Save Our Beaches

Destin, Fl Beach Restoration Articles

Southeastern Legal Foundation Letter 12/13/2005

6100 Lake Forrest Drive, Suite 520, Atlanta, GA 30328 (404) 257-9667, Fax (404) 257-0049

www.southeasternlegal.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:Todd Young

770/587-5733

770/317-2423

December 13, 2005

BEACHFRONT HOMEOWNERS PUT CITY ON NOTICE

DESTIN, FL/ATLANTA, GA: The battle between homeowners on Destin’s private beaches and the City of Destin government machine has ratcheted up another notch. Several of the beachfront homeowners sent a letter today informing the City and its contractors that neither the government nor its contractors have permission to enter upon the homeowners’ private property to conduct the currently scheduled beach “renourishment” activities or for any other reason.

In a letter addressed to the Mayor, City Council, Okaloosa County Commission, and both of the City’s contractors, Taylor Engineering and Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company, attorneys representing the homeowners stated, “any attempt to enter upon private property will be deemed a trespass and will result in a civil action against you and may result in criminal prosecution.”

Shannon L. Goessling, Executive Director of Southeastern Legal Foundation, the public interest law firm representing the homeowners, explained, “Whether the City of Destin government likes it or not, this is still America. In this country, we do not go onto someone’s private property and dump thousands of pounds of sand all over it without the owner’s permission.” Goessling continued, “If the City officials think access is needed for a legitimate public purpose, and they cannot obtain permission voluntarily, the City government can use its powers to condemn the appropriate interests, just like every other city in the United States.”

“The City of Destin’s representatives, like many other misinformed government officials who act as though above the law, think they can do whatever they want just by making imperial pronouncements,” said Ms. Goessling.

“We know that the public is clamoring for more beach access,” Ms. Goessling said, “and the City wants to give the public what it wants. But in our country, private property is private, no matter how much the public wants it.”

SLF, founded in 1976, is a public interest law firm that advocates limited government, individual economic freedom, and the free enterprise system in the courts of law and public opinion. In 2000, SLF attorneys represented a group of Destin beachfront property owners in the successful effort to stop the Destin City Council from enacting a similar beach property “taking” without just compensation.

###

Destin Log 9/17/2005

I could not help but have an ironic chuckle upon reading Jim Wagner's column describing his post-Katrina tour of Destin with Mayor Craig Barker and City Manager Greg Kisela.

Wagner writes, "From time to time, one of the men in the van would say they were glad they didn't own gulf front property. We all wondered how insurance rates might go up. We wondered how many more hurricanes will it take for some beachfront homeowners to throw in the towel and "get out of Dodge" as Kisela put it."

As these statements reveal, beachfront ownership surely is not for the timid. In the best of times, house prices are exorbitant, insurance rates are high and ever rising, taxes are burdensome, and maintenance issues are constantly arising. The problems are exacerbated when tropical storms and hurricanes unleash their fury, and insurance seldom seems to cover the many storm losses. You live with the reality that you can lose it all.

Much of the economy of Destin is due to the willingness of beachfront owners to take risks, which profits many in the community. Non-owners enjoy the economic benefit without actually taking the risk themselves.

Most beachfront owners contribute substantially to the Destin economy and tax base, while placing minimal strain on governmental services and infrastructure such as schools and roads.

What are the rewards of having beachfront property and accepting these substantial risks? One obvious reward is seeing the beauty of the gulf, but more important, the ownership of the beach to the waterline is why people are willing to take the risk. But why spend the money or take the risk, if you are not guaranteed the use and ownership of that beachfront?

Can you comprehend the frustration of you, your family and guests being unable to use your 40,50 or 60 feet of paradise because those with no risk or investment have their blankets, chairs and umbrellas covering your property? And what of the fairness to renters who pay thousands of dollars to secure a beach house and private beach, and then being crowded out by interlopers unwilling to use the public beaches.

And so there's no misunderstanding, the objection is not to those who traverse the shore walking, jogging or shelling. The objection is to those who set up for hours on private property and crowd out those who paid for the privilege.

The beach restoration project Wagner, Barker and Kisela are promoting will take waterfront property from owners who take all the risks. Many owners do not object to the restoration per se, but just to the attendant government property grab, which will take or dilute private property rights which were duly purchased.

So while these gentlemen admit they are not personally willing to take on the risk of beachfront ownership, they have no qualms about forcing those who take the risks to sacrifice their private property and make it available to one and all. How un-American. How hypocritical.

