Recommended Posts

FL rules for beach access may change

Quote

Starting July 1, it will be up to private businesses and homeowners to decide if they want to restrict the public from using their portion of the sand from the high tide water line up. That means the dry sand adjacent to their building could be private, while the wet sand will remain public. 

Another way to look at that would be: no public access at high tide.

We have friends who rent a place on Captiva Island each Thanksgiving. It's across the street from the Gulf homes but there's an easement between properties to allow the public to walk from road to beach. Once there, the homes that have fences have them back in the dunes where vegetation is growing. But they "own" down to the high tide line. And we play in their yards. Needless to say, some of the public are not all that respectful, but the owners knew that when they bought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maryland has always been this way. We don't let non-residents on our beach here from the land side, but we can't legally stop someone from swimming over here and hanging around below the tide line. During summer months we have a kid hired to guard the beach and check for beach passes.

Where I used to rent a room in Kailua (Hawaii) the neighborhood beach was quite nice. When I was there it was just locals, but they had no way to stop anyone from just showing up. Now apparently it is totally overrun with visitors parking in people's yards, pissing in the bushes, etc etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My back yard includes about a 100 yards of creek. It's "flooded lands" under law and is platted at the courthouse. And I pay taxes on it.

Do I chase out boaters? Only the assholes.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

My back yard includes about a 100 yards of creek. It's "flooded lands" under law and is platted at the courthouse. And I pay taxes on it.

Do I chase out boaters? Only the assholes.

-DSK

We have some of those in FL, courtesy of the King of Spain. Can you really chase them off?

I "own" about 16 acres here, about half of which is swamp. No one is really allowed to go there, even me, because the only practical way to do it is by airboat or swamp buggy and neither is allowed here. There is a bit of navigable water in there too, but that's a subject for another thread.

I don't pay much in taxes for the swampy part, which makes sense given my very limited property rights in that area. Very few strangers go there and I don't think I'd have authority to chase them off if I felt so inclined.

But unlike a beach, no one really wants to go in my swamp, even me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one was taken from my Boathouse in MD.  I had a defined easement on the property to provide water access but it was only three feet wide.  Enough to walk down to get to the waters edge.  There was no access to my docks or land but then, there was no beach there either except at very low tide.

Leaving_the_cove.jpg

We live on a dredged canal now and theoretically the seawall is community property maintained by a special tax fund for homes with a seawall.  As far as I know there is no community access to the seawall except for a very few places on the very ends of the perimeter canal.

Some places around here have free access to the beach with paths and walkways others have a wet/dry tideline limit.  It's a patchwork of local laws.  The new state law seems overly restrictive to be a general rule.  If it stays in effect, I would suggest that we no longer need government funded beach replenishment programs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
57 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

My back yard includes about a 100 yards of creek. It's "flooded lands" under law and is platted at the courthouse. And I pay taxes on it.

Do I chase out boaters? Only the assholes.

-DSK

We have some of those in FL, courtesy of the King of Spain. Can you really chase them off?

I "own" about 16 acres here, about half of which is swamp. No one is really allowed to go there, even me, because the only practical way to do it is by airboat or swamp buggy and neither is allowed here. There is a bit of navigable water in there too, but that's a subject for another thread.

I don't pay much in taxes for the swampy part, which makes sense given my very limited property rights in that area. Very few strangers go there and I don't think I'd have authority to chase them off if I felt so inclined.

But unlike a beach, no one really wants to go in my swamp, even me!

Swamp can be beautiful and it's a biological necessity, but it's not worth much in money (unless you can build condos on it).

As for property rights in the creek, you betcha. There's a wildlife officer about a block from my house, and a highway patrolman about 3 blocks. Not everybody along the NC estuaries/rivers/creeks owns flooded land, but many towns do in fact draw up boundaries that way. It saves a lot of arguing and lawsuits in the long run, because the shore moves over time.

The creek is a very pretty anchorage, which is one reason why we like it here. Cruisers are welcome, with a very few exceptions. I have chased off one anchored cruising boat who was flushing his potty into the creek. He was an asshole who wanted to argue. Most fishermen are OK and I have had some nice conversations with some of them. Then there are a few who leaves hooks in docklines, cut and abandon filament line, and in one case another asshole who was bouncing his weights off peoples' hulls to get his lure into the shade under their boats. The discussion I had with him was not so nice (I also banged some big chips in his gelcoat to make sure he got the message).

I have not chased off any anchored boats seeking shelter from an impending hurricane but if I saw the wrong kind of ill-prepared ill-equipped boat that often causes problems and damage, I would not hesitate to chase them off.

I really like boats and I prefer to think that most people who like boats are nice people.

If beach goers were more curteous and respectful of property, that might produce a different reaction among many of the beachfront property owners. I also think it is a benefit for communities when they plan for a decent amount of public beach access in desirable spots.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Private beaches? Anathema.

You going to pay our property tax, liability insurance, lifeguard fees, cleanup fees, and every other cost associated with a horde of random people showing up here? You know legally we have an attractive nuisance, so we *can't* just let the public have at it and not be responsible for what happens next, right? How about parking? You want your neighborhood road lines both sides all summer with parked cars?

We have a public park with a public beach, so feel free to go there ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

Private beaches? Anathema.

You going to pay our property tax, liability insurance, lifeguard fees, cleanup fees, and every other cost associated with a horde of random people showing up here? You know legally we have an attractive nuisance, so we *can't* just let the public have at it and not be responsible for what happens next, right? How about parking? You want your neighborhood road lines both sides all summer with parked cars?

We have a public park with a public beach, so feel free to go there ;)

Yeah well............

Property rights are what give us humans some motivation to do something other than eat grubs 'n berries and sit on our asses, scratching.

OTOH improvements much above the level of chipping rocks into spear points require cooperative effort. Community.

Getting along with others is the other big reason why we no longer live in caves (most of us). These two big factors are often directly in conflict.

The "attractive nuisance" is a by-product of our great American legal system wherein anybody can sue anybody (or everybody) over anything. We have neighbor kids who swim and fish off another neighbors' dock...... in theory I would be agreeable to this, but after watching these particular kids, they would not be the ones I'd invite (for multiple reasons including litter and the attitude that their safety is somebody elses' problem).

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have 87 ft. of beach on a small cayo in Honduras...If you can find the correct beach..you're all welcome to enjoy .....leave me a bottle of Flor de Cana rum in the sand near the palapa ;-) which is the only thing built at this time

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At my cottage on Lake MI, the law states that anyone can use the beach up to the high water mark which is basically where the dune starts. I think it's fine to share and enjoy it when I see folks set up their the beach day in front of my house. People having fun isn't a bad thing.

I usually go down and say hello with a garbage bag in case they forgot one and let them know they can use the bathroom if needed.

I don't consider the beach 'mine'. It's for everyone. I'll be dead one day and the beach will still be there.

7990852579_cef18bb448_b.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do hope this brings to an end tax payer funded beach restoration here in much of NE Florida if the public does not have access to all that tax payer funded "property" above the high tide line that is created.  Of course if it is ended, in some places the public will soon have access to their living rooms.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meli, would you be cool with me camping in your yard and leaving shit all around for you to clean up?

* this could be literal shit, we have a big issue here with - how to say this - transient agricultural industry employees short on paperwork here during the summer that like to make use of the public beach just like they would back home in Mexico or Central America. This means any trash is just dropped wherever you happen to be and no reason to not just take a shit wherever you are and leave it. The next hurricane will wash it all away, right :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just pointing out that we have very very few private beaches, and all river banks (up to at least about 20' are public land Gov owned), we don't seem to have a huge problem..Maybe you have more slobs than we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the comments on the article and two of them here have mentioned that the public pays taxes that go for beach restoration and that won't go over well any more if access is cut off.

