some states, beach front property owners have rights up and unto a reasonable point that also allows public use of the beach. For example, in South Carolina, beach front property owners have rights to the dune edge (which is quite some distance from the high tide line due to the very broad beaches along those stretches). Further, there are regular easments along the beach front that allow the public to walk to the beach between properties.

I was shocked when I first moved to Massachusetts (1981) and found there there were such things as "private beaches" and when I encountered my first fence that extended to the high water mark. This is an anathema in many states (like South Carolina) that are VERY strong property rights states.

I think we can come to a reasonable use of land that both provides public access to a public resource, while protecting the rights of those of have substantial investments in beach front properties. However it will require a change in attitudes among both owners and the public.