Page 1

COMMENT: by Mark D. Homes WHAT ABOUT MY BEACH HOUSE? A LOOK AT THE TAKINGS ISSUE AS APPLIED TO THE TEXAS OPEN BEACHES ACT http://www.law.uh.edu/Journals/hlr/downloads/40-1%20pdf%20files/ (4)holmes.pdf In the above referenced Adobe Acrobat file‌.the following excerpts: I because of the lengthy easement and public easement by dedication; implied dedication; and lots more on the publics right to access and use of a public beach!!! Some odd and ends from other sources‌ A "public use" has been defined as one that concerns the whole community in which it exists, not a particular individual or a number of individuals. Leathers v. Craig, 228 S.W. 995, 998 (Tex. Civ. App.--Galveston 1921, no writ). The Supreme Court of Texas has ruled that a city is not required to make compensation for losses resulting from the proper and reasonable exercise of its police power.(34)( 34. City of College Station v. Turtle Rock Corporation, 680 S.W.2d 802 (Tex. 1984). ) In order to determine whether an ordinance is a valid exercise of a city's police power and does not constitute a taking, it must meet both of the following requirements: (1) the regulation must be adopted to accomplish a legitimate goal, that is substantially related to the health, safety or general welfare of the people; and, (2) the regulation must be reasonable; it cannot be arbitrary.(35) ( 35. Id. at 805. Further, the Court notes that the presumption favors a finding that the ordinance is reasonable and valid, placing an "extraordinary burden" on those attacking a city ordinance. However, the judicial presumptions favoring the validity of an ordinance must be reconsidered in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dolan.) Natland Corp. v. Baker's Port, 865 S.W.2d 52 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied) http://ogwb.com/cases.html


TOBA citations  

(1) the regulation must be adopted to accomplish a legitimate goal, that is substantially related to the health, safety or general welfare o...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you