1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

If beach goers were more curteous and respectful of property, that might produce a different reaction among many of the beachfront property owners. I also think it is a benefit for communities when they plan for a decent amount of public beach access in desirable spots.

If a hundred people visit your beach and there's one asshole, you'll notice... the asshole. The way of things...

The beach access definitely adds to the rental value of the place my friends get over Thanksgivings. They want a dock, so renting on the Gulf side is not on the table. But they love the beach. So they probably would just not return. We had fun the year we did it in the Keys...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meli,

Having lived in Australia and enjoyed the excellent public access, there are major differences the public or private foreshore land ownership here and in Australia.  Based on significant  colony (now state) approaches and federal laws developed over the last 550 years, waterfront ownership and access in the US is a primarily locally controlled issue with a couple of common themes.  Here, the property owner generally owns down to the high tide line.  That includes oceanfront and has lead to places where houses sit on the primary dune AND are eligible for Federal Flood Insurance. Don't get me started on that.  Property is deeded and taxed with respect of these rights.  Some places require public access right of way and in many places, that has lead to the traffic jams, trash and other problems cited above.  In other places, the use is light and visitors and owners peacefully coexist.  A lot of that is caused by population pressures.  In too many, public access is denied.  

Where pressure is light, it's mostly not a problem.  I have 520 ft of frontage on tidal, navigable creek at my place and a great anchorage just in front of the house.  We don't see a lot of pressure as we are abut 1/2 mile in from the river and there are nice anchorages in between.  It also helps that the charts imply less water depth than there is and a tough entrance.  The worst visitor we have had was simply inconsiderate and noisy (and my house sits about 50' from the shore). Mostly we get sailors and they are quiet and respectful of the environment.  Any with interesting boats get invited ashore for a drink and a chat.  We get a few fishermen but, again, we haven't had a problem.  

Other places, with a lot more pressure see more assholes and that makes it tougher on the pleasant visitors.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

One of the comments on the article and two of them here have mentioned that the public pays taxes that go for beach restoration and that won't go over well any more if access is cut off.

Yabbut it wouldn't be the first time that public funds were used for private benefit.... and kept that way despite public outcry

If a hundred people visit your beach and there's one asshole, you'll notice... the asshole. The way of things...

True. Human nature is often illogical. But it's also true that somebody has to clean up after the asshole, usually the property owner. In the case of our creek (all the neighbors own their "lots" out to the creek centerline, platted that way in 18??? or possibly even 17???) most feel even more strongly than I do but are more afraid of public confrontations. I feel that confrontation is only inevitable if the asshole refuses to recognize the obligation that goes along with his rights (and in those few cases I go in prepared), generally it ends up being a relatively nice conversation. I try to end on a positive note (might sound funny coming from me, but I've learned over the years) and get across the idea of shared stewardship.

The beach access definitely adds to the rental value of the place my friends get over Thanksgivings. They want a dock, so renting on the Gulf side is not on the table. But they love the beach. So they probably would just not return. We had fun the year we did it in the Keys...

Yep. Almost everybody loves going to the beach. Which of course is what makes it valuable!

4 minutes ago, Innocent Bystander said:

...   ...    ...  I have ... frontage on tidal, navigable creek at my place and a great anchorage just in front of the house.  We don't see a lot of pressure as we are abut 1/2 mile in from the river and there are nice anchorages in between.......

Are you sure it's "navigable" by legal definition? An important distinction, just because you can drive a good-sized boat on it, that does not make it "navigable" with the rights (and obligations) that entails. Our creek is lovely and I don't mind sharing it with people who don't abuse it, but it is emphatically NOT "navigable waters" legally

Our town is small and it might sound funny that we have a fair amount of "pressure" using local waters, but it's also a rural area with a lot of concept that it's the wilderness and you can do whatever you want. There are also a lot of good ol' boys who will start any such conversation with "Mah gray-utt gray-utt gran'pappy hunted/fished/whatevered here, and Ah gots the rah-tt to blah blah blah." The cruiser who was shitting in our creek got very huffy when I asked him to show proof of insurance, and current registration, and if he'd been in NC waters more than 30 days. He was still not ready to leave, but finally got underway when I began pulling up his anchor, explaining that when I found things in my yard, I considered them MINE (and yes, if he'd pushed the point, I would have unshackled his anchor and taken it with me).

1 hour ago, austin1972 said:

At my cottage on Lake MI, the law states that anyone can use the beach up to the high water mark which is basically where the dune starts. I think it's fine to share and enjoy it when I see folks set up their the beach day in front of my house. People having fun isn't a bad thing.

I usually go down and say hello with a garbage bag in case they forgot one and let them know they can use the bathroom if needed.

I don't consider the beach 'mine'. It's for everyone. I'll be dead one day and the beach will still be there. ...    ...   ...

 

I like your attitude and your approach. I wouldn't invite just anyone in to use our bathroom though (note to self- be a nicer and more generous person)

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see both sides of the issue.  I understand if someone has waterfront property, they feel they have some right to dictate how it is used.  On the other hand, keeping a natural resource to yourself isn't cool.  Those that own said property complain of parking problems, rude people, and a host of other things. Guess what?  Those problems exist in many places.  Try living in a tourist area away from the water, especially in Europe.  No place to park anywhere, obnoxious rude people clogging the streets, sidewalks and shops, all manner of problems.  I lived in Heidelberg, Germany, one of the most overrated tourist attractions in the country, for 7 years.  I had to deal with everything mentioned above and more.  I would have been happier without all of the hassles.   Oh fucking well, I had other choices.   Just because you live on a beach doesn't exempt you from the everyday problems experienced by many others that don't have such a beautiful view.  How about those beach front property owners that claim their piece of paradise, and then rebuild when their place that was washed away, by using publicly subsidized flood insurance?  I was told when I visited Hawaii that they had a law there that you couldn't restrict public access to the beaches.  Imagine what the hotels on Waikiki would do if they could.  The same for many other popular tourist beaches lined with hotels.  Most of the beaches in Europe are open to the public.  One thing you often see there, is if there's a place to rent chairs on the beach, they can fill their allotted area with chairs, so there is nowhere to set a blanket.  But at least you can pay a few bucks and have a place, and they still can't prohibit you from walking through on your way to an open spot.   

The bottom line to me is this.  If you live on a beach or similar, then you have to share it, at a minimum, for people to walk through.  If you don't like that, the answer is simple.  There are lots of other places to live.  To be one of the minority that has one way or another has obtained a place on the beach, and then bitch about it because others might like to visit it for a few hours, to me, is the epitome of selfishness and a ridiculous sense of entitlement.  "Look, I paid a lot of money to get this place on the beach, and you are spoiling it for me."   Yes, people should be courteous and considerate of others and their property.  Shit happens.  As I mentioned above, most of the problems mentioned by the waterfront residents, occur many other places as well, without a lot of the benefits from waterfront life.

I like Austin's attitude, it would be nice if more people were that way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

I can see both sides of the issue.  I understand if someone has waterfront property, they feel they have some right to dictate how it is used. 

...      ...      ...

 

Sort of like the way you feel you have the right to dictate how your living room is used.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Sort of like the way you feel you have the right to dictate how your living room is used.

-DSK

No, actually it is nothing like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

I can see both sides of the issue.  I understand if someone has waterfront property, they feel they have some right to dictate how it is used.  On the other hand, keeping a natural resource to yourself isn't cool.  Those that own said property complain of parking problems, rude people, and a host of other things. Guess what?  Those problems exist in many places.  Try living in a tourist area away from the water, especially in Europe.  No place to park anywhere, obnoxious rude people clogging the streets, sidewalks and shops, all manner of problems.  I lived in Heidelberg, Germany, one of the most overrated tourist attractions in the country, for 7 years.  I had to deal with everything mentioned above and more.  I would have been happier without all of the hassles.   Oh fucking well, I had other choices.   Just because you live on a beach doesn't exempt you from the everyday problems experienced by many others that don't have such a beautiful view.  How about those beach front property owners that claim their piece of paradise, and then rebuild when their place that was washed away, by using publicly subsidized flood insurance?  I was told when I visited Hawaii that they had a law there that you couldn't restrict public access to the beaches.  Imagine what the hotels on Waikiki would do if they could.  The same for many other popular tourist beaches lined with hotels.  Most of the beaches in Europe are open to the public.  One thing you often see there, is if there's a place to rent chairs on the beach, they can fill their allotted area with chairs, so there is nowhere to set a blanket.  But at least you can pay a few bucks and have a place, and they still can't prohibit you from walking through on your way to an open spot.   