Linda Z. Cherry

BEACHFRONT LAWSUIT NOT ABOUT BEACH RENOURISHMENT; DEFINE TERMS FOR ALL PARTIES

DESTIN, FL/ATLANTA, GA: The Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) today countered what it characterizes as “misguided and ill-informed criticism” of Destin’s beachfront property owners’ efforts to protect private property. SLF also criticized what it characterized as the “intentional effort to blur the important definitions of key words in the City of Destin’s efforts to take private property” [SEE ATTACHED PAGE].

“Public relations efforts by the City of Destin government aside, the lawsuit filed by Save Our Beaches is not about keeping beach renourishment from taking place,” said Shannon L. Goessling, SLF executive director. “The State of Florida can do beach renourishment on its own accord at any time – so let’s not be fooled by the ‘sky is falling’ rhetoric of the city’s allies. The lawsuit does not address this issue.”

“This lawsuit is about the City of Destin government attempting to take private property under cover of ‘saving the beach.’ Their efforts are as unconstitutional today as they were before hurricane Dennis,” Goessling said. “There are two separate issues here – beach renourishment, and the private property grab by the City of Destin. They are not one and the same.”

In the interest of clarification, SLF also points out that, despite the loud and repeated assertions by select engineers and other “experts” on beach management who have attempted to justify Destin’s property grab, many nationally recognized experts disagree with the effectiveness of beach fortification in the first place. “It’s arrogant of us to think we’ll solve the problem, especially in Florida, which has a long record of hurricane damage,” Dr. Orrin Pilkey, Jr. told the national media last week in reference to the Gulf Coast issues. Dr. Pilkey is professor emeritus in the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University and a leading expert on shoreline erosion. “It’s a form of societal madness. We’re dealing with dynamic barrier islands and shorelines. It’s not very smart to think that we can stop the erosion – to hold the shoreline in place.”

Goessling points out that “informed public debate should take place on these issues, and the best place to start is to make sure we all understand the meanings of the words used by both sides.”

“We’ve taken a step to remedy that situation with a brief set of definitions,” Goessling added.

ATTACHMENT – Beachfront Definitions of Terms

###

DESTIN BEACHFRONT LEGAL TERMS & DEFINITIONS

Private property:
Property protected from public appropriation or use, over which the owner has exclusive and absolute rights. Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition

Public property:
State-owned or community-owned property not restricted to any one individual’s use or possession. Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition

Public use:
The only purpose for which private property can be taken by the government under its power of eminent domain (includes schools, roads, government buildings, etc.) Law.com Dictionary

Public trust doctrine:
The principle that navigable waters are preserved for the public use, and that the state is responsible for protecting the public’s right to the use. Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition

Access:
Opportunity or ability to enter, approach, pass to and from (as distinguished from public use). Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition

Adverse Use:
A use without permission. Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition

CITY OF DESTIN ILLEGAL LAND GRAB: SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION TURNS UP LEGAL HEAT

DESTIN, FL: The Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) announced today that it is increasing its efforts to restrain Destin's barrage of illegal acts directed at beachfront property owners. To do that, SLF is filing an amended complaint and will promptly move to enjoin any efforts by the City to continue its illegal appropriation of private property.

"The City of Destin is on a binge," said SLF Executive Director Shannon Goessling. "The City, having poorly planned for growth, now feels the need to seize private property to provide so-called ‘public access’ – despite the large public beach available in the heart of Destin. This is disgraceful and we simply cannot allow that to happen."

SLF contends that the City of Destin has embarked on a sham "beach scraping" program, which is nothing more than a ruse to create the appearance of a new dividing line between public and private property when in fact the dividing line is located much closer to the water. "No legitimate scientist thinks that the City's silly little berm has anything to do with protecting upland structures," said Goessling, "and most scientists think the whole idea of beach scraping is ultimately either pointless, or environmentally harmful, or both."

In addition to the sham "beach scraping" program, the City has enacted a beach ordinance that falsely claims there is a right of "public use" within 20 feet of the water. "There may be rights of public access in some areas," Goessling explained, "but establishing those rights requires a determination by a court of law. The City hasn't done that because it knows it would lose. So it takes the expedient step of just declaring a new area of public access and hoping no one can or will do anything about it."

“The City of Destin is not the first place in the nation to attempt an unconstitutional ‘taking’ of private property, and it won’t be the last – but it will not succeed here,” said Goessling. “Today, the City of Destin has its greedy eyes on the beachfront property, and if allowed to succeed, all private property in the greater Destin area is in jeopardy.”

