Florida Beach Residents Lose Property Rights' Case In Supreme Court-
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Florida waterfront property owners by a vote of 8-0. 
Some Florida homeowners who own property along the ocean waterfront were seeking compensation when sand restoration projects end up turning their private property along the beach into public beaches.
Here in Florida unlike many other ocean front locations you can own property right on the beach and you also then own the beach property making it private and off limits to the public.
But when there is a hurricane or other damage and the restoration includes bringing in sand to restore the property- when the sand is added it then makes that sand public sand, in other words, your ocean front property changes from being ocean front to being ocean view.
The beach restoration advocates made a claim in court that by adding the private rights protections it would slow down the process of the restoration.
The private property owners used the fifth amendment, property rights- government can not take private land and turn it into public land use without compensation.
The attorneys in behalf of the homeowner were very disappointed in the Supreme courts ruling stating that the justices have just as much duty to follow the fifth amendment as anyone else. The four conservative justices were ready to vote in favor of the private property rights but they did not have a fifth vote. Justice John Paul Stevens did not vote in the case because he owns an ocean front condo in Fort Lauderdale.
It is time to pay attention to your property rights. It is time to get involved in protecting your private property rights. It is time to pay attention to laws that are passed that hinder your private property rights and it is time to stand up for every one's private property rights no matter what state they live in and no matter how small or big of a parcel of land they own.
Nestor & Katerina, I rarely get political on AR but to answer your property rights post, I do not believe that the current administration cares at all about the property rights of those that own beachfront property. With any luck at all this will be a one and done President...
Katerina - Actually, that fight involved properties right down the street from my house in Destin Florida. The issue really is - if the sand is not added, then the adjoining (non-fighting) properties would erode due to tidal action and present a threat to the entire coastline. Natural addition of sand, by accretion, would not be public sand. But increasing the beach width to protect the entire shoreline was considered "public" by 8-0 vote of the Supreme Court. I know there are some who are disturbed by this. However, common sense dictates when you buy a home on a public beach, you are going to have beachgoers in front of your home. (That may be the "real" issue with some of these homeowners). For all practical purposes, you are still gulf-front. If I sold a property on the gulf that had emergency sand placed by the City of Destin, I don't think it would take the waterfront marketability of the property away. It's really not fun to sit in seaweeds trying to calculate the mean-high tide line -- or whatever calculation they want to use for where you are allowed to sit on the public beach that particular day. I do agree, pay attention to these issues regarding property rights.
So if 4 were ready to vote against it how did it end up 8-0? Just wondering. I understand there is politics to changing your vote when you are going to loose. You can often moderate a bad decision.
Gene- I did not get that part at all. I was just asking Nestor why would they do that instead of dissent?
So, if the home owners hauled in their own sand at the same time the "Public Beach" is hauling in sand, does that save their property rights? Seems like it would, and would also be a smart move even if it costs them some money. Turning a private beach into public would erode your equity...Financially you need to haul in the sand yourself...and keep the receipts.