The bottom line to me is this.  If you live on a beach or similar, then you have to share it, at a minimum, for people to walk through.  If you don't like that, the answer is simple.  There are lots of other places to live.  To be one of the minority that has one way or another has obtained a place on the beach, and then bitch about it because others might like to visit it for a few hours, to me, is the epitome of selfishness and a ridiculous sense of entitlement.  "Look, I paid a lot of money to get this place on the beach, and you are spoiling it for me."   Yes, people should be courteous and considerate of others and their property.  Shit happens.  As I mentioned above, most of the problems mentioned by the waterfront residents, occur many other places as well, without a lot of the benefits from waterfront life.

I like Austin's attitude, it would be nice if more people were that way.

You can walk on our beach - at low tide ;) - if you came from a boat. There is no other way onto it without crossing private property.

If someone dictates we HAVE TO make a public park out of it, that someone should be paying the very large costs involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kent_island_sailor said:

You can walk on our beach - at low tide ;) - if you came from a boat. There is no other way onto it without crossing private property.

If someone dictates we HAVE TO make a public park out of it, that someone should be paying the very large costs involved.

I can see by both yours, and Steamer's comments, that my post flew over your heads.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It did. I live in a tourist area and contend with all manner of problems caused by them. I knew that when I moved here. That does not involve them on my private property though, I paid good money to have a place where they are NOT ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Sort of like the way you feel you have the right to dictate how your living room is used.

-DSK

More buying something with one set of known rights, then lobbying for changes to increase the value of your property by changing the rights. Happening all over the inland west with respect to stream access & hunting access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:
18 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Sort of like the way you feel you have the right to dictate how your living room is used.

-DSK

No, actually it is nothing like that.

How isn't it? In my case, I own the waterfront along the creek, and the creek bed halfway out to it's width in 17?? / 18?? when it was give it's final plat and deed. The property owner on the other side of the creek, who owns the creek bed all the way out to the middle on the other side (and because it's a very large parcel, left wild, all along the length of the creek) is no more interested in having it shit on or have tangles of discarded fishing line or having a semi-derelict cruising boat wash ashore in a hurricane, or have it trashed any of another thousand ways, than I am.

 

14 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

I can see by both yours, and Steamer's comments, that my post flew over your heads.  

Hardly. It is apparent that you don't accept the limits on your "rights" though.

Perhaps I need to come to your house and shit on your living room floor to make the point clear? After all, I have the RIGHT to do so, by your theory.........

 

12 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

More buying something with one set of known rights, then lobbying for changes to increase the value of your property by changing the rights. Happening all over the inland west with respect to stream access & hunting access.

Nope. It's been this way since long before I was born, as you can learn if you take the effort to (google "flooded lands vs riparian").

We bought it and paid for it. It is NOT "navigable waters" and we could put a gate across the creek if we chose, to keep the public out. Maybe we should, if only to prevent future misunderstanding. I shouldn't say that, since I would not be in favor of it.

This is not the case in most areas of deep enough water to have a boat, but it -IS- the case here and in enough other US coastal states that you and the boating/fishing public need to know and respect it.

This is completely aside from the fact that every right (such as using a certain area for whatever purpose) carries an obligation

-DSK

[edit to add] All this land and creek(s) ... our neighborhood and several miles around it... used to be owned by a logging company who was quite definite about keeping out the public. And there is more than one court case deciding in favor of the property owner(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the OP - Florida is a special case where the state paid to have beaches enlarged and wanted public access on all the new sand. Property owners were not always thrilled for a new public attraction to appear literally right outside their back door, but OTOH they didn't pay for the new beach keeping their house from falling into the ocean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

How isn't it? In my case, I own the waterfront along the creek, and the creek bed halfway out to it's width in 17?? / 18?? when it was give it's final plat and deed. The property owner on the other side of the creek, who owns the creek bed all the way out to the middle on the other side (and because it's a very large parcel, left wild, all along the length of the creek) is no more interested in having it shit on or have tangles of discarded fishing line or having a semi-derelict cruising boat wash ashore in a hurricane, or have it trashed any of another thousand ways, than I am.

 

Hardly. It is apparent that you don't accept the limits on your "rights" though.

Perhaps I need to come to your house and shit on your living room floor to make the point clear? After all, I have the RIGHT to do so, by your theory.........

 

Nope. It's been this way since long before I was born, as you can learn if you take the effort to (google "flooded lands vs riparian").

We bought it and paid for it. It is NOT "navigable waters" and we could put a gate across the creek if we chose, to keep the public out. Maybe we should, if only to prevent future misunderstanding. I shouldn't say that, since I would not be in favor of it.

This is not the case in most areas of deep enough water to have a boat, but it -IS- the case here and in enough other US coastal states that you and the boating/fishing public need to know and respect it.

This is completely aside from the fact that every right (such as using a certain area for whatever purpose) carries an obligation

-DSK

[edit to add] All this land and creek(s) ... our neighborhood and several miles around it... used to be owned by a logging company who was quite definite about keeping out the public. And there is more than one court case deciding in favor of the property owner(s).

Sorry, I just can't feel you pain.  If it is so bad, go live somewhere else, it's a pretty big country.

Your comparison of your land to your (or my) living room is ludicrous.  I will only say that for starters, anyone can have a living room, just about anywhere.  They are not unique or limited much.  Habitable waterfront property is unique and quite limited.  And outdoors.

In my opinion, your stance only proves what I said about this selfish sense of entitlement.  I understand perfectly why you feel the way you do, I just don't happen to agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

...     ...      ...

In my opinion, your stance only proves what I said about this selfish sense of entitlement.  I understand perfectly why you feel the way you do, I just don't happen to agree.

Doesn't matter if you "happen to agree" or not. Kind of like whether you agree with speed limits, or perhaps didn't see the sign.

And.. is ownership of something that you bought and paid for an "entitlement?"

In any case, I defy you to point out where I am being selfish, in that I specifically and repeatedly have said that I welcome other people to use our creek. What I object to is their assumption that they can ABUSE it, or threaten/damage my property.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Doesn't matter if you "happen to agree" or not. Kind of like whether you agree with speed limits, or perhaps didn't see the sign.

And.. is ownership of something that you bought and paid for an "entitlement?"

In any case, I defy you to point out where I am being selfish, in that I specifically and repeatedly have said that I welcome other people to use our creek. What I object to is their assumption that they can ABUSE it, or threaten/damage my property.

-DSK

I certainly agree that people should respect any property, public or private.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Maryland has always been this way. We don't let non-residents on our beach here from the land side, but we can't legally stop someone from swimming over here and hanging around below the tide line. During summer months we have a kid hired to guard the beach and check for beach passes.

Where I used to rent a room in Kailua (Hawaii) the neighborhood beach was quite nice. When I was there it was just locals, but they had no way to stop anyone from just showing up. Now apparently it is totally overrun with visitors parking in people's yards, pissing in the bushes, etc etc.

 

Hawaii has no private beaches. There are only two places where the beach is private and one is a home in Maui, the other I'm not sure where it is. In California, the public must have beach access. It has long been a problem for wealthy homeowners in Malibu, but the state stands firm, allow access or pay a very big fine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

Hawaii has no private beaches. There are only two places where the beach is private and one is a home in Maui, the other I'm not sure where it is. In California, the public must have beach access. It has long been a problem for wealthy homeowners in Malibu, but the state stands firm, allow access or pay a very big fine.