"On top of this," Goessling added, "the City originally instructed the Sheriff's Department not to enforce the state’s trespass laws within 20 feet of the water line. That's outrageous. All citizens in this state have a constitutional right to protection of property – except, apparently, the residents of Destin."

Goessling summarized: "This is a government out of control and someone's got to stop them."

CITY OF DESTIN ILLEGAL LAND GRAB: SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION TURNS UP LEGAL HEAT

Goessling summarized: "This is a government out of control and someone's got to stop them."

Destin Log 2/23/2005

BEACHFRONT PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE RIGHTS TOO

Log Editor Jim Wagner's column on February 9th expressed your views on the beach and concluded “Those residents and others who have managed to delay the much needed beach nourishment project, shame on you.”

No, Jim Wagner, shame on you!

You failed to recognize three very major points in this so-called beach nourishment.

There is no conclusive evidence that had beach renourishment been completed before Ivan, that the beach would look any different today. Ask the residents of Pensacola Beach how much protection their beach nourishment provided them – none.

Many believe the beach is best left alone and allowed to recover on its own. For thousands of years the beach has come and gone under the forces of Mother Nature. We already see the recovery taking place and fear for the long-term health of the beach when man interferes with nature.

By supporting beach nourishment as it stands now, you are telling water front property owners they must relinquish their property ownership to the water’s edge without their consent or compensation. Water front owners bought land that deeded ownership to the mean high tide water line, and that’s what they have paid taxes on.

Your paper on Feb. 12 again attacks property owners' rights.

Permission from property owners may sabotage beach scrapping plans. The state of Florida has reconized in its permit to the city of Destin that property owners do have rights.

Shame on you for failing to recognize the constitutional rights of property owners and that there are two sides to this issue.

Dick Beuoy
Destin and Noblesville, Ind.

Destin Log 2/23/2005

Value of beach nourishment doubted

Candis and Jack Wilson
Guest commentary

It hardly seems worth the time to respond to Marty Siegel’s unreasonable attack on Denny Jones, who represented a number of beachfront property owners at a recent City Council meeting. Failing to do so however might leave readers without the opportunity to see that people (though not Mr. Siegel) can discuss the beach repair and restoration in a civil manner.

First, one must acknowledge that beachfront property owners have purchased land that they own to the mean high tide water line. They have paid a huge purchase price and tens of thousands of dollars in property taxes for the privilege of owning to the water’s edge. Our government cannot take your property rights without permission or compensation. People are limited from any activities on privately owned beach other than walking the water line. You may not like it, but this is the law. Therefore owners have the right to determine who and what comes on their property.

Second, one must acknowledge not everyone agrees that the proposed beach restoration, nor the current repair work is in the best interest of the beach. Yes, many people believe that the beach repairs itself in time and the long-term health of the beach is more important than a quick fix. Some believe the repair efforts currently underway are a complete waste of tax dollars and will afford no protection at all to the beach. DEP admits the scraping of the beach is not a desirable action. Property owners should have final say on whether this action is warranted or desired on their property.

Third, there is no way of knowing if or to what extent beach restoration protects the beach or upland structures. It certainly didn’t save those on Pensacola Beach.

Fourth, the beach is always shorter in the winter with winter storms taking sand. Much of this sand will be placed back on the beach come summer.

Fifth, when discussing the need for more beach for the tourists, seldom is Henderson State Park mentioned. Very few people use this stretch of public beach. Why not encourage tourists to use this beach, which by the way has not been included for beach restoration?

Candis and Jack Wilson have homes in Destin, FL and Dallas, TX

Letter to the Editor, Destin Log 2/16/04

Dear Editor,

If one doubts The Destin Log is in a conspiracy with the City of Destin to take land from water front beach owners, one only need look at the February 9th front page stories under the banner headline of “State of the Beach”.

I wish you would allow me space to comment on the slant of each story, but I will limit my comments to the doom and gloom you write as it relates to the loss of tourist dollars.

Evidently, the Log, City of Destin and others who have a financial interest in making more public beach at the expense of water front property owners have made a concerted effort to exaggerate the post-Ivan condition of the beach in order to further promote the beach restoration.

You may be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. By stating the poor condition of the beach, you are promoting the view that tourists should look elsewhere for better beaches.

Walton County suffered more damage to their beach than Destin, yet is taking the opposite approach. The log quotes Brad Pickel, Walton’s beach management coordinator as saying “I think overall, most of our beach width is relativately stable compared to before the storm. Winter tends to bring an increased amount of storms with larger waves that cause sand to become eroded, but calmer summer weather allows sediment to settle back on shore. In some cases, there is a difference of more than 20 feet.” Walton County is taking a positive approach discussing their beaches.

