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

[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.