This,

When I lived on O'ahu, we had about 160' of beachfront, fairly narrow but useable.  It was open to the public with access from a park about 1/2 mile down the beach.  We would get occasional predawn fishermen who would stroll down the beach and get comfortable and I'd sometimes bump into one when I took a cup of coffee out to enjoy the sunrise.  Never had a cross moment and we both appreciated the spot.  Rarely, I'd find a few beer bottles and wasn't happy about the potential for broken glass but that's about it.  We made it clear to neighbors across the street that they were welcome to bring their kids through our yard to access the beach rather than carry all of their stuff 1/2 mile to the park.  We just asked that they refrain from trooping through the yard if we had company as we entertained a bit.   Again, never a problem. 

 

I di have some neighbors who got very upset is anyone used "their beach".  As BL points out, in Hawaii, it's not "their beach" at all.  Periodically, there were problems in "high dollar" neighborhoods when property owners would block off traditional public access alleys and walkways but I think the Hawaii courts were pretty firm on enforcing access rights.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - there are NO private beaches in Hawaii. All land below the high tide/ vegetation line is public. There may not be a public access dry land route to a beach, but one can always swim/boat to any beach. Gates (?) tried to haves a private marriage on Lanai, and bought up all the rooms, all the chopper time etc to keep it that way. However a pair of photographers to a boat over, landed on the beach below the hotel, & stayed below the line. Security goons chased them out, they sued, & made much more money than their foto's. Even on the entirely privately owned island of Niihau, beach below the line is public.

    Access paths are a big issue in CA. Many of the big re-models along Malibu coast were required to set aside public access paths. However, local gov't have not been taking over ownership/liability/maintenance of the paths, and they are reverting back to the landowner. Let me assure you that any blockage of access in HI would immediately draw the wrath of locals, & direct action to remove obstacles. In Malibu, money still talks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Are you sure it's "navigable" by legal definition? An important distinction, just because you can drive a good-sized boat on it, that does not make it "navigable" with the rights (and obligations) that entails. Our creek is lovely and I don't mind sharing it with people who don't abuse it, but it is emphatically NOT "navigable waters" legally

You seem very sure of something that is legally not sure, and you are agreeing with my point that people with money have been driving rights friendly to them at the cost of the public. Had more than one property owner tell me while descending a commonly descended river that it's "not legal" despite precedent on my side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Are you sure it's "navigable" by legal definition? An important distinction, just because you can drive a good-sized boat on it, that does not make it "navigable" with the rights (and obligations) that entails. Our creek is lovely and I don't mind sharing it with people who don't abuse it, but it is emphatically NOT "navigable waters" legally

You seem very sure of something that is legally not sure. 

I'm part of a group that paid for, and got, some fairly high-powered legal advice on the subject. On top of that, I've done my own reading; and on top of that, art of what I've read has been past court decisions showing precedents.

Nothing is legally "sure." You can only go by precedent, and decide whether you're going to pursue a case further (up to the last step, anyway). In any event, I try to follow my lawyer's advice even if I don't like it.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, longy said:

Sorry - there are NO private beaches in Hawaii. All land below the high tide/ vegetation line is public. There may not be a public access dry land route to a beach, but one can always swim/boat to any beach. Gates (?) tried to haves a private marriage on Lanai, and bought up all the rooms, all the chopper time etc to keep it that way. However a pair of photographers to a boat over, landed on the beach below the hotel, & stayed below the line. Security goons chased them out, they sued, & made much more money than their foto's. Even on the entirely privately owned island of Niihau, beach below the line is public.

    Access paths are a big issue in CA. Many of the big re-models along Malibu coast were required to set aside public access paths. However, local gov't have not been taking over ownership/liability/maintenance of the paths, and they are reverting back to the landowner. Let me assure you that any blockage of access in HI would immediately draw the wrath of locals, & direct action to remove obstacles. In Malibu, money still talks.

I know from personal experience that there are two properties in Hawaii with protected access. One was located near my own property in Makena, Maui. Then there is this:

"Public access to the shorelines has become an increasingly controversial issue in Hawaii. Denying public access may be legal if it is occurring on private lands without a specific and dedicated public access easement. Though the laws related to public right of access are clear, not all access is public. Some shoreline accesses retain legal right of privacy, usually due to their creation before the CZMA public access laws. At the time, the property owners were not required by the law to provide public access to the beach as part of the development. In these areas where paths to the beach extend over private lands, property owners are not always required to allow public access. In various places around the state, private roadway access to shoreline areas may be denied to the public for privacy and safety reasons. Some of these closures are permanent while others are in effect during specific hours. Maintenance and liability have been longstanding concerns for private property owners providing public beach access across their property. Escalating concerns regarding vandalism and drug use along public beach accesses within private property are prompting property owners to seek privacy measures."

http://seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/coastal-access-hawaii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Swamp can be beautiful and it's a biological necessity, but it's not worth much in money (unless you can build condos on it).

As for property rights in the creek, you betcha. There's a wildlife officer about a block from my house, and a highway patrolman about 3 blocks. Not everybody along the NC estuaries/rivers/creeks owns flooded land, but many towns do in fact draw up boundaries that way. It saves a lot of arguing and lawsuits in the long run, because the shore moves over time.

The creek is a very pretty anchorage, which is one reason why we like it here. Cruisers are welcome, with a very few exceptions. I have chased off one anchored cruising boat who was flushing his potty into the creek. He was an asshole who wanted to argue. Most fishermen are OK and I have had some nice conversations with some of them. Then there are a few who leaves hooks in docklines, cut and abandon filament line, and in one case another asshole who was bouncing his weights off peoples' hulls to get his lure into the shade under their boats. The discussion I had with him was not so nice (I also banged some big chips in his gelcoat to make sure he got the message).

I have not chased off any anchored boats seeking shelter from an impending hurricane but if I saw the wrong kind of ill-prepared ill-equipped boat that often causes problems and damage, I would not hesitate to chase them off.

I really like boats and I prefer to think that most people who like boats are nice people.

If beach goers were more curteous and respectful of property, that might produce a different reaction among many of the beachfront property owners. I also think it is a benefit for communities when they plan for a decent amount of public beach access in desirable spots.

-DSK

Are you back off the Nuese River someplace, Steam?

Bouncing jig heads off the side of boats is lame. But, how did you chip this guy's gelcoat? Sounds kinda sketchy to confront yer average redneck snook fisherman and bang chips into his gelcoat.

I'd like to anchor in your creek someday, sounds nice and I'm thinking I could talk you into giving me some ice in trade for a flounder or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're confusing dry land access to waterfront with public usage of defined public waterfront land. Yes, dry land ACCESS can be non - existent, but your usage of the beach is unfettered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, longy said:

You're confusing dry land access to waterfront with public usage of defined public waterfront land. Yes, dry land ACCESS can be non - existent, but your usage of the beach is unfettered.

Sorry, I'm not confusing the conditions of access. The property I am talking about grandfathers the CZMA. Did you miss this part that I included?

" Some shoreline accesses retain legal right of privacy, usually due to their creation before the CZMA public access laws. At the time, the property owners were not required by the law to provide public access to the beach as part of the development."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I did. They do not have to provide land side access to the beach - but one can access from ocean freely. We used to paddle around to Mauna Kea Beach Hotel (beach fully surrounded by hotel land) and guards could not hassle us below the tide line. They did want to throw us out!

 

Thru your link, read "additional information" which defines the boundaries of public beach and lateral transit access. The areas below MHHW/vegetation line is PUBLIC property. Private property ends at this line. Swim over & enjoy that Makenna beach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, longy said:

Yes, I did. They do not have to provide land side access to the beach - but one can access from ocean freely. We used to paddle around to Mauna Kea Beach Hotel (beach fully surrounded by hotel land) and guards could not hassle us below the tide line. They did want to throw us out!

