Some Ike victims may not be allowed to rebuild

[Dover]

Little-known state law could put Texas beach home owners in a bind



GALVESTON, Texas - Hundreds of people whose beachfront homes were wrecked by Hurricane Ike may be barred from rebuilding under a little-noticed Texas law. And even those whose houses were spared could end up seeing them condemned by the state.

Now here's the saltwater in the wound: It could be a year before the state tells these homeowners what they may or may not do.

Worse, if these homeowners do lose their beachfront property, they may get nothing in compensation from the state.

The reason: a 1959 law known as the Texas Open Beaches Act. Under the law, the strip of beach between the average high-tide line and the average low-tide line is considered public property, and it is illegal to build anything there.

Over the years, the state has repeatedly invoked the law to seize houses in cases where a storm eroded a beach so badly that a home was suddenly sitting on public property. The aftermath of Ike could see the biggest such use of the law in Texas history....>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26780578/

[JCMach1]

1. This is a good thing... Keep the rich bastards off and give the shores back to the people!

[Dover]

2. There were/are plenty of non-rich people living on the Texas shore.

In fact the Texas shore is hardly a wealthy resort environment. Much of it feels small-townish. And most of the shoreline IS public as that law states.

Nevertheless, these areas are increasingly vulnerable to sea rise, mega-storms, flooding etc.. They are basically sandbars and are suitable more to wildlife than to humans. Besides, I'm wondering if the insurance companies will stop insuring these areas as climate changes increase.

This Texas law makes sense to me.

[Suich]

3. Yeah, I agree with you Dover.

It doesn't seem fair, but it makes sense. Same with people who live on the Mississippi flood plane, get flooded out, sometimes more than once, and rebuild in the same place.

It's an emotional issue and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make the decisions.

[Dover]

8. Yes, I understand that. Some people have the salty sea air in their blood.

And they will always find a way to live close to the water. But perhaps just not ON the water.

I think many native cultures understood these natural cycles and would never have thought
to build and live permanently in these areas. Seasonally perhaps, but not permanently.

[JCMach1]

5. Right from both standpoints... Erosion is a constant threat now...

I was specifically suffering to the wealthy homes on Galveston island that had been built outside the protection of the seawall.

[TexasObserver]

4. It's true, and it's happened before. 1983, for example.

There will be homeowners who collect on their insurance, but will not be able to rebuild.

Homeowners' insurance only covers the costs of the improvements, not the land itself.

Title to the land escheats to the state, under well settled law.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. The law may be settled in Texas (although...

I doubt it's as settled as it seems) but the whole riparian rights thing is another "property rights" battle in many areas, including around here.

Here, you only own the land up to the high tide mark, but the battle is often over just where that high tide mark is. And who pays for the jetties, and... and....

Me, I always thought homebuilding on open water, or, worse, on a sand bar, is incredibly stupid and anyone who does it should have no rights and no insurance-- go ahead and build, but you are completely on your own. No way do I want my taxes or insurance premiums to help fund your harebraned dreams.

[ColbertWatcher]

7. Interesting find. Sounds like another GOP disaster opportunity. n/t

[Dover]

9. We'll see. But it seems to me that this makes good sense and I

don't know how they could go in and develop these stricken areas UNLESS they change this and other laws. If these storms result in pushing people back off the immediate shoreline then that seems like
a smart move, albeit painful and likely to elicit some very angry responses.

I think Texans, perhaps more than most Americans, are the least likely to tolerate government telling them what to do, even if it makes good sense. An independent people in the extreme, for better and worse.

Not surprising that this state is also the seed bed where those who support deregulation and anti-government intervention are planted. That tide is turning...

[ColbertWatcher]

12. The law says people cannot rebuild, but ...

... does that also prevent businesses from exploiting the now empty property?

Independence notwithstanding Texas is also known (as is California, thank you very much) for our crack pot republicans.

If it benefits Tom DeLay, those shores won't be empty for long.

Oh, don't forget what happened to the people who lived on the shores of Sri Lanka after that tsunami.

[Ex Lurker]

10. How is this different than people saying New Orleans shouldn't be rebuilt

because it's below sea level?

[Dover]

11. New Orleans is a different situation.

At the very least I hope they will change the wetland/shoreline laws to allow that to
go back to its natural state. From what I've read about it, that would go a long way
to protect the city.

The city's 'bowl' situation is a separate issue imo. I love that city but you can't remain
in denial about what's happening as a result of climatic changes. Someone needs to make these
hard decisions. I don't have a voice because I don't live there but from an outsider's perspective it would seem preferable if it could be a collective decision and plans could be made to move the city rather than to simply disperse the population. It's a tight knit community.

However, sometimes nature makes these decisions for us and I think NOLA has had fair warning from nature and needs to take it to heart.