Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Watchin tha world go by
Joined
·
8,151 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
they may lose not only the ability to rebuild, but intact houses and land under "open beaches law"
they will recieve no compensation for seized land.
but wait it gits better yet---- they may not know the status of their land for a year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/ike_beach_houses
GALVESTON, Texas - Hundreds of people whose beachfront homes were wrecked by Hurricane Ike may be barred from rebuilding under a little-noticed Texas law. And even those whose houses were spared could end up seeing them condemned by the state.
ADVERTISEMENT

Now here's the saltwater in the wound: It could be a year before the state tells these homeowners what they may or may not do.

Worse, if these homeowners do lose their beachfront property, they may get nothing in compensation from the state.

The reason: A 1959 law known as the Texas Open Beaches Act. Under the law, the strip of beach between the average high-tide line and the average low-tide line is considered public property, and it is illegal to build anything there.

Over the years, the state has repeatedly invoked the law to seize houses in cases where a storm eroded a beach so badly that a home was suddenly sitting on public property. The aftermath of Ike could see the biggest such use of the law in Texas history.

The former state senator who wrote the law had little sympathy.

"We're talking about damn fools that have built houses on the edge of the sea for as long as man could remember and against every advice anyone has given," A.R. "Babe" Schwartz said.

"No one has ever succesfully ever beaten the state when the state comes after you under the Open Beaches Act," said Charles Irvine, a Houston coastal law attorney. "But everyone still tries to think up innovative arguments."
 
  • Like
Reactions: chibbers

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
don't they have to get a building permit first? how can you build a private building and get it ok'd if it's on public property?
 

·
Watchin tha world go by
Joined
·
8,151 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
when they first built they did comply with all permits and laws.
it wasnt on public property until the storm moves the shoreline. now they are are on public property courtesy of mother nature.

hurricane alice did the same thing and folks lost homes to the same law then.
 

·
Shooter
Joined
·
429 Posts
I'd hire a sh$% load of helicopters to come in and dump sand on the beach in front of my house there to bring the shorline "back" to were it was....haha....

But really, I never have or will understand why anyone would want to build that close to the beach. Yeah its cool, until its blown over.......that law kinda sux for them though........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,318 Posts
make a nice big wall.. once the wall is there cant errod away.. my uncle has beach front property and i told if it erods away it be considered gone so i helped him build walls and water mangement around his property no more errosion there now..
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
653 Posts
As long as the taxpayers don't have to foot the bill, I could care less what people who LIVE ON THE BEACH IN A HURRICANE ZONE do with their property. If you choose to LIVE ON THE BEACH IN A HURRICANE ZONE, don't hold your hand out to me for financial help....

Insurance companies don't provide waterfront insurance for a reason.....You choose to live there, you fix it yourself...
 

·
Watchin tha world go by
Joined
·
8,151 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
they said that since the gulf doesnt make sand rebuilding the beach was not an option
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
I am renting a condo on the Atlantic and understand the appeal. I also recently witnessed Tropical Storm Fay as she removed a ton of sand from the shoreline outside. Quite an awesome power for a whimpy tropical storm.

In this situation I agree with the Texas law. The beaches should be for everyone and private persons (like myself) or companies should not own/restrict access to these areas. If mother nature takes away the sand... blame her. Converting the pre-hurricane public beach areas to post-hurricane private property is not a good public policy. This type of natural event is well documented for that location and the homeowner knew the risk of living near the ocean. I feel for the people who lost there homes and land.... but they do not deserve a dime from the government because the homeowners knew the risk and accepted it by building at that location. Galveston has been leveled three times in the past 110 years. Everyone wants the government bailout when an individuals risky decision hits the pocket book.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,318 Posts
build a wall... keeps the sand in place.. then you dont lose your land.. the problem is i know some people that when they built their house they were a block away from the beach now they beach front property in a few decades..
 

·
I help enlighten folks
Joined
·
16,624 Posts
too bad. time foir dumbasses to stop building where there homes are gonna get wiped out every ten years. rebuild with your own money.
 

