This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new lawsuit accuses the state of Rhode Island of stealing land from every coastal property owner and giving it to the public for "beach use."
The case has been brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation and challenges a law that takes, without any compensation, "private property from every coastal property owner in the state and gives it to the public for beach use."
The case is being brought on behalf of members of the Rhode Island Association of Coastal Taxpayers.
"The government can’t take private property without paying for it, and this basic principle applies even when the government pursues popular goals, like public access," explained J. David Breemer, a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. "Rhode Island’s new beach expansion law is clearly unconstitutional as a taking of private property."
What lawmakers did was simply move the demarcation line for "public beach" property inland 10 feet.
But that takes that land from private property owners.
"Historically, the 'mean high tide line' served as the boundary between the public beach area and private property in Rhode Island," the legal team explained. The new law, adopted this year, simply by fiat changes that by 10 feet, "giving the public an extra strip of land at the expense of private property owners."
The change lets the public "enter, occupy, and use" private property now, while still demanding that landowners pay taxes on it.
The complaint explains lawmakers apparently thought "the current public beach area is not expansive enough.."
As soon as the law was adopted, members of the public began to trespass "on private property owned by RIACT members under color of state law."
The effect of the law was to take land from private owners, who still are required to pay taxes on it, and create "an easement."
"The encumbrance injures RIACT members' right to exclude non-owners and the privacy, value, use, and marketability of their properties."
The complaint charged, "While public beach access may be important to state legislators and officials, they may not simply redefine private shorelands as a 'public beach' by the stroke of a pen, consistent with the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Act constitutes a taking of property in violation of the United States Constitution, and enforcement of the law amounts to an ongoing constitutional violation."
The case noted that "damages" simply aren't an available remedy, and it seeks "an injunction and declaratory relief prohibiting state officials from enforcing" their taking.
The common law in the state provides that public property includes the strip of land from the water's edge to the Mean High Water line, but "coastal areas lying landward of the MHW are part of the property titles held by people."
The law seemed to recognize it was creating a problem because it specifically noted that its changes did not create any "entitlement" for the public to use "cabanas, decks, and beach chairs."
The case charges the state with taking private property without just compensation.