 

Thru your link, read "additional information" which defines the boundaries of public beach and lateral transit access. The areas below MHHW/vegetation line is PUBLIC property. Private property ends at this line. Swim over & enjoy that Makenna beach

The home that I knew about in Makena was private and posted. I don't know what else to tell you, the local politicians told me that there were only two private homes with privacy in Hawaii and that they were private property during the Great Mahele and survived that way since before the 1840's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come the revolution, all of this will become mute [sic].

 

(If I didn't do the [ ] thing, you know some folks would be all up in my word usage, trying to correct me and shit.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Doesn't matter if you "happen to agree" or not. Kind of like whether you agree with speed limits, or perhaps didn't see the sign.

And.. is ownership of something that you bought and paid for an "entitlement?"

In any case, I defy you to point out where I am being selfish, in that I specifically and repeatedly have said that I welcome other people to use our creek. What I object to is their assumption that they can ABUSE it, or threaten/damage my property.

-DSK

You're not being selfish. You own it. 

My point is that one should not be allowed to own the beach below 20-100ft of high tide, nor rivers or river banks. 

Here, the gov own and maintain these area's and manage the usage of the amenity.

We seem to have managed to get the idea across to users..it's yours to enjoy so look after it.

And mostly they do.

It's an odd thing that people tend to respect things they "own"  under a "rights and responsibilities" arrangement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

The home that I knew about in Makena was private and posted. I don't know what else to tell you, the local politicians told me that there were only two private homes with privacy in Hawaii and that they were private property during the Great Mahele and survived that way since before the 1840's. 

    Altho the State of Hawaii has done some strange interpretations of waterfront land at times, I would really like to investigate this if you can narrow down the property location. Looking around google satellite the only option I see right now could be the head of La Perouse Bay, where there is a large estate behind the sliver of remaining beach, and one can possibly see a lava rock wall along the border. However, in Haw'n history, the 'water' was not owned. Various fisheries could be owned/controlled by individuals (most commonly Alii) but no reference to 'owning' the waters. ( from "Ulukau.org") Without further research I would also believe that passage over a fishery area was freely permissible as long as said fishery was un-touched. How would boundaries at sea be determined? So I stand by my statement that access across surrounding lands could be prohibited, but not access by water.

   Strange takings of waterfront that I am aware of:  Normally oceanfront property's seaward boundary is MHHW/vegetation line, and can move as shoreline moves. My fam has a Kailua beach side house, and over many decades the front line has advanced seaward about 50'. Their prop taxes/land sq ft go up whenever the parcel is re-surveyed. However, the Kapoho eruption of 1960 added about  .75 sq mi of land. The original shoreline owners thought this was to be theirs, but the state took title to all new surface area.  The state also claimed much of the shoreline of Coconut Island, K bay. These areas had been filled in by dredging long before any permits/surveys whatever were required. They took possesion of all land created by fill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Private beaches? Anathema.

There are a few in Sydney Harbour. The owners can't stop you picnicking below the high tide line, but they certainly have tried. Personally I'd go & have a beach BBQ there just to piss them off.

OTOH strangers can fuck off of *my* private beach.

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, austin1972 said:

At my cottage on Lake MI, the law states that anyone can use the beach up to the high water mark which is basically where the dune starts. I think it's fine to share and enjoy it when I see folks set up their the beach day in front of my house. People having fun isn't a bad thing.

I usually go down and say hello with a garbage bag in case they forgot one and let them know they can use the bathroom if needed.

I don't consider the beach 'mine'. It's for everyone. I'll be dead one day and the beach will still be there.

7990852579_cef18bb448_b.jpg

Similarly, here's my old house. My front yard was a beach. We had a "Beach Association" that owned the streets. Each street, however, extended to the water. So while I owned two lots - the one wit the houses and pool, and the strip across the street than ran down to the water, the bit with the red lines belonged to the neighborhood.

However, I had the only beach at high tide in the neighborhood. So it was a de facto neighborhood beach even though it was technically my front yard. Although my wife didn't want ME leaving a dinghy in the front yard, several neighbors asked and were given permission to do so as well. No, I do not understand why I never had a Hobie cat sitting there either, but that's a digression I don't care to be introspective about.

But anyone in the neighborhood had access rights because of that red strip there, even if I chose to be a dick about it. Which I didn't. My newest neighbor though DID, and the sea wall that generations grew up playing and taking wedding pictures on all of a sudden became her private domain. It didn't end well for her when she started seeking zoning variances.

Where it got sticky is if you did not live in the neighborhood and weren't a guest. Our Beach Association owned and maintained the streets, NOT the City. Which meant they were completely private. So the public could, in theory, use the public beach below mean high water. In practice though, there was no place to legally park since it was posted private property. And they weren't really even supposed to walk in. That didn't stop people from periodically pulling up and parking on my front yard and unloading coolers and beach chairs and heading on down there. That was sometimes uncomfortable; I had to put those rocks along the edge of the street to protect my grass and sprinkler heads from tire ruts. Occasionally some jet skiiers or boaters pulled in. No big deal and nothing to be done about it anyway. They never really left messes anyway.

Bottom line was I didn't care much if anyone used the beach, so long as they didn't make a mess. But I did get testy if they parked on my lawn and/or left trash around.

image.png.273885625386f61acf3ae22e4a8777cf.png

Of course, there were bigger and better beaches owned by our town and open to the public nearby anyway. But there were people on them as a result of them being public.

image.thumb.png.6a26a67da8ba50e99d41cc1cedda783d.png

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well shit BJ, now I see why you would sell a shack like that to go sailing all over  the world.  It must have been terrible living there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

Well shit BJ, now I see why you would sell a shack like that to go sailing all over  the world.  It must have been terrible living there.  

It was hellish, but I endured it for sixteen years. Some of the stuff I had to go through, like the time I had to go to the ER when I put a fishhook through my thumb one night with it was still attached to a striped bass.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

It was hellish, but I endured it for sixteen years. Some of the stuff I had to go through, like the time I had to go to the ER when I put a fishhook through my thumb one night with it was still attached to a striped bass.

You have clumsy moments too? I had to go to ER on Halloween night with a full moon when I accidentally but forcefully pushed a very sharp 2" chisel into my palm. Talk about a shitshow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ishmael said:
51 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

It was hellish, but I endured it for sixteen years. Some of the stuff I had to go through, like the time I had to go to the ER when I put a fishhook through my thumb one night with it was still attached to a striped bass.

You have clumsy moments too? I had to go to ER on Halloween night with a full moon when I accidentally but forcefully pushed a very sharp 2" chisel into my palm. Talk about a shitshow.

It was the fish's fault, not mine. It was getting past dusk and rather dark, and I was just trying to get the hook out of his mouth to release him when he started thrashing around.

A 3 Oz Striper Swiper has some good sized hooks. I'm lucky I only got one in me.

atom_striper_swiper_1320345_1.jpg

The worst part was trying to get the hook out of a roughly 5-6 pound fish's mouth one handed, in the dark, with the lure embedded in my other hand before I could go up and get help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

No, actually it is nothing like that.

Correct. Everyone should be able to enjoy the splendor. And I have no problem with strangers walking in and out of my house. I even have an outdoor shower for them if they like. Onekama is made to be enjoyed by all. I'm not getting in the way. Have at it, be good and we'll do just fine. No problems since 1974. Everyone has been kind and grateful. My neighbors are the same way.

It's a special place and very cool. I've made sandwiches for kids that were total strangers. It just is. @Greever could tell you. The cottage is a place. The people are the content. Live life and enjoy.

Looks like this.

