Justices hear argument over Fla. beach property
Owners seek pay for land reclaimed by state project
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court held an animated hearing yesterday on whether Florida’s beach replenishment program violates the rights of beachfront owners because the state lays claim to the new stretches of waterfront sand it creates.
The court seemed split over whether that means Florida’s actions constitute a “taking’’ of property for which the homeowners must be compensated. In a twist, the homeowners are not challenging the state’s law, but a Florida Supreme Court ruling that upheld it. The US Supreme Court has never recognized that a judicial decision could constitute a taking.
And the justices might be literally split when they decide whether it is warranted in this case. Justice John Paul Stevens, who owns a unit in a beachfront condominium in Fort Lauderdale, did not take part in the argument, leaving eight justices to hear the case. A 4-to-4 vote would let the Florida Supreme Court ruling stand but create no precedent.
The justices debated whether the program, which according to the state is being challenged for the first time in the 40 years of its existence, was a land-grab on the part of the state, or a good deal for homeowners who face the vagaries of tides and the destructive nature of hurricanes.
Justice Stephen Breyer said the program gives property owners a fortified beach and preserves their access to the water. “You didn’t lose anything,’’ Breyer told D. Kent Safriet, a Tallahassee lawyer who represented the protesting homeowners.
But Safriet said the state-owned strip of sand at the edge of his clients’ property along the Gulf of Mexico in the Florida Panhandle basically turns oceanfront land into “ocean-view,’’ with a resulting decrease in value.
He received support from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
The two raised the possibility of the state creating a wide beach in front of the homeowners’ land and allowing in beach blankets, port-a-potties, and food vendors.
Florida Solicitor General Scott Makar said such a use of the land is prohibited by Florida law. But Roberts said the legislature could always change the law.
