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 spared could end up seeing them condemned by the state.
Now here’s the saltwater in the wound: It could be a year before the state tells these homeowners what they may or may not do.
Worse, if these homeowners 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 illegal to build anything there.
“I don’t like it one bit,” said Phillip Curtis, 58, a Dallas contractor who owns two homes — a $350,000 vacation home and a $200,000 rental — on Galveston Island’s Jamaica Beach. “I think the state should allow us to try to save the houses. I don’t appreciate the state telling people, ‘Now it belongs to us.’ It breaks your heart.”
The former state senator who wrote the law had little sympathy.
“We’re talking about damn fools that have built houses on the edge of the sea for as long as man could remember and against every advice anyone has given,” A.R. “Babe” Schwartz said.
No storm swell affects the average high tide or low tide line.
This is stupid. Just like everything that has the word Texas in it. Just like any insurance program for houses built in flood zones, tide zones, below sea level etc.
If the law was enforced there wouldn’t have been any building. That it wasn’t, could the state be sued for enforcing it now?
#1 “This is stupid. Just like everything that has the word Texas in it.”
Under CA law, anything seaward of the mean high tide line is public land… I wouldn’t be surprised if many states have similar laws on the books.
anyone that builds in the bulls eye of hurricanes are coconuts, if the beach moves then you will too, you gamble you lose don’t expect tax payers to bail you out.
#3–Paddy==I think that is the law everywhere in the world. So what?
Damn fools is right. How about a compromise? You can build but you are ON YOUR OWN! No rescue, no insurance, no bailout, no nothing…
Anyone who lives in a risky area assumes the risk THEMSELVES.
There are places everywhere that fit this definition, here in California, earthquakes/fires/tsunamis/mudslides/floods/avalanches/cost of gas/ taxes/crappy roads/democrats vs. republicans. (I’m sure there are more)
In Illinois where I ‘grew up’ flooding and basically all of the above.
Any ‘risk takers’ out there?
This is wrong. The government should have no right to take someone personal property just because they don’t like where its built.
By that same token though, when a storm comes in and destroys the house, the owner should get no help from the government, if you are stupid enough to build your house on sand, with no flood insurance, you deserve what you get.
In short, I don’t care if you build your house on a sand barge, but when it sinks the only help you will get from the government is coast guard boat to fish your stupid self out, and even then I would tempted to bill you for it.
Sounds like the real issue is that they should not have built the homes in the first place.
Fuck them.
here in socal, the public, (thats you and I) have no access to the public beaches in Malibu because the rich Malibu residents claim their “Privacy” would be invaded. to this day, there it still no real access to the Malibu beaches other then walking from the beaches of Pacific Palisades.
in conclusion
Fuck them, and while there at it, take away all those celebrity homes in Malubu too.
Some better focus on what is the issue is likely needed… From experience in the coastal region I live in, the problem is probably the shift in the high tide line due to the huge erosion from equally huge storm. Hence, the houses which were built near the beach are now literally on it. Houses can be built quite safely for such conditions (see Venice, Italy) and survive (place 60 ft. deep supports and raise house 15 ft. up,… for example). Question is, now that the house is on the (public) beach itself, should it be raised as illegal (I think it should) and whether the state should pay the owner the market value or nothing for it (pay the market value in my opinion, if the owner did originally build it properly and lawfully).
A guy who wrote a law in 1959 is still alive? What’s the guys name, Lazarus Long.
This is as it should be. If the land under your house erodes and there is nothing but water there you can’t rebuild. Everyone was warned this could happen (it’s part of their deeds and title work) and knew the risks. What’s the alternative? Spend millions to rebuild beaches so fools can build a new house to get washed away again? I think not.
#2 “If the law was enforced there wouldn’t have been any building. That it wasn’t, could the state be sued for enforcing it now?”
The houses were probably built prior to 1959 and grandfathered in.
To answer your question if the law just wasn’t previously enforced the answer is probably, no.
#10–dusan==wrong solution. All houses now below high tide can stay where they are, grandfathered in. Let them stay until they get swamped and destroyed. Why should the Fed buy them out?
John Stoessel had a segment on his own beach house on Long Island. Its been destroyed twice and rebuilt three times==all with Federally guaranteed insurance.
So, let people build and stay where they are. Just don’t use tax dollars to guarantee their foolishness–or to buy they out from underneath it.
#9 Joe, you are the only one right in this discussion. I agree wholly with your assessment. “fuck them”
The bastards wanted to remove our ability to walk along the beach as it destroys their privacy, they want the friggen beach as a sign of their personal wealth. Let them take it on the chin. I say not only should we not pay them a dime, but run bulldozers along the damn beaches clearing out those monuments to stupidity all along both ocean shorelines.
Save the tax payers money so we don’t have to spend our money protecting their simple asses when mother nature gets a little riled up.
I live in coastal North Carolina. I have seen tax payers monies used to subsidize rebuilding of million dollar+ residences on the beach after storms. I doubt the nation as a whole is in favor of that.
Well, if the Fed has $500 billion to bail out the idiots on Wall Street, then why not just bail everyone out, for do anything stupid?
Welcome to the “no fault” world.
This is anything but news. This is ‘olds’. It’s been this way for quite some time. I don’t even live there and I’ve known about it for awhile. Maybe you guys haven’t seen the photos but the surge removed as many as 10′-12′ of sand beneath many beach front properties, effectively making the shore line dozens of feet closer to land in some places. You can’t build homes that close to the water – sorry. So yes, this does effect where the tides come in. It’s only the wealthy bastards who don’t pay attention when they buy who get upset about this. Everyone else is aware of the risk and just hope for the best.
#8 – “Sounds like the real issue is that they should not have built the homes in the first place.”
The real issue is that, in a free country, you can do what you want with your land, as long as you aren’t affecting the property rights of other citizens.
That means your problems, destruction of your home, is not financed by the coerced confiscation of other’s wealth.
So, if it turns out that this is not their property, can I assume they will be receiving a nice big property tax refund?
Public access to waterfront land is common all over the world. It allows maritime transport of cargo, without the complication of trespass. No one imagined that a fool would build a home on sand, in the 19th century.
Sounds like a land grab to me. Did they find oil there?
#1 No storm swell affects the average high tide or low tide line.
Ever hear of erosion?
I say to hell with these folks. Anyone stupid or inbred enough to build on sand in a hurricane prone area, and on the Texas gulf coast doesn’t deserve help and MY TAX DOLLARS should NOT be used to help the dumb asses.
I’ve visited the gulf coast of Texas, and it is in contention for the nastiest area I’ve ever visited anywhere in the world.
“average high-tide line and the average low-tide line is considered public property, and it is illegal to build anything there.”
PLEASE understand what this is SAYING..
LOW TIDE=lowest point the tide draws back
HIGH TIDE= highest point the Tide rises..
This is where the water IS’ the rest of the time, BETWEEN High and LOW TIDE..
For those that LIVE on the coast 2 more points SHOULD be observed.
1. 200′ BACk from this area.
2. AT LEAST a 10′ rise ABOVE the high tide zone.
Do you know why??
Tidal surge.
Storms can cover that range VERY Easily..
If you Build you home in that AREA..ITS YOUR FAULT.
#24: That you, Dr Know?
I don’t think these people will walk away penniless. Lots are surveyed and laid out according to reference points. If that land is now underwater, the original owner still owns that piece of land.
If the government wants to prevent anyone from rebuilding then that would be a “taking”. That is quite legal, as long as the government pays them for it. See the Fifth Amendment.
#19, Aduh – yours is the only response that acknowledges reality. The sand was swept out to sea by the surge resulting in a change in the high/low tide lines, hence, what used to be the beachfront property is now underwater property.
Why a moron wants to try to rebuild in the water, I don’t understand. In the final analysis, he has to take responibility for his decision to build right on the shoreline. I hope he has insurance as there is no way this should be a state problem.
Also, the reason for the delay in making a final decision before they are allowed to be stupid…. er allowed to rebuild is that after the dramtic erosion during the storm, they have to wait for the new high tide mark to stabilise.
They won’t get a tax refund for any sunken land, because in the past, when there was a building on it, it had some value. If there newly resized lot is not buildable anymore, then the value of the land will diminish greatly, with a corresponding reduction in future taxes.
Don
the BEST part is developing on SWAMP land..
THEn expecting it NOT to sink.
Misleading title; not “Texas” but “Texas taxpayers”. Why should the Texas taxpayer be responsibile for someone who builds in a hazardous location?
These folks need to affirm, with their building permit, that they are building in a known hazardous area and relinquish any claim to public funds.