22280098186_ced1f33d3a_b.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

You going to pay our property tax, liability insurance, lifeguard fees, cleanup fees, and every other cost associated with a horde of random people showing up here? You know legally we have an attractive nuisance, so we *can't* just let the public have at it and not be responsible for what happens next, right? How about parking? You want your neighborhood road lines both sides all summer with parked cars?

We have a public park with a public beach, so feel free to go there ;)

Went to visit a pretty well known performer in the Malibu area with my brother that is in the business...  They has just bough this house on the beach and they were going to sell it...  no privacy what so ever....  people constantly walking up and wanting to hang out.. 

There were some funny stories, but I can see their point..

In California you can't make a beach private, but you can restricts the access... so they thought in Malibu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

Went to visit a pretty well known performer in the Malibu area with my brother that is in the business...  They has just bough this house on the beach and they were going to sell it...  no privacy what so ever....  people constantly walking up and wanting to hang out.. 

There were some funny stories, but I can see their point..

In California you can't make a beach private, but you can restricts the access... so they thought in Malibu.

They need to buy an island.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, longy said:

    Altho the State of Hawaii has done some strange interpretations of waterfront land at times, I would really like to investigate this if you can narrow down the property location. Looking around google satellite the only option I see right now could be the head of La Perouse Bay, where there is a large estate behind the sliver of remaining beach, and one can possibly see a lava rock wall along the border. However, in Haw'n history, the 'water' was not owned. Various fisheries could be owned/controlled by individuals (most commonly Alii) but no reference to 'owning' the waters. ( from "Ulukau.org") Without further research I would also believe that passage over a fishery area was freely permissible as long as said fishery was un-touched. How would boundaries at sea be determined? So I stand by my statement that access across surrounding lands could be prohibited, but not access by water.

   Strange takings of waterfront that I am aware of:  Normally oceanfront property's seaward boundary is MHHW/vegetation line, and can move as shoreline moves. My fam has a Kailua beach side house, and over many decades the front line has advanced seaward about 50'. Their prop taxes/land sq ft go up whenever the parcel is re-surveyed. However, the Kapoho eruption of 1960 added about  .75 sq mi of land. The original shoreline owners thought this was to be theirs, but the state took title to all new surface area.  The state also claimed much of the shoreline of Coconut Island, K bay. These areas had been filled in by dredging long before any permits/surveys whatever were required. They took possesion of all land created by fill.

You have a very good eye, it was La Perouse. My home was on the north side of Kanahena Cove, I wish I still had it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, austin1972 said:

Correct. Everyone should be able to enjoy the splendor. And I have no problem with strangers walking in and out of my house. I even have an outdoor shower for them if they like. Onekama is made to be enjoyed by all. I'm not getting in the way. Have at it, be good and we'll do just fine. No problems since 1974. Everyone has been kind and grateful. My neighbors are the same way.

It's a special place and very cool. I've made sandwiches for kids that were total strangers. It just is. @Greever could tell you. The cottage is a place. The people are the content. Live life and enjoy.

Looks like this.

22280098186_ced1f33d3a_b.jpg

Are you married? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yet another reason why Oz IS the lucky country :wub:

 

private beaches indeed :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

100 feet back from high tide would be in the living room of some houses around here.

And here, it would be a looong way out in the swamp, still quite far from high ground. One size doesn't really fit all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, austin1972 said:

Correct. Everyone should be able to enjoy the splendor. And I have no problem with strangers walking in and out of my house. I even have an outdoor shower for them if they like. Onekama is made to be enjoyed by all. I'm not getting in the way. Have at it, be good and we'll do just fine. No problems since 1974. Everyone has been kind and grateful. My neighbors are the same way.

It's a special place and very cool. I've made sandwiches for kids that were total strangers. It just is. @Greever could tell you. The cottage is a place. The people are the content. Live life and enjoy.

Looks like this.

22280098186_ced1f33d3a_b.jpg

It is a very peaceful place to be.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Are you married? :D

Jebus Meli!  :o  I have been dumped before but never in such a cruel and callous way.  I feel like McCabe must have felt when Trump fired him via Twitter.  You couldn't even have sent me a PM first?  You couldn't have given me a heads up that some Michigan cow farmer has turned your head?  My dream of a little cottage in the Outback; some chooks pecking in the garden, geraniums in the window boxes, my dreams are shattered, just shattered and turned to dust.  I am terribly hurt.  Maybe even despondent, I'll have to get back to you on that.  The bitterness will follow, I'm sure.  Oh woe is me, I'm crushed, simply crushed.  :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I'm part of a group that paid for, and got, some fairly high-powered legal advice on the subject. On top of that, I've done my own reading; and on top of that, art of what I've read has been past court decisions showing precedents.

Nothing is legally "sure." You can only go by precedent, and decide whether you're going to pursue a case further (up to the last step, anyway). In any event, I try to follow my lawyer's advice even if I don't like it.

-DSK

 

22 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yep. Almost everybody loves going to the beach. Which of course is what makes it valuable!

Are you sure it's "navigable" by legal definition? An important distinction, just because you can drive a good-sized boat on it, that does not make it "navigable" with the rights (and obligations) that entails. Our creek is lovely and I don't mind sharing it with people who don't abuse it, but it is emphatically NOT "navigable waters" legally

Law in the states varies by the state, and of course lawyer money.    I’m not trying to be dogmatic, just pointing out Indiana uses the navigatable language, but appears to interpit it by the Johnny Appleseed style navigation when Indiana became a state.  Can you get a canoe through with the occasional portage around a down sycamore?    That makes sense where there are no internal rivers carrying barge traffic, and most rivers had been obstructed or still are by abandoned feed mill dams.   https://www.in.gov/nrc/2390.htm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

You're not being selfish. You own it. 

My point is that one should not be allowed to own the beach below 20-100ft of high tide, nor rivers or river banks. 

Here, the gov own and maintain these area's and manage the usage of the amenity.

We seem to have managed to get the idea across to users..it's yours to enjoy so look after it.

And mostly they do.

It's an odd thing that people tend to respect things they "own"  under a "rights and responsibilities" arrangement.

 

"....should not be allowed to own..." Problem (for you) is they do own. Now, explore how to rectify that pragmaticly. You(a governnent body) must: outlaw such ownership, compensate existing owners on the value that you the governmeent taxed at a very high per acre rate tjem fogure out how to operate with the greatly reduced tax revenues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:
23 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

...    ...    ...

Are you sure it's "navigable" by legal definition? An important distinction, just because you can drive a good-sized boat on it, that does not make it "navigable" with the rights (and obligations) that entails. Our creek is lovely and I don't mind sharing it with people who don't abuse it, but it is emphatically NOT "navigable waters" legally

Law in the states varies by the state, and of course lawyer money.    I’m not trying to be dogmatic, just pointing out Indiana uses the navigatable language, but appears to interpit it by the Johnny Appleseed style navigation when Indiana became a state.  Can you get a canoe through with the occasional portage around a down sycamore?    That makes sense where there are no internal rivers carrying barge traffic, and most rivers had been obstructed or still are by abandoned feed mill dams.   https://www.in.gov/nrc/2390.htm

 

If a river or creek once carried commercial traffic, then it's almost certain to be "navigable" by the Fed's legal definition and I'd bet for the state laws too. But you're right, it varies from state to state. Even though states cannot directly contradict the Federal law, they can certainly bend it pretty far.

There has been (and may still be, I don't follow it any more) a huge controversy and discussion among cruisers about restricting water access and anchoring "rights." Many communities ban anchoring in certain areas. In some cases, it's rich snotty waterfront property owners who don't want to share their lovely water with lowly sailors. In other cases, it's a reaction to situations like this or worse (anybody who's boated in Florida can easily understand the derelict boat problem, even when they aren't inhabited by deadbeat/criminal "cruisers"). In some cases, the ban is legally sound (such as the many many towns that have mooring fields in their harbors and forbid anchoring) and in some cases it is not (the best example I can think of, off the top of my head, was a decade or so ago in Venice Beach FLA). The USCG and the Feds have been notably absent/silent in the courtroom battle over cruisers' "anchoring rights." Ditto for the rights of documented vessel BTW.

