The Virginian-Pilot
©
VIRGINIA BEACH
Just how private are those Cape Henry beaches?
The courts probably will have to decide.
The city is preparing to file suit in Circuit Court staking the public's claim to access the sandy beaches along the Chesapeake Bay. The City Council is scheduled to vote Tuesday on whether to condemn and take a public easement over the land, if it becomes necessary.
The moves culminate more than six years of negotiations between the city and a group of private landowners over a plan to pump sand along the shore and the public's right to use the beach.
"We have a dispute, and we can't resolve it," said City Attorney Les Lilley.
Louis Paulson, an attorney and one of the property owners fighting the city, said legal action was inevitable but the upcoming condemnation vote comes as a surprise.
The city frequently uses eminent domain for road projects and to clear up title issues.
In this case, officials want to be prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers' Lynnhaven Inlet dredging project planned for 2009. Sand cleared from the inlet will be piped onto two miles of shore between First Landing State Park and the Lesner Bridge.
It would be costly, Lilley said, if the project were stopped midstream because some property owners filed suit against the Beach, disputing the city's right to temporarily lay pipe on the sand and the public's use of the shore.
"I don't want to stop the project," Paulson said.
But he and the owners of seven properties have argued that, according to their deeds, which date back to Reconstruction, they own the beach.
Virginia sold the land along the Chesapeake Bay in 1868 to settle the mounting debts of the Civil War.
"We've paid a lot of money for the land," said Paulson, who has offered the city a construction easement for the pipe but doesn't want strangers frolicking there. "I'd like a right to use everybody else's backyard."
City attorneys don't dispute the land sale and aren't looking to take over the property. They just want access.
The public's use of the beach is a long tradition, and the city has been legally establishing that right over the years in Sandbridge, at the Oceanfront, and now at Cape Henry, Lilley said.
Residents already walk and sunbathe on the Cape Henry beaches, the police patrol the area and city workers pick up the trash along the waterfront, officials said.
Most of the residents at Harbour Gate condominiums want the additional sand, said Bob Smith, the manager of the owners association.
"We've been devastated by the last two years of nor'easters," Smith said.
Smith said he doesn't believe the public recreation easements will change use of the beach. There just isn't enough public parking in the neighborhood, he said.
If the City Council approves the condemnation process, attorneys probably will file claims to the easements in late January, Lilley said.
The Circuit Court will have to decide whether those claims are valid. If the court decides in favor of the property owners, the city will use eminent domain to acquire the easements and pay for them.
Lilley declined to say how much money the city has set aside for the purchases.
Deirdre Fernandes, (757) 222-5121, deirdre.fernandes@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Where are the bathrooms?
I don't know about greed. It seems to be the American Way so I'm sure it is a factor here. I used to live in that area. First issue: there is inadequate parking for the number of residences on the streets, so the residents have to have on-street parking available. Second issue: if it is a public beach, where are the public facilities? I have had folks knock on my door to see if their kid could use the potty. That person was at least polite enough to ask. Most just let their kids do it in the dunes.
The city of Virginia Beach is too greedy to create any public beaches for the residents. They want everyone to use beaches that are there with no facilities. Now, since people pay big bucks to live there, they shouldn't have to deal with it being treated like a public beach, without the facilities the public needs at a beach.
Most Owners Not Greedy
I amend my earlier comment and tone to recognize and thank the majority of property owners there for not being greedy and for working with the community on this. At least they have some bit of social conscience and are not blinded by greed and an inflated sense of self importance. Hopefully the minority will change their minds and recognize while technically they may own the beach, they should also recognize the unique position they're in and like their neighbors, be gracious enough to work with the city for the betterment of our community to make this a win-win situation. Besides, all those legal fees could be applied towards home upgrades, new "american" made cars, or a fun vacation.
Better ways of helping the economy than giving it to a lawyer...
