Take Back our Beaches...

[FrankChodorov]

Take back our beaches

By Steve Bailey, Globe Columnist | June 30, 2006

Think of this long Independence Day weekend as the weekend we begin freeing our beaches.

In Massachusetts there are far too many beaches where I can walk along the shore with a fishing rod in my hand, but not hand in hand with my kids. I can swim in the ocean as long as my feet don't touch the bottom. If it all sounds crazy -- if it all sounds frankly un-American -- that is because it is. Is there anything more obnoxious than a "private, no trespassing" sign on a stretch of sandy beach? People who come from civilized places -- that is, almost anywhere else -- can't understand the concept. The ocean is our Grand Canyon; it belongs to everyone. It's wrong to fence it off.

But what the emperor gave, Massachusetts' Colonial authorities gave away. A very long time ago -- in 530 A.D. -- Roman Emperor Justinian put into writing all the empire's civil laws. Among them: ``By the law of nature these things are common to all mankind: the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea." That public nature of the tidelands and the water became embedded first in European law, and later American law. Not, however, in Massachusetts. In the 1640s, our forefathers gave away much of the public's right to the land between the mean high tide line and the low tide line in an attempt to spur the development of wharfs and maritime commerce. It was the greatest land give away in the history of the Commonwealth, leaving three-quarters of the state's precious 1,500 miles of coastline in private hands. You would think that now, 350 years later, those development rights would have
expired.

You would be wrong.

The courts have consistently ruled in favor of private property owners and against the public's interest. The original law reserved the public's rights of ``fishing, fowling, and navigation," but the courts have ruled that you don't have the right to walk on the wet sand to get to the ocean to go swimming. Fowling yes, swimming no. William Bulger, who like me grew up on the beach, tried to do something about this elitist lunacy when he was Senate president. Having been tossed off a prvate beach, Bulger passed a bill that
would allow the public to walk the wet sand. But nothing came of it because the law also required -- to satisfy the courts -- that private owners be compensated for the inconvenience of having walkers on their land. That never happened. Bulger thinks it is time to try again. ``What you need is a test case, an actual case, so this thing is challenged," he says.

Times have changed since the 1640s, and the law needs to change, too. If the state's Supreme Judicial Court were as progressive on the beaches as it is on the state of marriage, it would recognize that how we use public resources, like marriage itself, has changed dramatically. Fowling is not what it used to be. And the cost to sharing the shore is small. Is a homeowner's property worth less on Long Island than on Cape Cod because people can walk the beach there and not here?

The attorney general's office has produced a dandy little pamphlet explaining the rights of property owners and the public when it comes to the beaches. What I want is an attorney general who will get my rights back. To win, we'll ned creative thinking, looking for whatever leverage we can find, whether it is eminent domain or something else. And we'll need to be as persistent and organized as those who think they can expel us from the beaches. We can't go away after Labor Day.

I hope to see you on the beach this weekend. And eventually in court, too. Take back our beaches.

Steve Bailey is a globe columnist.
? Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company

[estoves]

Sounds like socialism to me.
If the beaches belong to everyone then everyone need to take care off it.
Now only the person who owns the beach take care off it and therefor it belong to him.

[FrankChodorov]

Sounds like socialism to me.
If the beaches belong to everyone then everyone need to take care off it.
Now only the person who owns the beach take care off it and therefor it belong to him.

what needs to be "taken care of" between the high and low waterline that the crashing of waves on the beach doesn't take care of?

how can you believe this is socialism when common ownership is an individual not a collective right?

[estoves]

You need to remove trash that the tidal water bring up to the beach.
I dont now how your beaches look like but where i live the beaches are often full of seaweed and that need to be removed for you to be able to bath.
I wouldn't care if people just walked at my beach, but dont think i would like anyone else than me to bath there.

[FrankChodorov]

You need to remove trash that the tidal water bring up to the beach.
I dont now how your beaches look like but where i live the beaches are often full of seaweed and that need to be removed for you to be able to bath.
I wouldn't care if people just walked at my beach, but dont think i would like anyone else than me to bath there.

the trash is deposited ABOVE the highwater line and thus the problem of the private landowner who owns down to the highwater mark.

remove seaweed in the water - why?

do you think you own the water too?

[aries]

This article is a joke, people have beachfront property and they own the beach. As long as the land is on American-claimed soil (or water, as it may be), somebody owns it, whether it is a private entity or the state. Take your pick. Some people allow others to use their private beaches (especially hotels), some don't. Some people even put up fences on their portion of the beach because it is their backyard, where they have cookouts and go tanning, without the hassle of other people there to disturb them.

This masshole needs to stop thinking he owns everything and that everything is "common property" cause it ain't.

[Caleb]

I agree with Chodorov on this one.

One of my pet peeves is when people try to exclude you from the beaches.  Its insane.   

I have no problem if people want to own the land, as long as my right to use it (in a non-invasive way) is recognized. 

It makes no sense to say that I have a right to use the ocean, but no right to access the ocean.  If you say that I have no right to use the beaches, then I have no access into the ocean.

Caleb

[Lloyd Danforth]

Take back our beaches
The courts have consistently ruled in favor of private property owners and against the public's interest.

As it should.

[estoves]

Are there any beaches that the public are allowed on in NH?
If there is an market for it you could probably buy a beach an charge people to get acces to it.

[Braddogg]

I have no problem if people want to own the land, as long as my right to use it (in a non-invasive way) is recognized. 

Heh, when I started reading your comment (especially this part of it), it seemed tongue-in-cheek, but after I finished it I can't tell . . . .   ???

Steve Bailey is a globe columnist.

Steve Bailey is a globe columnist flaming socialist.

[tracysaboe]

In answer to Franks question.

YES. People can own water too.

And you'd know that if you comprehended that Free Market Environmentalist book you claim to own and have read and digested.

Tracy

[CNHT]

I agree with Chodorov on this one.

One of my pet peeves is when people try to exclude you from the beaches.  Its insane.   

I have no problem if people want to own the land, as long as my right to use it (in a non-invasive way) is recognized. 

It makes no sense to say that I have a right to use the ocean, but no right to access the ocean.  If you say that I have no right to use the beaches, then I have no access into the ocean.

Caleb

Um, it is obviously socialistic to require someone to share their private property with the public.

Landowners do not own the ocean but if they bought property that abuts one, it is theirs to do what they please, including post no trespassing signs.

However, some towns require a right of way access between the homes to the beaches so you can still get to the ocean.

And on beaches like Seabrook and Salisbury they cannot banish you from their 'front yards'. I don't know where your property ends and public access begins but there is a buffer zone.

If it's different in some places, then you have to change this in the town government, and some of you are not willing to work within that. Your loss.

[CNHT]

Heh, when I started reading your comment (especially this part of it), it seemed tongue-in-cheek, but after I finished it I can't tell . . . .   ???

Steve Bailey is a globe columnist.

Steve Bailey is a globe columnist flaming socialist.

Brad -- this is our resident troll who is intent on destroying the movement for freedom and property rights and best put on ignore. It is useless to waste your good energy arguing with him. He will suck you dry and leave you nothing to work with...which I think is his M.O. Don't fall for it.

He means every word of what he is saying, which is the scary part.

[CNHT]

Take back our beaches
The courts have consistently ruled in favor of private property owners and against the public's interest.

As it should.

Yay Lloyd.

[Pat McCotter]

Buy some ocean access property and build your own beaches.
Video intro to The Palms
The Palms
The Palm Jebel Ali, Jumeirah and Deira

Or build them offshore.
The World Islands