·
Information is Ammunition
Joined
·
22,122 Posts
since most of the lost beach was on the west end- where the hoity toities live, This plan won't last long.
 

·
Watchin tha world go by
Joined
·
8,151 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
problem is that imminent domain is and has been used in an abuse of power. what else might they declare open public property--- lake front, river front, wetlands, old growth forests,

if in the sake of public interest they can tell you where you can live and what type land you may or may not own, what rights do you really have -- the ability to obtain and control property is central to a free society and liberty.

agree that its stupid ta build there --- but this is america where ya have tha right ta be as stupid as ya wanna be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chris

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,231 Posts
problem is that imminent domain is and has been used in an abuse of power. what else might they declare open public property--- lake front, river front, wetlands, old growth forests,
EVERY power given to the govt will be abused. Emminent domain is NEVER anything but theft.
 

·
Hunter/Farmer
Joined
·
1,947 Posts
Without the Texas Open Beach Act, our coast line would look like Florida, SC or any other place that has private beachs with no public access.

No surf fishing, no beach camping, small parks where all the common folk are crammed into, in order to see the ocean.

Our forefathers were very smart in the writing the OBA the way they did.

People that buy on the beach are made fully aware of the risk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,827 Posts
build a wall... keeps the sand in place.. then you dont lose your land.. the problem is i know some people that when they built their house they were a block away from the beach now they beach front property in a few decades..
gonna build a wall and defeat the sea. good luck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,827 Posts
It's unfortuante when private property owners want to use their property. How dare they not take "the public" into account in every decision.

Just one more aspect of socialism.
when the public pays which is what happens in insurance claims, and when someone f#### up the beach, well i guess i will just be socialist if you dont mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,231 Posts
when the public pays which is what happens in insurance claims, and when someone f#### up the beach, well i guess i will just be socialist if you dont mind.
The "public" paying for a private property owners insurance is socialism. If Joe Beachdude wants to build on his property, right next to the gulf, then good for him. If his house gets washed away, oh well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,376 Posts
The houses in question were in litigation prior to the storm. 3 of them were already in the water ( the stilts they stood on were in the gulf). I lived on these islands as a kid. In the 1960's you could only build up by the dunes. it got so bad people were trying to pave the sand. Look at the pictures and you will see pavement torn up by the storm on the sandy beach. Places like Surfside used to be really pretty. Crystal Beach and all of Bolivar were just covered with houses/beach shacks. You build them knowing they were going to get blown away. Beach erosion is so bad down there you can't imagine.

On Galveston Island they spent years pullling sand off the sea floor to fill back in the beach. After every storm it is gone again. Erosion is taking back the land. We can't stop it. It is not the state of Texas that is taking the land. It is the ocean. We lost everything we owned in 1961 during Hurricane Carla. I was just a kid but i remember it to this day. Live on the beach and it is great till the storms come along. If you are going to build let it be a beach shack.

there is a story on the web today about the guy who built the house on Bolivar that withstood the storm. He says it is built to withstand a cat5 storm. I want to see that. Ike was a cat2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
Of course, they could just go with "keep your house, live on the beach...the inside of your house is your property...but you lose your land to the public".

The real issue I see here is the same one I saw in CA when I was there. Issues such as that law are almost always publicly disclosed to the buyer/builder and again, ignorance is no excuse. In CA it's the people who build houses on ocean front cliffs...is it really that hard to figure out how that became a cliff in the first place? Do these people have enough money to buy a multi-million dollar house but don't understand errosion? Everytime this happens in CA, the tax payers get hit up to pay the cost of reinforcing the cliff and paying for state sponsored programs to fix those homes. When was the last time you heard of the state paying to bullet proof some poor guys houses in Compton? (obviously in the same realm as he must have known there would be gunfire there when he bought the house, and the state should pay to protect it from the gunfire in the same way it pays to protect the rich from errosion - yes, this is sarcasm).

The point I'm trying to make here, is that the only reason that article even exists is because the people with that property are wealthy. If there was some law that resulted in houses being taken from the low to mid middle class or the poor, this wouldn't even have made the news.

--Wintermute
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top