Today's Star-Bulletin ran a good article about the continuing problem of oceanfront property owners making claims on the beach where it has naturally expanded, or by simply growing out vegetation to grab more land (as in the photo above, which was taken last year at Kailua Beach -- note the SPRINKLER HEADS in the plantings).
We have laws saying the beach belongs to the public up to the high water wash, but vegetation is also used to mark boundaries. We have State laws that say one thing, while the individual counties make their own shoreline setback rules. Meanwhile, due to State and county budget shortfalls, personnel are being laid off which means we have less enforcement of existing laws. And no one is really responsible for overseeing our shorelines and beaches -- the State and counties just pass the buck!
Here's the article link.
My wife and I took a walk along Kailua Beach this Thanksgiving weekend. Besides the five houses that are already being rebuilt closer to the water, there are at least two vacant lots where you can be sure new owners will also build right up to the legal setback because others have already done it, and they don't want their views blocked by neighbors who will rebuild closer to the ocean.
Say goodbye to the Kailua Beach we used to love. It's well on the way to becoming another narrow stretch of sand just like Lanikai or Kahala Beach thanks to selfish, short-sighted beachfront property owners who don't give a damn about their impact on Hawaii's beaches. And thank our State and county officials too for not doing anything about it.
8 comments:
I'm guessing you don't know anything about Hawaii or how oceanfront homeowners have directly caused the LOSS of beach land by growing out vegetation that interferes with natural sand dunes... and then after their selfish actions have resulted in accelerated beach erosion, they put up seawalls which leads to even more beach loss.
Don't take my word for it. Just look at pictures of Kahala Beach and Lanikai Beach to see the impact of homes that are built too close to the ocean. Compare that with other "healthy" beaches where the original homes are set back much further.
So under your philosophy of "ownership" everybody loses, including the property owner. You can't own what you are responsible for destroying.
Aloha,
Rich
P.S. If you have the courage of your convictions, why not sign your name?
I'm all for beach access, not just to beaches, but to waterfalls as well. However, I am sick of Joe Q Public, thinking the shoreline is always at the vegetation line and that every land owner vegetating along the shore is stealing from the public. Such land owners may very well be within their rights even with present day restrictions. The high water mark is often 15-20 feet below the vegetation line and part of the land owner's property is just sandy and he/she is vegetating it at the encouragement of the DLNR, the state regulatory department to stop erosion because the state doesn't want land owners applying for hard seawall permits. Just because a land owner is vegetating their land to prevent needless erosion, does not mean he/she is stealing it from the public. Quite the contrary. It is the public that is stealing land from the private land owners when the state tells private land owners they can't use the first 40 linear feet of their property from the shoreline and need a permit just to park a chair or bench or tent on their own PRIVATE beach front property even when it is over 40 feet from the shoreline. Hell, you really, by regulation, can't even park yourself down on a picnic blanket with a can of soda on your Hawaii beach front property without being in violation. That blanket, that chair and that sode can are "solid materials" don't you know! Yet Joe Q Public and Suzy Tourist can waltz down the beach, sit 5 feet below the shoreline and enjoy the same picnic without fear. Is it fair to say that only land owners pose a potential danger to the shoreline while picnicking in their backyards within 40 feet above the shoreline, when Joe Q Public can use the sandy beach within 1 inch below the same shoreline without being considered to pose a potential danger the same shoreline? Hell, no. It's insane!
Yet the land owner still has to pay the mortgage, pay the taxes and maintain the property without any compensation whatsoever from the county or state. That is an illegal "takings" and Hawaii land owners should unite and class action the county/state for such takings. If Joe Q Public wants that first 40 linear feet, they should purchase it from the land owner fair and square. There is no exchange. It's not right to think it does not harm the land owner to tell them they can't use 40 linear feet of their property, it does hurt. Imagine being told you can't use the first 40 feet of your front lawn! Currently, only the public benefits from such regulation, while the land owner is penalized without just compensation. At the very least, the beach front land owner should not have to any pay taxes on such property, that would be some compensation for not being allowed to use your own property. It's like the DMZ zone in Korea, the first 40 linear feet of beach front property is a buffer zone, between the public and private land owner, only in the USA it's now called the CMZ zone. Yet beware, this regulation is the very type of regulation that robbed the Hawaiian people of her precious lands, a wound that hurts to this very day, a wound that has never and will never heal without just compensation or the return of land and which recently and painfully happened again at Kauai's Wainiha Beach in which Hawaiian families who have owned the land since the King of Hawaii gave it to them during the Great Mahele, have just this month been forced off their private lands due to the claim of erosion. The Hawaiians were not allowed to protect their lands from erosion, whether due to regulations or lack of monies to pay for certifications and permits, or the fact remains, they no longer own that land, but that same land now belongs to Joe Q Public? The
to continue...
Hawaiians can't camp there, but Joe Q Public can camp at the beach around the corner? Not to mention the State by it's own rules and regulations is supposed to prevent erosion in the Limited Subzones. When the Hawaiians fight for their lands today, they are not unlike many American's today and if it can happen along the coast, it can happen inland too and already has. You could be next.
The beach is, by the State's estimations, eroding away at the rate of 1 foot per year -whether or not there is a home, vegetation or just plain sandy beach. Not building a home with 40 feet within the shoreline is one thing, it quite another to not be able to place a bench or chair in your own backyard.
I've lived in Hawaii for over a decade and I am quite aware of the beach erosion debate and am quite happy with my convictions thank you. That doesn't mean I'm going to put my last name out there so you and others can discriminate against me because you don't like what I have to say. I consider blogs like this are to make people think, and to present differing perspectives on an issue. My guess is the only reason you are willing to put your name out there is because currently the rules are in your favor and there is less chance you will be discriminated against for your opinion. With that said, the tide may change and someday, your opinion might not be so popular.
Get your facts straight. I personally know the people who give the State their info on erosion rates. Chip Fletcher and Dolan Eversole of the UH Sea Grant program will tell you flat out there is no such thing as an "average" erosion rate for the State!
In fact, the beach is growing in some areas. What is not in dispute is the loss of beach in places like Kahala Beach and Lanikai, where owners built right up to the minimum setback requirements.
BTW, guess what? As a taxpayer, YOU are footing the bill for beach restoration projects in Waikiki, where hotel owners built too close to the ocean and put up sea walls, which hastened erosion in front of their hotel properties.
I have no problem with signing my full name because unlike you, I can back up all my arguments with facts.
And I could easily find half a million locals and Hawaiians who side with me: the beaches of Hawaii belong to the people of Hawaii. Period.
Last word: you want to talk about "takings"? Perhaps you need a history lesson. These entire islands were "taken" from Native Hawaiians.
Read "To Steal a Kingdom," then you and other mainland transplants can cry all you want about "takings" of beach land that the courts have already ruled rightfully belong to the public.
Oh, that's right... land rights don't apply to Native Hawaiians because Americans made the rules!
Post a Comment