|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
February 28, 2006EditorialCourts again endorse public's beach rightsIt took time, money and persistence, but at last the legal fog surrounding the right of Michigan residents to walk the beaches of the Great Lakes has lifted.In refusing to hear a case brought by a Michigan woman barred from walking a Lake Huron beach, the U.S. Supreme Court left intact a state court ruling that endorsed an ancient premise: the Great Lakes belong to the people. Hopefully, this is the death knell for the "It's all mine" movement that, fueled by hefty political donations to willing lawmakers, threatened to undermine public access to public property. In 2000, Joan Glass, who lived near Lake Huron but not on the beach, was told by neighbors Richard and Kathleen Goeckel that she was no longer welcome to walk the beach in front of their house. She sued. Eventually, the case made it to the state Supreme Court and then the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case. That meant the state court's ruling stood - a ruling that reinforced some basic understandings rooted in English common law: The Great Lakes are owned by the people of Michigan (and the people of surrounding states); the shoreline is held in trust for the public by the state; the state is obligated to defend the public's right to reasonable use of that shoreline - and that includes walking the beach. It must be said that walking the beach means just that, walking - not having a picnic or a beer bash. The court said activities could also include fishing and swimming, but only below the high water mark, a definition that is sure to cause continued conflict and, likely, more litigation. But that's a small price to pay for enshrining the basics - no individual or company can bar residents from enjoying what belongs to all of us.The finality of the ruling should also help the state Department of Natural Resources flex a bit more muscle in the ongoing battles over beach grooming. The court has clearly stated that land up to the normal high water mark, and the lake bottom, belongs to the public; by inference, that means it also comes under DNR authority. The DNR should continue to allow reasonable access and reasonable removal of plant growth in places where the lake has receded into the distance. The key here is what is reasonable and fair, not just what someone with clout can get. For decades, the vast majority of lakeshore property owners understood that ownership brings rights as well as obligations. That understanding seemed to break down as groups like Save Our Shoreline and individual property owners tried to assert more and more control over their beachfront. The court now stands firmly in the way; hopefully, all sides will find the path to reasonableness.
|
|
