Home Contact Register Subscribe to the Beacon Login

Thursday, June 24, 2010

SALLY MORRIS: THE HIGH COST OF MAINTAINING PARADISE

Today the Supreme Court handed down a decision in a case of a Florida landowner against the State of Florida.  The history is as follows:  Walton County stepped in to add sand to prevent “dangerous erosion” of the beach.  Trouble is, the beachfront was owned by Nancy and Slade Lindsay.  The addition to the beach is now “public property” – ergo, no more beachfront property owned by the Lindsays.  They and others similarly situated sued the State of Florida and lost.  The Supreme Court heard the case and upheld the State.  They did, however, do so without prejudice.  So maybe next time they might think otherwise.

The features of the case that stand out to someone sensitive to private property rights involve the incontrovertible fact that these owners have been dealt a loss by the State of Florida.  They invested a lot of money – likely owe a lot of money – on property which overnight lost much of the value on which that investment was based.  This is clearly not right.  At the same time, the State does have an interest in legitimate concern about the condition and preservation of shoreline.  It is in everyone’s interest to take care of the land. 

It is not possible to weigh in on the Court’s decision without knowing how the complaint was stated or what the plaintiff asked, but a few observations and a little common sense seem  appropriate here.  It is entirely possible and relevant to note that public “taking” of private property happens for more reasons than just the public interest in essential projects or protection of the land or just the general welfare.  It sometimes happens for purely political or punitive reasons and should you question this, give me the time to explain just how that works in the real world.  I know.  So, for now, accept it as a fact and we’ll go on.

The Lindsays were dealt a considerable financial blow.  It is the job of the judicial system to “make whole” an injured party.  That would be the Lindsays and other involved property owners.  This is also in the public interest.  It might have been viewed by the State as legitimately necessary to fill in this eroded area with new sand in the public interest.  That given, there is no doubt that the Lindsays suffered a loss comparable to an eminent domain case.  While the State did not “take away” their beachfront home, they rendered it no longer a “beachfront home”, eroding the property value and investment that these innocent property owners had before.  It is entirely reasonable that at some point a court should have decided that the property value loss should be objectively assessed through independent appraisal, just as in an eminent domain case, and the State compensate the property owners for this loss in property value.

It is true that this would cost the taxpayers more in such a case, but this is a legitimate cost and in fact would tend to stabilize property values in Florida.  In case we’ve forgotten, those values have plummeted since Katrina.  When property values are stabilized everyone benefits.  There is no reason why the State should chisel on behalf of the taxpayer at the expense of these private property owners.  That places an unfair burden of the cost on them.  No one owner or group of people should be unfairly taxed – and that is just what this amounts to.  It is, in fact, sadly, an illegitimate “redistribution of wealth” effect.

 By being meticulous in seeing that everyone is left “whole” by state actions, we discourage punitive or capricious actions by the state and encourage only the legitimate, truly necessary public expenditures.  We might even foster a bit of landowner vigilance in notifying authorities of erosion.  There is no way that the State should have taxpayers footing the bill for restoration of private property that they did not damage.  However, there is also no way that people like the Lindsays should be robbed of their investment and thus pay a grossly unfair tax, as it were, to maintain public beach.  If the beachfront is not to remain the property of the owners, the loss to them should be fairly and objectively calculated and they should be automatically compensated.  Expensive?  Perhaps.  But that is the cost of living in paradise.

Sally Morris is a member of Americans for Constitutional Government.

Click here to email your elected representatives.

Comments

No Comments Yet

Post a Comment


Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?