The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that the state of Florida can continue with several beach-widening projects that will cause landowners to lose their exclusive access to the ocean.
The 8-0 ruling rejected a challenge for just compensation by a handful of homeowners in the Florida Panhandle who argued that beach-widening projects there changed the classification of their “oceanfront” property to “oceanview” property, which amounted to a “taking.”
The homeowners argued that their property will be devalued by the state-mandated beach widening and erosion-control projects. Private property advocates were hoping this case would result in the Court finding, for the first time, that a court decision can in fact amount to the “taking of property” without just compensation.
The land’s high court upheld a Florida Supreme Court ruling that also rejected the homeowners case for just compensation. The homeowners said the erosion-control project “suddenly and dramatically changed” state law on beach property and caused their property values to decline. The homeowners claimed the state should pay them compensation for “taking” their property, which they argued Florida law recognized as extending to the water line during high tide.
The Florida decision ratified the state’s plan to put new sand along nearly seven miles of storm-battered shoreline that borders the city of Destin and neighboring Walton County and subsequently turns the land into public property, depriving nearby homeowners of the exclusive beach access they previously had.
“The Court appeared to adhere strictly to the notion of ‘taking’ as it is used in common parlance,” said Andrew Morrow, head of KMFM’s real estate practice group. “Here, there was no actual taking but rather the position by homeowners that the erosion control project adversely impacted property values by effecting shoreline access. The project had no measurable effect on the extent of property ownership while a reduction would have required compensation by the government,” he added.
Also of interest, retiring Justice John Paul Stevens took no part in the case, which affirmed the Florida ruling and also, perhaps, because he owns an apartment in an oceanfront building in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. The area has been slated for an erosion-control; as is the issue in this case.
