Public rights to use the beach in Maine?

Thanks for the link.
This goes along with the idea that you can sell, transfer, or give away ALL the rights to your land....Except the right to pay taxes!

And, we surveyors should be aware of how some things SHOULD be on our plats. ie, small foot path, across vacant lot.

N

They May Hold Title To The Low Water Mark ? But...

I doubt they pay taxes to the low water mark.

Despite the fact that land title usually runs to the centerline of a public road, taxes are not paid on the public easement.

The sea is a public right of way just as a road and the public may walk along the road staying out of the main busy travelled way.

Paul in PA

While living in Massachussets, I found it nearly impossible to get access to the "public beach" because of continuous privately-owned property that afforded no rights-of-way. Ain't very public when you can't get to it!

Paul is making unfounded assumptions. Sore front owners are taxed accordingly in MA anyway. Whether the assessment specifically includes the area of the flats is debatable, but regardless shore front property owners pay a premium tax.

I always get a kick out of this issue in MA (and ME being a former part of MA)

Ownership, except in some very specific cases, extends to low water, or 100 rods, which ever comes first. Unless the flats have been excluded in a prior conveyance it is assumed that they transfer with the upland.

The public has rights to "fishing, fowling and navigation."

I don't even know why everyone assumes that the beaches are public lands, or that the public has nay more right to use them than is granted? I hear comments about how unfair it is but I don't see anyone opening up their fancy lawns for football games or general public use as a park!!

So frequently that I hear this stuff around her that I have NO sympathy for folks that feel the need to impose their personal beliefs on others when it's to their own personal benefit..

"I want to use the beach therefore they should be open to the public..." yeah right, pay for the shore front protection then, and reduce the taxes of the upland owners....

Hey, The Public Parks Along My Frontage

Because I have more than every one else. Most can barely park one car in front of their home. They park 8 in front of mine. One of these days I will build out those lots as my retirement income, or so I thought. But you pick your plan and then you have to live with it.

The public could also walk on my sidewalk, if and when I build it.

Pauln PA

The tax rates typically remain the same, it's the valuation that will vary based on waterfront, beachfront, waterview or other. I believe the differences between beachfront along a privately owned common beach and waterfront are pretty minimal, so you do not need to get your feet wet in the water on your own private property to pay the hefty taxes.

How do you feel about the Audubon interpretation of fowling to include bird watching?

Shoot Them With A Gun, Shoot Them With a Camera ?

What is the difference?

Passive activities are less intrusive.

Paul in PA

> Paul is making unfounded assumptions.
>
> I don't even know why everyone assumes that the beaches are public lands, or that the public has nay more right to use them than is granted? I hear comments about how unfair it is but I don't see anyone opening up their fancy lawns for football games or general public use as a park!!
>
> So frequently that I hear this stuff around her that I have NO sympathy for folks that feel the need to impose their personal beliefs on others when it's to their own personal benefit..
>
> "I want to use the beach therefore they should be open to the public..." yeah right, pay for the shore front protection then, and reduce the taxes of the upland owners....

The argument for the intertidal zone being open to everyone was pretty well laid out in the article. It is the original Right of Way, and has been since the dawn of mankind. Your analogy concerning the fancy lawns is very poor. Any property anywhere can have a fancy lawn. But the seashore is relatively a very rare commodity, and obviously, the ocean is commonly owned by everyone.

It doesn't mean that a shorefront owner has to relinquish his land as a public beach because most people aren't going to "go beaching" in the intertidal zone. Most people are going to do what they always do, go to the easy access public beach and settle down above the high tide line. The shorefront owners will always have the rights of exclusion out to the high tide line. But the legal right to walk along the shore line should not be restricted for the reasons listed below from the article. That's how it is for most of the US.

"The decades-long conflict pits a restrictive 365-year-old Massachusetts colonial ordinance against a notion that is backed by law in most of the country: that the sea floor exposed at low tide is in essence a public good and should be open to strollers, bathers and children building sand castles."

"The 1647 ordinance, they argue, flies in the face of 2,000 years of legal practice dating back to ancient Rome and enshrined in English common law and North American custom. ("Things common to mankind by the law of nature are the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea," the 5th- century Justinian Code reads. "No man therefore is prohibited from approaching any part of the seashore.") The English crown held title to the shore, delegating its sovereign control to its early American Colonies, most of which retain ownership today as states."

Stephen

I don't know Steven, remember when the "Commons" were public lands for grazing?

Our forefathers, in their wisdom, recognized an issue with the Crown ownership of the intertidal lands. In recognizing that problem they resolved it in a manner best suited to the colonies. That is, private ownership of the flats will encourage use and development, and guess what?? It worked.

It's the law here, has been for over 350 years, time to get used to it I guess..

And by the way, there are some awesome lawns around here that would be great to enjoy..

It seems that in the original ordinance, having specified, fishing, fowling and navigation rights of the public, the lawmakers of Massachusetts knew what they were doing, and established/reaffirmed the ownership rights of the oceanfront property owners.

Whether the use of the beach is a prescriptive easement is another story, though.