I apologize to the group for this lengthy thread drift and for being overly dogmatic and pounding away at this message unduly. Probably, this discussion should go in Cruising Anarchy except that it will inevitably swerve to the political anyway. My point is- there are many places where you can't just blithely assume you have the right to go, even if it seems like a park or like navigable water (sub-point: if you are relatively well behaved, it's much more likely you'll be well received).

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, warbird said:

"....should not be allowed to own..." Problem (for you) is they do own. Now, explore how to rectify that pragmaticly. You(a governnent body) must: outlaw such ownership, compensate existing owners on the value that you the governmeent taxed at a very high per acre rate tjem fogure out how to operate with the greatly reduced tax revenues.

I think it was just after the last hurricane when Republicans were beating the drums about ocean close property and how they shouldn't have to pay for the problems associated with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, lasal said:
On 4/5/2018 at 9:42 AM, Steam Flyer said:

Swamp can be beautiful and it's a biological necessity, but it's not worth much in money (unless you can build condos on it).

As for property rights in the creek, you betcha.....    ...    ...    ...    The creek is a very pretty anchorage, which is one reason why we like it here. Cruisers are welcome, with a very few exceptions.... ...     ...     ...  Most fishermen are OK and I have had some nice conversations with some of them. Then there are a few who leaves hooks in docklines, cut and abandon filament line, and in one case another asshole who was bouncing his weights off peoples' hulls to get his lure into the shade under their boats. The discussion I had with him was not so nice (I also banged some big chips in his gelcoat to make sure he got the message).

...     ...     ...

Are you back off the Nuese River someplace, Steam?

Yes, zackly

Bouncing jig heads off the side of boats is lame. But, how did you chip this guy's gelcoat? Sounds kinda sketchy to confront yer average redneck snook fisherman and bang chips into his gelcoat.

Well, he made me really mad. And I was prepared for our discussion, he was not. If he'd apologized and acted like even as much as a half-decent human being, I would have let it pass as another petty annoyance.

I'd like to anchor in your creek someday, sounds nice and I'm thinking I could talk you into giving me some ice in trade for a flounder or something.

It's a pretty place, one shore is wilderness (except for having been logged out ~100 years ago) and the other side is a fairly nice neighborhood with restrictions on docks/slips/bulkheads etc etc so it is civilized but not too much so (IMHO). Waking up every morning in a lovely secure anchorage, with literally all the comforts of home, is a big reason why Mrs Steam and I are not cruising (much) any more.

You'd be totally welcome to anchor here, PM me and I'll tell you where the extra key is. And turn on the icemaker for ya

:P

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I think it was just after the last hurricane when Republicans were beating the drums about ocean close property and how they shouldn't have to pay for the problems associated with it.

I am only pointing out the "here and now" reality. If the public beleives private beaches above the high tide line are public property, there is a mechanism and a price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In scotland they have magnificent statute called the Right to Roam

n Scotland the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 comprehensively codified into Scots law the ancient tradition of the right to universal access to the land in Scotland. The act specifically establishes a right to be on land for recreational, educational and certain other purposes and a right to cross land. The rights exist only if they are exercised responsibly, as specified in the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.

Access rights apply to any non-motorised activities, including walking, cycling, horse-riding and wild camping. They also allow access on inland water for canoeing, rowing, sailing and swimming. The rights confirmed in the Scottish legislation are greater than the limited rights of access created in England and Wales by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW).[2]

 

there are three principles

The Scottish code "is based on three key principles [which] apply equally to the public and to land managers":[4]

  1. Take personal responsibility for your own actions.
  2. Respect people’s privacy and peace of mind.
  3. Help land managers and others to work safely and effectively.

Three additional principles apply to visitors:[5]

  1. Care for your environment.
  2. Keep your dog under proper control.
  3. Take extra care if you are organising an event or running a business.

Both the Countryside Code and the Scottish code provide guidance for land managers as well as visitors.

It works really really well - even around urban areas

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Steam! NC is pretty special to me. I'll be cruising by your place some year soon.

 

This is thread drift, but beach access issues have been greatly exacerbated by the building boom of the 80's and 90's especially, that was only made possible by subsidizing flood and wind insurance and emergency gov't bail outs, no pun intended. It's still a problem, but less so in a lot of places.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I apologize to the group for this lengthy thread drift and for being overly dogmatic and pounding away at this message unduly. Probably, this discussion should go in Cruising Anarchy except that it will inevitably swerve to the political anyway. My point is- there are many places where you can't just blithely assume you have the right to go, even if it seems like a park or like navigable water (sub-point: if you are relatively well behaved, it's much more likely you'll be well received).

It's a good and relevant hijack in this thread but would be directly relevant content in the WOTUS thread.

The old view that the only navigation that must be protected is commercial navigation gets a bit muddied here. Charlotte Harbor doesn't have shipping any more. Did in the past, doesn't now. But the harbor generates a hell of a lot of money for boaty businesses. Tour boats, charter fishing, paddling operations, etc. The fishermen and paddlers in particular are going places that are just barely navigable in the practical sense and they're doing it for commercial reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fat Point has its water activities limited by state law.  Some mullet fishermen set up on the navigable waters behind one of Sarosa's PiGI neighbor's house.    This disturbed his serenity.

At first he tried to get the city council to ban commercial fishing in the subdivision's canal system, that didn't pass the legal smell test.  Then he modified the ordinance to ban netting in the city limits.  The city council did not have the authority to control the activities on state water.  So he leaned on our state rep and he got the lege and the gov to sign off on banning all use of nets within the city limits.

When he walked into the Radio shack store that I was managing at the time, I told him, "You made my Daddy a criminal".  

He stuttered.

I told him that Dad likes to net a few mullet and give them to some of the local widows that loved a piece of fresh fish and every time he pulls out his castnet, the condo commando next door calls the cops.

Since I'm talking about that asshole, I'll give you another on him.

After our friend announced that she was running for city council, my wife went down to City Hall and picked up the papers to run.  A few days later, he showed up in my office.

He then said in a most serious and threatening voice, "If your wife runs for City Council, we will ruin your business".

I was stunned, but I stopped myself from jumping across my desk and beating the shit out of him.

When I got home, I told her she should run, but she declined to follow in her father's footsteps.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, a net ban hijack. Hard to believe it's been 20 years.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.493.2309&rep=rep1&type=pdf

It's sorta related. I learned to throw a cast net in the surf at New Smyrna Beach as a kid, though you wouldn't necessarily guess I have been throwing them my whole life if you saw me do it.

They still allow cars on that beach, though looking at Google's satellite image it appears they are no longer allowed S of 27th Avenue. There's a row of them in front of some condos above the high tide line. On condo/public property, in other words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fat Point Jack said:

Fat Point has its water activities limited by state law.  Some mullet fishermen set up on the navigable waters behind one of Sarosa's PiGI neighbor's house.    This disturbed his serenity.

At first he tried to get the city council to ban commercial fishing in the subdivision's canal system, that didn't pass the legal smell test.  Then he modified the ordinance to ban netting in the city limits.  The city council did not have the authority to control the activities on state water.  So he leaned on our state rep and he got the lege and the gov to sign off on banning all use of nets within the city limits.

When he walked into the Radio shack store that I was managing at the time, I told him, "You made my Daddy a criminal".  

He stuttered.

I told him that Dad likes to net a few mullet and give them to some of the local widows that loved a piece of fresh fish and every time he pulls out his castnet, the condo commando next door calls the cops.

Since I'm talking about that asshole, I'll give you another on him.

After our friend announced that she was running for city council, my wife went down to City Hall and picked up the papers to run.  A few days later, he showed up in my office.

