POLITICS - Seems not only does the Govt want your guns .....

[rjohns94]

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 spare could end up seeing them condemned by the state. And it coud be a year before the state tells these homeowners what ehy may or may not do.

worse, if thise homowners 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 illeagal 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.

going to affect hundreds in that community

California and oregon have similar laws

[O.S.O.K.]

Wow. That's really a shame. But, I would find it hard to believe that these folks didn't already know about this when they purchased - or they should have. Still a bummer.

[Ray Newman]

What I don't understand is why-in-the-world would anyone buy a house or build one on a beach area that is known to have been previously devastated by hurricanes? It's not like the Galveston area has never been devastated by storms before Ike blew down the road.

When I was living in CA, I don't know how many times Malibu beach area homes were flooded out & severely damaged by coastal storms. Same w/ the deep canyon homes that burned w/ almost yearly frequency during the summers or as a result the periodic CA droughts. But after ea. disaster there was hand wringing & pity the poor homeowner because of their battles w/ the insurance companies. But they still moved back & rebuilt....

[AJMD429]

We already have case law passing Supreme Court muster which allows private developers to find property they like (homes or businesses), and persuade the local government to seize so they can 'develop' it to generate higher tax revenue 'for the community' - so if your home is on really nice land, it should be a 'resort' or if you own a small business in a growing community, it should be turned into a big hotel. Sorry, you lose - sorry about your luck.

And the Demoncrats just don't understand why businesses are leaving this country for Mexico!

[Cast Bullet Hunter]

Galveston, Texas:

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 illeagal to build anything there.

You do realize that all this law is saying is you cannot build below the average high-water level, land that would be flooded twice a day during the normal tide cycle? They don't want any houses out in the water on stilts.

[PaulB]

The Oregon version of this law has an interesting history. In the early days there were no good roads going north to south. So, there was a period of time when the ocean beach was used as the north-south highway! It just stayed in the public domain after that.

I guess I don't have a lot of sympathy for folks who build in such places, although I don't think it's kosher for government to steal homes either. Mother Nature is the best deterent for this.

I once owned a small home in a town on the Oregon coast, a block from the beach, well within the tsunami zone. I figured it was a gamble owning that place. If a tsunami flattened the place, oh, well! That's the breaks! I wouldn't go running to government for some kind of compensation, like some would...

[Rusty]

My wife and I were talking over the open beaches act just the other day. It has long been a burr under my saddle as to how people who live on beautiful beaches get their houses flattened by a hurricane and then want public funding to build it back for them. Not quite what is going on here, but along those same lines.
I'd say that there was enough damage done by Ike that there will be a mass protest to change that. At least I hope so.

The other issue is eminent domain and it isn't being used properly any more. I wasn't designed to be used to make a piece of property more valuable and increase the tax base. It was designed to allow for roads, schools and other improvements.

[Ysabel Kid]

One of the bedrock foundations of our Republic is the concept of private property rights. It underpins our entire economy, as well as our basic freedoms.

Of course, under socialism and its extreme form, communism, there is no such thing as private property rights.

Is it any wonder then that the advocates of big government - on both sides of the isle - are eroding private property rights through all three branches of government?

[Dirty Dan]

I haven't confirmed it in the history archives, but they say when Stephen F. Austin was crossing Texas and mapping out his land grant, he found a sailing ship several dozen miles inland. He figured big storms might be a regular event along the coast, so he moved his grant inland.

[rhead]

Maybe the state of Texas should just state that they will no longer require that the insurance companies be required to insure these houses in the future. If you want to rebuild there then the building will be insured at rates that reflect the risk being taken by the insurer, instead of a rate subsidized by the people with sense enough to build further inland.
Should the utility companies be required to risk their resources by placing them in such an area?
You want to build here? Fine, good luck getting insurance, good luck getting a loan without it. Want water, gas, and electricity? Service stops 3 blocks inland. You get it from there to your house.

They can build where they want but I am tired of subsidizing them.

[Blaine]

Riparian rights have evolved over a period of time ever since there was a concept of land ownership. One should carefully read their property discription when water is involved. For example, if a stream or river is the boundry between two pieces of property, and a flood cuts a new path for said river, someone is gonna get screwed. Period. The Gubment, for once, is not doing anything wrong. Consider the people who own the lot BEHIND the lot on the water and you will get a idea of the complications involved with this sort of thing. I land surveyed for a few years and know a bit of what I speak.