The "Texas Open Beaches Act" and Hurricane Ike

David Icke or hurricane Ike? A bit of a strange name for a storm, blame David Icke's karma.

it seems that there're always 2 sides to most laws: one good - to protect us, the "citizens"; one ugly - the government profits off crime. well the good side, demonstrating said "public's right", can be found here, for instance:

It is the position of RFA / TEXAS that access to fishing areas is a critical element of the rights of the recreational angler. This includes access by foot, motor vehicle and boat, to our beaches, shorelines, bays, and estuaries. We are fighting to preserve those rights for the current and future generations of coastal anglers.

Unfortunately, the ability of the people to access their beaches is being threatened more and more as time passes and more coastal areas are subjected to development. We currently are deeply involved in Beach Access Issues, and are prepared to submit the matter for Judicial Review.

According to the Texas Open Beach Act, any current access that is restricted must be replaced by equal or better access. What better access can there be than total open (including vehicular) access? Anything less constitutes not only a violation of the letter and the spirit of the Open Beaches Act, but it is also a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), a federal law, and the Equal Protection Clause (Section 1) of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

www.rfatexas.org...

ok, not bad! i can see where they're going. i support a public beach to walk around on. but isn't "public", by definition, owned by the state/government?

now for the ugly:

Currently, the School Land Board (board) and the Commissioner of the General Land Office (GLO) (commissioner) are authorized to manage the state-owned coastal and submerged lands dedicated to the Permanent School Fund under Sections 4 and 5, Article VII, Texas Constitution. These lands consist of millions of acres, including the Gulf Coast beaches and bays, and submerged lands extending 10.3 miles out from the shoreline. The board and GLO are authorized to authorize the use of these state lands for a variety of private and commercial purposes, including conservation and ecological projects, public and private piers, docks, channels, and wharves, oil and gas exploration and production, pipeline and roadway rights of way, commercial development, and sustainable energy development.

The passage of the Coastal Public Lands Management Act of 1973 consolidated the coastal management authority and the related powers, duties, and responsibilities of the commissioner and the board into Chapter 33, Natural Resources Code. Since that time, the processes and procedures necessary to accomplish the goals of this authority have evolved as the public's need and desire to conduct activities on these lands has developed.

...

C.S.H.B. 2819 authorizes the board to evaluate applications to use coastal public lands and issue the appropriate authorization for uses that are determined to be in the best interest of the state. This bill also updates and clarifies provisions in Chapter 33, Natural Resources Code, relating to the management and protection of coastal public land and other coastal resources.

didn't i already mention my distaste for them knowing what's "best" for us? does "best interest of the state" mean "public" in this case?

aside from them making hurricane victims clean up their own mess, could this be how much they're fined?

SECTION 12. Amends Sections 61.018(b) and (c), Natural Resources Code, as follows:

(b) Authorizes the attorney general, the commissioner, county attorney, district attorney, or criminal district attorney, in the same suit, to recover penalties and the costs of removing any improvement, obstruction, barrier, or other encroachment if it is removed by public authorities pursuant to a removal order issued by the commissioner as provided by Section 61.0183.

(c) Provides that a person who violates this chapter or a removal order issued by the commissioner as provided by Section 61.0183 is liable for a civil penalty of not less than $50 nor more than $2,000, rather than $1,000.

is there a law student in the house? am i making the correct assumptions with what i've deduced?

and what does all this mean, exactly?

SECTION 22. Amends Section 5.008(b), Property Code, to require a specific section, stating that a certain property may be subject to the Open Beaches Act or the Dune Protection Act (Chapter 61 or 63, Natural Resources Code, respectively) and a beachfront construction certificate or dune protection permit may be required, to be included within the notice required to be executed and, at a minimum, read substantially similar to a specific form by a seller of residential real property comprising not more than one dwelling unit located in this state, and to be given to the purchaser of the property under this subsection.

SECTION 11. Amends Sections 61.015(b) and (c), Natural Resources Code, as follows:

(b) Requires the commissioner to act on a local government's proposed beach access and use plan within 90, rather than 60, days of submission by either approving the plan or denying certification.

(c) Requires the local government to forward a development plan for small-scale construction activity that includes 5,000 square feet or less or habitable structures two stories or less in height to the commissioner no less than 10 working days prior to acting on the development plan. Requires the local government to forward a development plan for large-scale construction activity that includes more than 5,000 square feet or habitable structures more than two stories in height to the commissioner no less than 30 working days prior to acting on the development plan.

huh?! do they really plan on building government-owned homes?

all this can't be good for the public, can it? and by "public" now, i mean we, the people... not the state! i'd like something done in our collective, best interests, from our voices! unless, the state's "best interest" is what we truly want???

i sure hope it's not...



peace!

[edit on 29-9-2008 by adrenochrome]

Originally posted by 38181
I think that sign is put up by the association for the tenants property, It does not look to be of a city sign with no specific city ordinance number from the city, so illegal sign. IMO

do you really think the local law enforcement is supporting an illegal activity here? whether or not they put the sign up, it still says that they're enforcing it by patrolling the beach. maybe they don't officially enforce it, but that sign makes me think otherwise with its wording.