They're giving away our beaches!

[yeehawherb]

I've been following this on a Texas Surfing website. And while i realieze we done have much (any) beach divingin texas, it's still your beaches they're trying to give away.

I'm usre you realieze that in Texas the entire beach from the vegetation line to the surfline belings to the people of Texas. Well, HB 1603 and SB 740 are very VERY close to passing. They would give up a 1 mile stretch of beach to a developer and thus fence off texas frist mile of private beach. The root of this is a neighborhood of homeowners that are afraid of losing their homes to the beach. An unfortunate reality they were aware of when they built or purchased their home. While i can appreciate their position and also realize that this is only one mole of some 500 miles of coastline. The precedent is very dangerous. I'm not a lawyer but i can see that once this happend it wouldn't be difficult for other developments to sue the state for their own privvate stretch of beach. That being said... Wanna do soemthing about it?

SB 740 has allready passed, but HB 1603 is not up for voteuntil the 19th of may. Please take a minute or two and call your representative... Let them know that you as a texan don't like losing your public beaches to private homeowners.

Do this now before we have only pocket parks left.

If you're not sure who your reps are goto:

http://www.surfrider.org/texas/issues/2005-Leg/index.html

near the bottom there's a link to find your reps.

Thank you...
Brian

 

[padrediver]

I've been following this on a Texas Surfing website. And while i realieze we done have much (any) beach divingin texas, it's still your beaches they're trying to give away.

I'm usre you realieze that in Texas the entire beach from the vegetation line to the surfline belings to the people of Texas. Well, HB 1603 and SB 740 are very VERY close to passing. They would give up a 1 mile stretch of beach to a developer and thus fence off texas frist mile of private beach. The root of this is a neighborhood of homeowners that are afraid of losing their homes to the beach. An unfortunate reality they were aware of when they built or purchased their home. While i can appreciate their position and also realize that this is only one mole of some 500 miles of coastline. The precedent is very dangerous. I'm not a lawyer but i can see that once this happend it wouldn't be difficult for other developments to sue the state for their own privvate stretch of beach. That being said... Wanna do soemthing about it?

SB 740 has allready passed, but HB 1603 is not up for voteuntil the 19th of may. Please take a minute or two and call your representative... Let them know that you as a texan don't like losing your public beaches to private homeowners.

Do this now before we have only pocket parks left.

If you're not sure who your reps are goto:

http://www.surfrider.org/texas/issues/2005-Leg/index.html

near the bottom there's a link to find your reps.

Thank you...
Brian

Yeah, you're right. I live/dive in Texas now, but I spent my first 32 years in Florida which was pristeen to the max until they let "team rodent" (Disney) relax the environmental impact laws to build their "mickey mouse operation".
(been there three times....it's mostly plastic)

There are several million former Floridians/Californians here in Texas now.
Texas coast reminds me of my childhood Florida of the fifties! Just love it!!!!
We've both (Calif./Fla.) seen our home coasts virtually ruined over the last thirty years.
We will not, can not, let it happen here.
Only people born in the last twenty five years think it's "not so bad".
They never saw it when it was really good. This is serious as a heart attack stuff.
Thank God they made the Padre Island National Seashore a UN Heritage sight.
They have to get permission form the UN General Assembly or something for any major development and that's not likely. Texas folks have "locked and loaded" over these issues several times in the twenty years I've lived here. Some of those Texas folks are naturalized immigrants from "Califlorida" (my term...my Dad was from San Francisco.)

 

[Michael Freeman]

Thank God they made the Padre Island National Seashore a UN Heritage sight.
They have to get permission form the UN General Assembly or something for any major development and that's not likely. Texas folks have "locked and loaded" over these issues several times in the twenty years I've lived here. Some of those Texas folks are naturalized immigrants from "Califlorida" (my term...my Dad was from San Francisco.)

You are upset about Texas giving away a mile of beach to a developer but you have no problem with Texas giving away park lands to the UN?

I don't like either, but am more outraged by Texas giving away American soil to the UN.

IMHO,
Mike

 

[zboss]

The root of this is a neighborhood of homeowners that are afraid of losing their homes to the beach.

We see this all the time in the caribbean... people build big houses or huts on the beach berm and then chop down all the vegetation so they can "have a great view". Well - what do you think is keeping the beach there you morons! Personally, I encourage growth of fauna and coconut trees to hold the beach in place. It's also amazing how much property moves from being public to being private if you've enough money.

Good luck in texas. Down in the BVI personal property starts 50' feet from high tide, the rest is public. Personally, I like watching bikini's walk by... but maybe you texans are different

 

[yeehawherb]

For those interested....

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-...HAMBER=S&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00740&SORT=Asc

Bill has passed in senate and is scheduled for vote in the house today....

 

[archman]

You are upset about Texas giving away a mile of beach to a developer but you have no problem with Texas giving away park lands to the UN?

I don't like either, but am more outraged by Texas giving away American soil to the UN.

Padre Island is still very much U.S. property. That U.N. "Heritage Site" designation is sort of like the listing for historical homes in the United States. It's more of an educational thing than one regarding property rights.

 

[padrediver]

Padre Island is still very much U.S. property. That U.N. "Heritage Site" designation is sort of like the listing for historical homes in the United States. It's more of an educational thing than one regarding property rights.

Thank you Arch (and fellow Seacamper)
I was just about to post a rebuttal when I saw yours!
Texas just agreed not to develop the 170+ miles of pristine barrier island
(drop dead gorgeous) seashore. I love this state!
Oil rig diving is the absolute EEERIEST dive experience I've had!
Also, ALL the UN members have designated UN Heritage sites in THEIR
respective countries where AMERICANS can "sea and ski".
For more info read "Future Shock" by Alvin Toffler.
Globalization is here...a fact...and not going away.
For better or worse....it's a new dawn.

 

[yeehawherb]

Good luck in texas. Down in the BVI personal property starts 50' feet from high tide, the rest is public. Personally, I like watching bikini's walk by... but maybe you texans are different

In Texas it's the Vegetation Line. Where the grass meets the sand. I certainly do like watching the bikini's walk by. That's what i'm worried about, fences being put up along the beaches. I wonder if the State republican's motivation is transfering it to private property, or protecting out youth from the obscenities of flesh? IT must be something ubsurd like taht cause i see absolutely no reason this is good for the entire state.

 

[archman]

I wonder if the State republican's motivation is transfering it to private property, or protecting out youth from the obscenities of flesh? IT must be something ubsurd like taht cause i see absolutely no reason this is good for the entire state.

It's not good for the state. Privatized beaches have long been determined to be of negative net worth, which is why Oregon copied Texas open beaches laws. Texas is the only coastal state in the United States where most of our population resides inland. Therefore the greater public doesn't really follow coastal politics. The pro-beach development lobbies are fully aware of this, so they concentrate on convincing the local legislators to slip new rules and *exemptions* like this under the radar. They are fully aware that once there's one exemption allowing privatized beaches, there's legal precedent to allow more, and more, and more...

It's exactly like negotiating with terrorists. If you even do it once, there's heck to pay.

 

[Spamsonite]

I saw that this was up for vote, and that the state constitutionally-mandated, built-in time for debate and public response was waived (and for every other bill I look at, too). Is the issue settled? What was the result?