« FWC Outlaws The "Cruel Practice" of Fox Pens | Main | The Mysteries of Flood Insurance »

Beach Rights Versus Property Rights

   Richard Mason of Miami has his own theories, and a slightly unexpected perspective,  about the beach restoration questions under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court:

  Those that live on the seashore are the real free loaders of society.  They have their insurance premium supported by the people that live inland.
  The property insurance industry operates a front lobbying operation under an environmental name to promote shore restoration. Moving the shore line out, reduces water damage to the shoreline dwellers.   Walton County passed an anti-nudity ordnance to get rid of the naturists that used traditional beach locations before the buildings were built.
   Naturists should file lawsuits opposing beach renourishment with taxpayer money in counties that ban the use of beach areas to naturists. Denying Equal Access is un-Constitutional.
   We do support the county against land take-over by shoreline property owners.  With almost 900 miles of Florida shoreline, there should be more designated areas than the 1/4 mile at Haulover Beach Park next the city of Sunny Isles Beach.
  There should be designated naturist beach areas in several state parks.  This would increase park beach attendance 80% or more and park revenues accordingly.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Beach Rights Versus Property Rights:


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Study in UK

Hee hee! Seems like he wants more people on the beaches :)

Property in Turkey

It's really makes me happy to hear these great stories because seeing is believing. I enjoyed reading this post thanks.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Copyright | About The Miami Herald | Advertise