He then said in a most serious and threatening voice, "If your wife runs for City Council, we will ruin your business".

I was stunned, but I stopped myself from jumping across my desk and beating the shit out of him.

When I got home, I told her she should run, but she declined to follow in her father's footsteps.

 

That's such a sweet story about feeding the local widows.  You can still rack up mullet at the Colony Point and Ponce Park entrances to the residential canal system where I suspect a lot of your Radio Shack customers lived.

Unless your father was one of the assholes who likes to have a VHF conversation at 4AM outside my bedroom window I don't mind folks fishing the canal.  Lines and castnets are OK.  Towing a net in a fishtrap seems awfully unsportsmanlike and the netban applies all over FL not just PGI.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, dylan winter said:

 

In scotland they have magnificent statute called the Right to Roam

n Scotland the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 comprehensively codified into Scots law the ancient tradition of the right to universal access to the land in Scotland.

 

I like that a lot. Just don't make me liable if you hurt yourself because you're a moron or have some bad luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, austin1972 said:
22 hours ago, dylan winter said:

 

In scotland they have magnificent statute called the Right to Roam

n Scotland the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 comprehensively codified into Scots law the ancient tradition of the right to universal access to the land in Scotland.

 

I like that a lot. Just don't make me liable if you hurt yourself because you're a moron or have some bad luck.

Bingo

I suspect this works well because Scots are much less likely than Americans to sue each other over stupid shit. If we had similar laws, that would be fine as long as they were better enforced that the current ones against littering, for example.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

I like that a lot. Just don't make me liable if you hurt yourself because you're a moron or have some bad luck.

There is an insurance concept in, I will call them the Commonwealth countries called "relaxation of trespass" that applies to the shoreward side 33m above low tide that does not allow for suits against the owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

That's such a sweet story about feeding the local widows.  You can still rack up mullet at the Colony Point and Ponce Park entrances to the residential canal system where I suspect a lot of your Radio Shack customers lived.

Unless your father was one of the assholes who likes to have a VHF conversation at 4AM outside my bedroom window I don't mind folks fishing the canal.  Lines and castnets are OK.  Towing a net in a fishtrap seems awfully unsportsmanlike and the netban applies all over FL not just PGI.

 

You continue to amaze me with your lack of knowledge.

You can catch all the mullets you want outside of the city limits with a net that meets the requirements of the constitutional amendment.  However you cannot do the same within the limits of the special statute.  

See the following statutes:

http://sb.flleg.gov/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm$vid=html:all

That one was not legal.

http://sb.flleg.gov/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm$vid=html:all 

Those boys did not pull a net through the canal.

They used a stop net.

Stretch it across the canal, have a beer and the pull in everything that swims by.

Dad threw his castnet off his dock, that is still illegal within the city limits of Fat Point as he was giving the fish away to non-family members.  And he sure never disturbed the condo commando that would always call the cops on him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Fat Point Jack said:

You continue to amaze me with your lack of knowledge.

You can catch all the mullets you want outside of the city limits with a net that meets the requirements of the constitutional amendment.  However you cannot do the same within the limits of the special statute.  

See the following statutes:

http://sb.flleg.gov/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm$vid=html:all

That one was not legal.

http://sb.flleg.gov/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm$vid=html:all 

Those boys did not pull a net through the canal.

They used a stop net.

Stretch it across the canal, have a beer and the pull in everything that swims by.

Dad threw his castnet off his dock, that is still illegal within the city limits of Fat Point as he was giving the fish away to non-family members.  And he sure never disturbed the condo commando that would always call the cops on him. 

So your dad had a problem with an individual.  I'm not sure how they knew he was giving the catch away unless it was the quantity he was keeping.  I see folks with castnets all the time.  Usually working from the seawall.  I'm OK with that too until they leave their garbage behind.

I believe that Gilchrist Park is within the city limits.

sunsetcast.jpg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Laker said:

There is an insurance concept in, I will call them the Commonwealth countries called "relaxation of trespass" that applies to the shoreward side 33m above low tide that does not allow for suits against the owner.

Otherwise known as common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2018 at 10:54 AM, austin1972 said:

I like that a lot. Just don't make me liable if you hurt yourself because you're a moron or have some bad luck.

We have to fence off pools because they're an attractive nuisance.

Is there any more attractive nuisance than the ocean?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

We have to fence off pools because they're an attractive nuisance.

Is there any more attractive nuisance than the ocean?

 

I have met a few ladies that might fit that description.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2018 at 10:39 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

. Very few strangers go there and I don't think I'd have authority to chase them off if I felt so inclined.

Surly you could send them packing with your wife's .22?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

We have to fence off pools because they're an attractive nuisance.

Is there any more attractive nuisance than the ocean?

 

Some pools are difficult for small children to climb out of.  The ocean does not usually have pool covers that can also drown children.

Nice to see that you are considering people too young to have common sense.  But then gun nuts don't give two fucks about other people, young or old.

How's that dodgy hip going Tom, does it hurt much?

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens when a billionaire buys an entire beach village

And wants to shut a gate.

Quote

 

...

Just south of Half Moon Bay, Mr. Khosla bought an entire beach village — forming a limited liability company that owned the land beneath about 47 cottages, and a little shop that at one point sold ice cream, and the only viable path to the sand.

The next things to understand are that he bought the place on what he says was a whim, has never spent a single night there, and regrets it enormously.

And the last thing — given that the case has wound itself to the Supreme Court, and could upend one of California’s most sacred promises to its citizens — is that Mr. Khosla is willing to keep litigating this for the rest of his life and has about $3 billion to spend on it.

...

If he wins, he could reshape the laws that govern 1,100 miles of shore. And if he loses, all he would be forced to do is apply for a permit to change the hours of operation on a single gate. The legal volleys would undoubtedly continue; Californians do not easily give up a good surf spot. But the last person against whom to wage a war of attrition is Vinod Khosla.

 

He says he'll be depressed if he wins in the Supreme Court.

He also paints everything purple and seems to have an Uncooperative streak:
 

Quote

 

Early in his career, with Sun and then Juniper Networks, Mr. Khosla helped build the foundation of personal computing and global connectivity. But in more recent years, he has fashioned a new image as Silicon Valley’s agitator.

He doesn’t golf with the other venture capitalists. He doesn’t go to the Rosewood, their luxury hotel watering hole. He says food slows him down, so most days he fasts till dinner. His version of the inspirational Stanford Business School talk was to tell a class of 400 people that fewer than 5 percent of them were going to do relevant things in the end. He has said repeatedly that most venture capitalists are harmful to companies.

“This is why I get unpopular with other V.C.s,” he says. “Because I tell them they’re not adding any value.”

 

LMAO. 5% is way high. And that's a way blunt thing to tell 400 students.

He also seems a bit conflicted in ways:

Quote

 

After buying Martin’s Beach, Mr. Khosla was told by the county that he had to either (a) keep open a road that the public used to get to the beach, and not charge more than the 1972-era rate of $2 a car for parking, or (b) apply for a Coastal Development Permit to change access. He chose (c) neither, and was sued by his fellow citizens.

Mr. Khosla went on to sue the California Coastal Commission as an entity and its officers in their personal capacity. He sued the State Lands Commission and San Mateo County, and, again, its officers. He alleged extortion and infringement of his rights. In his view, the government was forcing him to operate a money-losing parking business.

...

His life plan now is to “reinvent societal infrastructure.” He’s recently gotten interested in the Yimby movement, a pro-real estate development cause that stands for “yes in my backyard.” Mr. Khosla wants to 3D-print houses for the homeless to be installed above parking lots. He sketches this for me on one of the perfect whiteboards.

 

I agree with him about price controls that fix a dollar amount as the "right" price for all eternity.

And I think I know of a beachside parking lot that needs a homeless shelter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites