This past Wednesday, December 12, 2007, HPRA member Brooks Porter was featured in the Wall Street Journal in a story entitled Whose Beach Is This Anyway? Now we humble property rights advocates here in Houston have to deal with the fact that one of our members is world famous!
Amusement aside, as can be read from the story, Mr. Brooks and his staunch hold out neighbors have been fighting a property rights battle for some years now. At stake is the fact that Mr. Brooks purchased a pair of beach houses 25 years ago, but over time the Gulf of Mexico has slowly eroded away the beach at a rate of several feet per year. Now their homes lie within the vegetation line, ergo they are on the beach which is open access as per the 1959 Texas Open Beaches Act. Some of the holdouts basically want the State of Texas to buy them out, while others absolutely refuse to move at all. They say that State action to move the Brazos River has altered water flows which have greatly hastened beach erosion. Meanwhile, the Open Beaches Act apparently makes little provision for issues like beach erosion.
But as one might expect about the political classes, the Great State of Texas isn't about to pay up for a fully valued condemnation, something I have often discovered is the case when governments face the prospect of having to actually pay for swiping things away from people. As can be denoted from the story, the State is willing to pay money for relocation costs only.
Needlessly making life annoying for the beach home owners is the fact that the Texas Surf Riders Association asked (and was allowed) to join the suit on the side of the State. It seems the Surf Riders group has done rather well for itself over the years suing various property groups. The accompanying film shows a member of the Surf Riders complaining about rebar and septic tanks left on the beaches, but rebar was put in place by villages and those septic tanks could be found from anywhere and put on the beach for dramatic purposes.
Moreover, I have an incredibly hard time understanding how it is that the Surf Riders would get wound up by this. Unless the homeowners would actually try to define away the entire beach as their own property (something not talked about in the story), then as an interested bystander, it seems to me that both groups could co-exist. The homeowners could get their homes, while the Surf Riders and beach goers get their beach access. What's the problem?
As an advocate of property rights, I have a hard time understanding how the State cannot cough up money for a full condemnation buyout of some of the hold outs who may accept a full buyout offer. If the Act also makes little provision for erosion (and I have to admit I have not read the Act while writing this), then the issue needs to be sorely revisited before more people get caught up in problems like this.
Then there's a philosophical issue that certain groups say that property rights are defined and granted by society to members of that society. If that is the case, then I ask such people a rhetorical question. That would be that if property rights are bestowed by some act of noblesse oblige by society, then it would seem that property rights can be swiped away by society by effectively defining them away, can they not? That indeed is what is going on here and in every place where zoning is in effect.
Wizard