| | |  Puerto Vallarta Real Estate | December 2009 
High Court Appears Divided On Beach-Property Case
 Associated Press
go to original
December 03, 2009
US High Court To Decide: Who Owns Preserved Beach?
 |  | The homeowners want the state to pay them undetermined compensation for 'taking' their property, which Florida law had long recognized as extending to the water. |  | | |
The Supreme Court is weighing whether Florida homeowners must be compensated because a beach-widening project cost them their exclusive access to the Gulf of Mexico.
The justices heard argument Wednesday in a case with potentially widespread implications for coastal communities nationwide that confront beach erosion.
The court is being asked to rule for the first time that a court decision can amount to a taking of property. The Constitution requires governments to pay "just compensation" when they take private property for public use.
Six homeowners in Florida's panhandle are challenging a Florida Supreme Court decision that changed their "beachfront property to beach view property," their lawyer, D. Kent Safriet, told the court.
The Florida court decision ratified the designation of the new sand along nearly seven miles of storm-battered beach that stretches through the city of Destin and neighboring Walton County as public property, depriving the homeowners of the exclusive beach access they previously enjoyed.
They say the ruling "suddenly and dramatically changed" state law on beach property and caused their property values to decline. The homeowners want the state to pay them undetermined compensation for "taking" their property, which Florida law had long recognized as extending to the water.
The court appeared divided about whether the homeowners lost anything.
"People pay a lot more money for beachfront homes," Justice Antonin Scalia said.
On the other hand, Scalia said, the homeowners received what sounded like a good deal. "I'm not sure whether I wouldn't want to have the sand replaced at the cost of having a 60-foot stretch that the state owns," Scalia said.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito appeared to favor the homeowners.
Alito asked Florida Solicitor General Scott D. Makar whether the homeowners could do anything to prevent "televised spring break beach parties in front of somebody's house" on the new public beach.
Justice Stephen Breyer suggested the state was taking a reasonable approach, undertaking critical erosion control while assuring that the homeowners would have access to the water and prohibiting anything from being built on the new beach.
The Obama administration and 26 states are backing Florida in urging the court to reject the challenge.
The state says it did not touch the homeowners' existing beach property and undertook the sand-pumping project to preserve the area's attractiveness to tourists, but also to protect the homes and the beach in front of them.
The homeowners still have private beachfront and can use the new stretch of sand paid for with taxpayer dollars, the state says.
Some of the homes are already near beaches with public access, meaning beachgoers could walk to a part of the sand that was previously deemed private.
Justice John Paul Stevens was absent from Wednesday's argument with no explanation. Stevens owns an apartment in a beachfront building in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.
A decision is expected by June. |
|
| |
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us