Greed is disgusting
How can anyone act like the beach is their backyard? I am SO SICK of these babies complaining about how they own everything, they don't want a new Lessner Bridge, they are tired of outsiders on their beaches. But when a serious storm comes to wipe out all the sand it is us, the taxpayers that they want to keep away from their precious beach, who will have to pay to shore up their "private beach". I think it would be great if the city seized their house for a public parking lot.
The Public's right of access
The public's right of access has been repeatedly proven by the city of Virginia Beach as the article states. As it is, the city patrols and even performs clean up of the beach area in question. This right of access should be upheld through out the city and elsewhere. Either that or all city provided services should be withdrawn and the dredged sand be placed elsewhere.
the rest of the comment . . .
When I was approached on this, I went along with the city's proposal figuring that I would end up with a nicer beach and that it was unlikely to change the area that much.
Many commentators here seem to forget that many many taxpayers are already using that beach, not just those with deeds. The City and public at large get something out of this. A wider beach enhances the "world's largest resort city's" image, property values go up and revenues increase. Prevention of land and property loss saves tax payers' money. Flood insurance payouts are subsidized by the Federal Government. And the Army Corp was looking to dump spoils on that beach to save tax payer money, (cheaper than hauling it away). So the benefits of sand replenishment do not flow only to those with deeds to that beach. We all are going to gain something.
It's not as simple as some here have couched things. Let the law be the basis for a fair resolution. But expedite the decision and keep this from costing anymore than necessary and fair to all.
So it's headed for Court.
I've lived there in a ten unit condo unit for 15 years and have seen the width of that beach slowly erode, but it is still a fine beach. As usually happens in these comments sections, the remarks predictably get snarky, but there are some real legal issues here. Paulson happens to be a lawyer, but this property rights issue was brewing long before he arrived on the scene.
I agree that this problem is heading for the Courts, but that's not neccesarily a bad thing. Don't you as citizens want a Judge to decide what is right under the law? After all, alot of tax money is at stake, in addition to landowner's rights. If you suddenly got a letter from the city or state informing you that they want to take something from you or simply change things in your backyard or neighborhood, you'd be getting your defenses up too. Paulson did not dream up this concept that he and others own some of that beach, it is spelled out by a long line of deeds publicly recorded.
When I was approached on this, I went along with the city's proposal figuring that I would end up with a nicer beach and that it was unlikely to change the area that much. Many commentators here seem to forget that many ma
NO PRIVATE BEACHES
I am sad to see some of you would cave in to having private beaches as long as the supposed property owners pay for sand replenishment. The ocean is not owned and the strip of beach that borders it should not be owned. Everyone should access to the Atlantic at all points except military installations. If the ones fortunate enough to live in straight view of the ocean are offended by others getting in their view I know of no one making them live there.
Parking Problems Are Just "The Way It Is..."
I live at the North End, and parking problems here are just a way of life. It's one of the drawbacks to balance out the joy of living near the ocean.
Rather than pay all that money to bring a lawsuit, the City should just declare "eminent domain" and be done with it. The courts have ruled over and over again that the beaches are public property, regardless of what some schmuck lawyer says.
What a gigantic waste of time when we have much more pressing issues to deal with. Leave it to a lawyer to waste tine and money.
Greed on the Beach
O.K. let these owners barbed wire their little piece of beach to keep that pesky public out. Then these property owners can be assessed heavily by the city and state and take over the full cost to maintain these beaches as natural resources in their natural state except for the barbed wire. Zero public funding will be afforded these property owners and then find some loop hole to void their federal flood insurance due to some 1743 or something law. These individuals would then find they couldn’t afford the required upkeep, their beaches and then their homes would eventually be consumed by the sea. Once that happens, the city could then step in and use eminent domain and not have to pay much to take what’s left. In their honor we could then build a boardwalk and name it appropriately as “Greed’s Revenge.”
dredging, the beach, rights
You want the beach to be off limits and claim it as yours, then YOU PAY TO REPLENISH IT!!!! Stop using my taxdollars and wasting the courts time. Theres more important issues at hand to be dealt with. Im gonna pay a million dollars for a place and then sue the city, what a joke.