No Beach for you?
In the battle of who actually owns the beaches and how far that line of ownership extends, the Blade reports, Judge says lakefront rights extend to the ‘water’s edge’. Back in July, I took a look at this issue, to try to understand it better and I discovered the main issue for those associated with the the Ohio Lakefront Group was the additional fees and restrictions being placed on them. Some of the earlier deeds stated a different waterline than what the State of Ohio decided.
The issue of beaches being blocked to the public is a valid concern, yet should those who own beach front property have to face additional fees such as this earlier article in the Star Beacon pointed out:
“Basically, my deed says I own my property, ‘to the shores of Lake Erie’ and the state has decided I only own the land to the high water mark. That means the state owns my beach, even though I pay property tax on it,” (Marge) Miliken said.
But wait, there’s more.
Miliken pays a yearly lease on the land, too.
“When I built my house 10 years ago, I had to get a submerged land lease to get erosion control. That means I had to get a permit through the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to sign a lease to use my own land,” she said.
The submerged land lease is 2 cents per square foot of property, or about $60 a year.
“The money isn’t a lot, it is just the principal of land ownership,” she said.
In July I linked to an older presentation that was created by the Ohio Lakefront group, which is here if you want to view it. I understand the desire of sportsman, boaters, fishermen and residents of Ohio/visitors to be able to have access to our wonderful waterfront property, especially on Lake Erie. I go as often as I can to Lake Erie and have spent many an hour at our many parks that do include waterfront access, yet I also understand the concerns of those who own property who feel they are not having their original deeds respected.
It’s clear this case will end up before the Ohio Supreme Court if there is no resolution on this issue.
Down here in sunny Florida, the state owns from the duneline to the water. It is technically a “state park”.
So if you’re thinking when you buy oceanfront you own the beach, you’ll be wrong.
It’s the accesses to the beach the state can’t regulate. Those fall under COUNTY.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:34 am“The money isn’t a lot, it is just the principal of land ownership,” she said.
Sorry, but I promise I will learn to pay attention when I read your threads, Lisa.
Marge Miliken makes a common mistake. She thinks because she has to PAY for it she OWNS it.
What you are actually PAYING for is the view and everything associated with it, including future repairs to the beaches.
Down here, as you may have witnessed in various newscasts, people have built 20 story condos right on the beach. The Army Corps o Engineers replenish the beach at taxpayer expense whenever a northeaster comes through and washes the beach away to the foundations of these buildings. Are the owners of these condos billed for this expense? Nope, it’s all taxpayer. Even if the condo is paying taxes on the property to the washed away duneline, the State pays for the beach.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:43 amThis judge’s decision is actually pretty well in-line with other jurisdictions dealing with this issue. Any Property Law book has several cases that involve this issue and, if I recall correctly, a person can always stand in the water and be on public land. Some states have actually declared that if private property ownership prevents the public from accessing a beach, the public may cross private property without trespassing.
December 15th, 2007 at 3:03 pm