Walton County reports a 25 percent increase in their bed tax collected in December compared to a year ago. The tourists are still willing to come unless Destin decides to chase them away through promoting the poor condition of the beach. Actually, the failure of the City to deal with the traffic may adversely impact tourism much more than our beach.

It obviously serves your purpose to exaggerate the condition of the beach if your purpose is to gain support for the beach restoration at the cost of the tourist season. You could learn something about promoting tourism from Walton County!

Albert de Jongh

Letter to the Editor, Destin Log 2/16/04

BEACH RENOURISHMENT NOT A GUARANTEED 'FIX'

Log editor Jim Wagner's column in the Feb. 9 Log ending “shame on you” (directed at those who claim their beach property rights) assumes that “beach nourishment” would solve the problem of inadequate public beaches in Destin.

As you said, you are not an expert on this matter, but that doesn’t stop you from taking an unproven position and casting shame on those who disagree with you and many of your advertisers.

Simply, the beach nourishment project is not about erosion. It is an attempt by the City to create public beaches by violating private property rights of those who have bought and paid for much of the present beach.

There are many unproven theories about erosion, accretion, “jump-starting”, supposed protection of upland property by creating an 80- foot artificial public beach, prevention of erosion by scraping up berms across the beach, etc. Informed people disagree on the effects attempting to control the natural forces which, from time to time have created, expanded and diminished our beautiful beaches, but no-one should be shamed for claiming a Constitutionally guaranteed private property right.

I would think that your readers might be better served if you provided a fair, unbiased, factual discussion of important issues, especially the controversial ones. Yet, you continue to assume a position favoring so-called “beach nourishment,” with little or no consideration of the validity of the opposing views. Please take a look at The Log's policy statement in the upper left corner of your editorial page.

Joe Gilbert
Destin

From the Florida Trend – January 2005

Rock Bottom
The stormy summer created ‘50 years of erosion overnight.’
By Bob Snell

The rocks have returned to St. Augustine Beach. Just two years after the Army Corps of Engineers spread 1.34 million cubic yards of sand along this 2.5-mile stretch of northeast Florida coastline, Hurricane Frances washed much of it away. Damage to the $17-million project is most noticeable near the city’s ocean pier, where wind-driven surf carved a seven-foot wall of sand into the once gently sloping shore.

The newly exposed rocks (a hazard to swimmers) reflect the transient nature of beach renourishment and the power of giant storms to reshape the coastline in St. Augustine Beach and across the state.

“The beach was supposed to last five years,” says St. Augustine Beach resident Christopher Shanley. “Frances changed that in a matter of hours.”

Coastal engineers from the Department of Environmental Protection are assessing the damage done by the hurricanes. Teams from DEP and the U.S. Geological Survey are photographing hundreds of miles of shoreline from the air, comparing thousands of before-and-after photos to evaluate the extent of damage. Officials will pay particular attention to the 40 or so beaches that have been renourished under state supervision. Other erosion-control efforts — such as the renourishment of St. Augustine Beach and Jacksonville Beach — are the provenance of the Army Corps, which is conducting its own survey.

If the damage to southwest Florida beaches is an indication, it will take years and tons of offshore sand to restore some of the state’s most popular beaches.

In the only comprehensive post-hurricane study released so far, a DEP team documented extensive erosion to beaches along North Captiva and Estero islands, where “the shoreline receded 150 to 200 feet immediately south of the Fort Myers Beach Pier.” The report recommends the state make an emergency appeal to the Army Corps for federal beach renourishment funds.

On the Atlantic coast, anecdotal evidence shows Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne caused extensive erosion in St. Lucie, Martin and Indian River counties. “It’s 50 years of erosion overnight,” Indian River County environmental analyst Jonathan Gorham told the Stuart News.

In northwest Florida, officials say the enormous storm surge that accompanied Hurricane Ivan likely caused unprecedented damage to the region’s numerous barrier beaches.

In northeast Florida, St. Augustine Beach officials recall it took years and intense congressional lobbying to secure their renourishment money in ’02. Now with dozens of coastal cities and counties across the state looking to restore their coastlines, it appears the rocks will be a St. Augustine Beach fixture for the foreseeable future.
Source: Florida Trend

From the Florida Trend – January 2005

Oceanfront Showdown
Hurricane-induced beach erosion is sparking debate over waterfront development.
By Ken Ibold

Last year’s unprecedented hurricane season has left central Florida’s Atlantic Coast beaches littered with broken sea walls and condemned businesses — and reopened the debate over the wisdom of barrier island development and beach renourishment.

