tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4954728584544867895.post3583725226289188382..comments2023-11-05T22:01:39.179+10:00Comments on SOSaipan: Beach bummer: when giving is takingKAPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15541898442936527367noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4954728584544867895.post-71470553839333481862009-12-04T08:54:10.741+10:002009-12-04T08:54:10.741+10:00I thought the discussion of this on NPR was pretty...I thought the discussion of this on NPR was pretty good.<br /><br />The state's position:<br />Florida has a state interest in keeping land values up and pretty beaches for tourism--the state's economic engine. Storms and other natural phenomenon erode beaches terribly. The state willingly restores or protects the beaches, but the fill they put in becomes public property. The state owns the submerged land--they've just "emerged" it. Adjacent landowners still have 1) complete access to the water; 2) unfettered visual access (nothing can be built to obstruct views); and 3) their full square footage of property.<br /><br />The property owners:<br />It changes the nature of the property by creating uses that invite more public uses than presently exist. (I'm sure there were more arguments for the property owners, but I've forgotten them.)<br /><br />The Justices also seemed on top of things--asking about adding hot dog stands on the public strip; talking about the complex interplay of state law with the land ownership issue, etc.<br /><br />To me, the reason this is interesting is because Florida is a state that has lots of beaches, relies on tourism, and has suffered damage from tropical storms and hurricanes. Sounds very familiar.Saipan Writerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10030098267460841286noreply@blogger.com