Beach vs. Beachfront Property: A Showdown in Florida

An interesting case came before the U.S. Supreme Court today: Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida. It may sound more like a trendy diet than a case for the nation's highest court, but the issue at stake is a serious one -- whether or not Florida's Supreme Court violated the Constitution's regulatory takings clause. More specifically, is the state's attempt to prevent its beaches from washing into the sea really just a land grab?

That's what some Florida landowners believe. Since the state and local governments shoulder a large percentage of the cost to rebuild or buffer beaches, they take a bit of an interest in the result. The state sets the official property line at wherever the water began when the restoration effort started. New beach beyond that becomes public. That's where landowners take issue. Some feel they lose money by no longer being able to list vacation rentals including a "private beach."

However, it's not as though Florida is constructing extensive beach developments or setting up entire coastlines of man-made islands reminiscent of Dubai. The state's Beach and Shore Preservation Act ostensibly protects the coastline and the cash cow of the state's tourist industry. NPR's "Morning Edition" referenced Michael Sole, the secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; he said approximately half of Florida's beaches are in danger of washing away.

Interestingly enough, Justice John Paul Stevens, a Florida property owner, is sitting out the oral argument on this one. I, on the other hand, have an admittedly land-bound perspective, so to me it seems better to keep your home and gain a beach, even if it's not private anymore. Or, while we're at it, maybe just maintain more areas of salt marsh and mangrove forests so hurricanes don't completely batter the sandy coasts.

Hey, where did the beach go? (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)