He added that the author of the majority opinion in Kelo, Justice John Paul Stevens, had said at a bar association meeting that he would have voted against the takings plan had he been a legislator rather than a judge making a constitutional determination. “The free play of market forces is more likely to produce acceptable results in the long run than the best-intentioned plans of public officials,” Justice Stevens said in the speech.

Ahh, so Stevens is concerned with "the free play of market forces", eh? I guess that's why he sanctioned "the best-intentioned plans of public officials" in Kelo.

It's conflicted reasoning like this that brings about bad law. Respect clear boundaries, and the law is less conflicted. No need to dig into the incestuous or corrupt relationships at a local level, or review reams of economic data... just call the pitch thrown, and this one seemed a simple umpire's call.

You can redevelop property around existing construction...

From J. Lewis' dissent:

In attempting to answer these questions, the majority has, in my view, unnecessarily created dangerous precedent constructed upon a manipulation of the question actually certified. Additionally, I fear that the majority’s construction of the Beach and Shore Preservation Act is based upon infirm, tortured logic and a rescission from existing precedent under a hollow claim that existing law does not apply or is not relevant here.
.
.
.
Unlike the majority, I would not interpret the Act to permit a result that destroys the essential nature of riparian or littoral property. If a beach were restored and renourished without altering the location of the pre-critical-erosion MHWL (i.e., refilling only to restore the MHWL to the ECL), the Act could be
- 48 -
applied without unconstitutionally severing riparian or littoral property from its contact with the water. In contrast, restoration and renourishment in the form of filling currently submerged property to separate riparian or littoral property from the resulting MHWL simply violates all prior notions of waterfront property rights in Florida.

I only skimmed this thing, but if Lewis is correct, and the marine work is cutting off properties from the sea, it seems to be a taking. He also calls out the majority, as having ignored precedent, or misapplied it.

More water management fun and games in Florida. I smell a USSC smackdown here.

Keep in mind that no such conclusion follows.

For those who cover their eyes and plug their ears, sure!

"Littoral" is an English word meaning "coastal."

Jay,

I am familiar with the what I call the "legal jargon". What makes this case difficult for me to understand is the absence of a real-life example about what is happening.

For example, I understand that "beachfront" property owners in many instances have had their boundaries defined by the location of sawgrass-bearing dunes. In a very generalized sense...Upland - private and Seeward - public.

When I first read the Florida Supreme Courts decision shortly after it issued I was left completely in the dark about how the state law plays out in the real world. I remain in this "darkened state".

I much prefer Alaska definition in this area, not based on plant life or other factors of such nature. I own down to the 15' tide line. I could, if I wished build a wall at that line and then fill behind it. Or, as I have done, make a boat ramp down to that point and then clear away rocks to make going the rest of the way easy.

Although unless I misunderstand this case I expect the property owners to lose. They may have a right to property but I doubt they have a right to ocean front property.

If that's what they bought, why would you doubt it?

"Littoral" is an English word meaning "coastal."

Also can be used as a noun meaning "coast", but only in the (approx) hundreds of feet from the water sense, not in the hundred miles from the water sense of "west coast." I also found it defined as a noun meaning the region between the high tide line and the low tide line. Bring your beach chair and sun block.

"Because they basicaly bought land that was undevelopable on one side, but the only thing making it undevelopable is cost. Theoretically the state would be free to landfill the entire ocean within (3?) miles of the coast, and I suppose then continue to do. Environmental regs keep that from happening of course, but I don't see ocean front property rights doing the same."

I don't believe it's "cost" that keeps them from development.. more zoning I suspect. They bought property thinking they owned right up to a particular hydraulic elevation, if I read this right... and are reclaiming that right, following the government's reclaim of that elevation.

And if the State impacted the guy's property by filling in that ocean front (50' or 3-miles), that's a taking, and they owe him, right?

"A different example, if an earthquake were to make the island I live on rise 100' out of the ocean, my property line would suddenly extend an additional mile or more from its current location, out to the middle of the channel I live on."

It might, or alternatively, lava flows might give you more property. I suspect this is all covered handily within current law, or should be, but who knows.

But Alaska defines the propety line in terms of the tide, as I mentioned above. A more interesting question would be "Would the state owe money upon switching to a vegetation based property line that had the effect of removing propety from a deeded parcel?"

I would hope "the tide" or some other agreed hydraulic elevations determine property lines, in all cases, but again, who knows?

Never heard of property lines being defined by vegetation... it always comes down to a boundary survey and geometry, in my experience. As mentioned, zoning and other regs might influence what you can do on that property, but they can't take it away (unless some blackrobed fascist decides they can, as in cases where regs and zoning are draconian... as your vegetation example might be in some cases).

Is there a federal standard for waterfront property rights? Or, is this a legal argument based on each state's view of property rights?

It the beach a right-of-way like the sidewalk?

Gonzer Maven: Hughes v. Washington made it a federal issue by relying on a fairly specific premise, though: it revolved entirely around the fact that the property in question was acquired in a federal land grant given prior to statehood, and therefore governed by federal property rules. Since much private land cannot trace its ownership to a pre-statehood federal grant, Hughes isn't necessarily directly applicable.