Recent renourishment projects in Brevard County and planned projects in Volusia came to the forefront after hurricanes Jeanne and Frances shredded the shoreline. Federal lawmakers responded by allocating $127 million to repair Florida beaches that had already been renourished.

In central Florida, that meant taking another look at the Brevard County Shore Protection Project, a 13-mile stretch from Port Canaveral to south of Melbourne that cost U.S. taxpayers $43 million three years ago. In Volusia, it put a new spotlight on a $40-million county plan to beef up the beach.

The issue isn’t just the sand, and in most circles it isn’t even the cost. Instead, the controversy hinges on property rights, public access and the environmental impact. Renourishment critics say artificially bolstering beaches encourages costly developments that then require more beach maintenance. That’s because federal rules governing funding give precedence to densely developed beaches where expensive buildings would be threatened.

The impact can be huge. A renourishment project in the 1980s, for example, helped induce a runup that saw property values increase 500% in two decades. That leads to higher property tax collections as oceanfront areas become more affluent.

Volusia County suffered major beach and dune erosion. Sections of New Smyrna Beach now have no beach at all during high tide, and 15 sea walls protecting buildings crumbled.

In Brevard County, the Brevard County Shore Protection Project was virtually wiped out, leaving the shoreline much as it was before the project began in some places. The restoration area from Indialantic to Melbourne Beach sustained major erosion but only minimal dune damage. South of that area, Brevard beaches sustained more severe erosion.

Proponents of beach renourishment say the post-hurricane profile shows that beach rebuilding works in that the sand wore away but left the buildings, roads and sea walls largely intact.

"Our nourished beaches did their job, sacrificing sand rather than upland buildings and infrastructure," wrote Debbie Flack, director of governmental affairs for the Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association, in a recent newsletter.

Opponents say spending millions to dump sand on the shore just so it can get washed away proves the folly of dense coastal development. They advocate leaving barrier islands as natural breaks, able to erode and accrete without human intervention.
Source: Florida Trend

Rock Bottom
The stormy summer created ‘50 years of erosion overnight.’
By Bob Snell

1:13 PM 10/28/2004The rocks have returned to St. Augustine Beach. Just two years after the Army Corps of Engineers spread 1.34 million cubic yards of sand along this 2.5-mile stretch of northeast Florida coastline, Hurricane Frances washed much of it away. Damage to the $17-million project is most noticeable near the city’s ocean pier, where wind-driven surf carved a seven-foot wall of sand into the once gently sloping shore.

The newly exposed rocks (a hazard to swimmers) reflect the transient nature of beach renourishment and the power of giant storms to reshape the coastline in St. Augustine Beach and across the state.

“The beach was supposed to last five years,” says St. Augustine Beach resident Christopher Shanley. “Frances changed that in a matter of hours.”

If the damage to southwest Florida beaches is an indication, it will take years and tons of offshore sand to restore some of the state’s most popular beaches.

In northwest Florida, officials say the enormous storm surge that accompanied Hurricane Ivan likely caused unprecedented damage to the region’s numerous barrier beaches.

Source: Florida Trend

From the Florida Trend –July 2004

Boca Raton- The city’s newest stretch of rebuilt beach is getting the cold shoulder from sea turtles, conservationists say. By late spring, the beach should have had 15 to 20 nests but instead had only two. One ecological consultant has speculated that the dredged sand may contain too much salt

From The St. Augustine Record – October 6, 2004

MIRAMAR BEACH -- A couple of the Florida Panhandle's famously white beaches are getting a tan.

Tan sand is being trucked in to shore up areas eroded by Hurricane Ivan, darkening sugary white beaches and angering locals displeased with the new look.

"We've got a lovely white beach and it's criminal to contaminate it," said Dan Tomasek, a member of the homeowners association at Costa Del Sol condominiums, one of the properties in Walton County where the darker sand is being used.

Darker sand is being allowed as an emergency measure to save homes and other buildings that might collapse if another storm hits, said county beach activities coordinator Ken Wilde.

The county has issued about half a dozen permits for the darker sand because it is cheaper and easier to get, Wilde said.

The darker sand costs about $3 a yard while white sand can cost up to four times as much, local contractors say. Those prices don't include hauling fees, which vary.

Tan sand is being used at Seaside, an exclusive community with pastel-colored homes, gazebos and picket fences, and in neighboring WaterSound. Both beaches are about 35 miles east of Fort Walton Beach.