Lakewood Gets 2.25 Miles Of Public Lakefront

[Jim O'Bryan]

From the Toledo Blade!
http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2011/09/14/Ohio-Supreme-Court-rules-in-favor-of-public-shore-access-on-Lake-Erie.html

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that beachcombers can walk natural shorelines along
private properties bordering Lake Erie.

In a 7-0 decision the court overruled a lower court that allowed lake front property to be
considered "private" and that an owner's rights extend to the water.

This would back up decisions from 1878 and 1917.

While it has the potential to add 2.25 miles of public lakefront to Lakewood, it will actually
only impact 1/4 or so. I would expect some other ruling on property like Cedar Point which
would need a ton of work to make the beach public. Also how does this effect private
marinas, clubs, etc. Is the rock beach under Pier W now public? Break walls that go out
the water now public? I had heard talk of 30' within water line, but have not found the
reference in the new ruling.

Lakewood just got a little bit cooler!



.

[stephen davis]

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that beachcombers can walk natural shorelines along private properties bordering Lake Erie.

Great! How do I get to the shoreline?

.

[Jim O'Bryan]

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that beachcombers can walk natural shorelines along private properties bordering Lake Erie.

Great! How do I get to the shoreline?

.

Stephen

Funny you mention this. As you well know, all public beaches on both coasts, which is the
entire shoreline, have to now have public access to public beaches. Now I am not sure if a
beach, like the ones that actually appear behind a couple Lakewood homes would be
large, enough to warrant public beach access. Would this be put on the property owner?

I am trying to find some national laws and see how these answers come out.


.

[Betsy Voinovich]

From the Toledo Blade!
http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2011/09/14/Ohio-Supreme-Court-rules-in-favor-of-public-shore-access-on-Lake-Erie.html

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that beachcombers can walk natural shorelines along
private properties bordering Lake Erie.

In a 7-0 decision the court overruled a lower court that allowed lake front property to be
considered "private" and that an owner's rights extend to the water.

This would back up decisions from 1878 and 1917.

While it has the potential to add 2.25 miles of public lakefront to Lakewood, it will actually
only impact 1/4 or so. I would expect some other ruling on property like Cedar Point which
would need a ton of work to make the beach public. Also how does this effect private
marinas, clubs, etc. Is the rock beach under Pier W now public? Break walls that go out
the water now public? I had heard talk of 30' within water line, but have not found the
reference in the new ruling.

Lakewood just got a little bit cooler!



.

Hi Steve,

I was thinking the same thing.

If the access to the beach is private, then you can't get to the beach anyway, unless you pull up in boat, or you swim. At which point I guess you could say you were a beachcomber...

The other thing that is disconcerting is that it does seem like a violation of privacy. Random people aren't allowed behind your house into your backyard; if your backyard happens to end in Lake Erie does that mean you now have to allow strangers in your backyard at any and all times? if they can get there? which makes the word "beachcomber" really weird.
Is "beachcomber" a legal term? If you lay down on a towel are you now legally a "sunbather"? Do you have to keep moving? Can you bring a picnic? Can you bring all of your friends? How about a guitar, or a drum, or a drum circle? What about a bonfire?

And is all of this cool now on any beach anywhere?

Betsy Voinovich

[Jim O'Bryan]

This is what I am getting at.

This law is just the start of a whole group of issues that will need to be looked at. But homes
that back up to Metro Parks, the river etc, have to allow right of way for public access.

Who can forget John Candy's movie Summer Rental where his cottage was next to the public
access path to the beach and every stopped in his house for the bathroom, phone, food, etc.

While it could affect the price of homes on the water, beach access as said to me by many
many realtors would drive up the value of all of Lakewood's homes.

We shall see.


.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Here is the case summary.
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/PIO/summaries/2011/0914/091806.asp

Here is a video of the argument.
http://www.supremecourtofohiomedialibrary.org/Media.aspx?fileId=128853






.

[stephen davis]

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that beachcombers can walk natural shorelines along private properties bordering Lake Erie.

Check this link to the Ohio Supreme Court summary of this decision:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/PIO/summa ... 091806.asp

It doesn't mention beachcombers once. Not even sure this decision has anything to do with with walking the beach. The decision seems to be a "determination that the territory of the public trust in Lake Erie extends to the natural shoreline, which is the line at which the water usually stands when free from disturbing causes."

I'm not sure that I'd have a picnic on somebody's beach just yet.

.

[Brian Pedaci]

Seems you could walk along the shore, as long as your feet were in the water.

[J Hrlec]

It seems like we don't have true waterfront / beachfront access at Lakewood park (just a walkway with lots of breakwall stones).... much less worrying about invading a small strip of land behind someone else's house.

[Jim O'Bryan]

It seems like we don't have true waterfront / beachfront access at Lakewood park (just a walkway with lots of breakwall stones).... much less worrying about invading a small strip of land behind someone else's house.

Actually probably a little over 1/3rd of a mile of usable beach we currently do not have access too. Maybe more depending on the definition.

Also where does this leave places like Rocky River Beach, Clague Park, etc. that says
residents only?


.

[Tim Liston]

First things first, understand that the Toledo Blade has for years been the shrillest media voice in strident support of the notion that portions of deeded lakefront property are part of the “public trust,” all the way up to the so-called and capriciously-designated “ordinary high water mark.” So the falderal published in the article linked in the OP comes as no surprise.

This morning I read the Ohio Supreme Court decision. Here are a few excerpts from the decision document….

Sec. 54, "if a ([lakeshore) owner has no property rights lakeward of the natural shoreline, then the territory of the public trust does not extend landward beyond the natural shoreline."

Sec. 57 defines the “natural shoreline” as "the location where the water usually stands when free from disturbing causes," that is, normally at rest.

Sec. 60 says “This court has a history of protecting property rights, and our decision today continues that long-standing precedent.”

Sec. 62, “Our decision today reaffirms this court’s previous determination that the territory of the public trust in Lake Erie extends to the natural shoreline, which is the line at which the water usually stands when free from disturbing causes. Nothing contained in our opinion interferes with the presumptively valid deeds of the lakefront owners.”

The above excerpts should answer most of the questions/issues raised in the previous posts.

[Donald Farris]

Hi,
So, if Lakewood does not want to build the Peninsula, are you saying that they can go from Webb Park and build stairs down to the water to connect to a boardwalk which would go to Clifton Beach and give all access?

Sandusky's new marina has a great boardwalk.

We were just at Ocean City, MD and they have a boardwalk that attracts tourists from all over.

When we visit many places around the World they accept the shoreline as a public feature and as such make it available to all. Nice to see Ohio's top legal minds share this world view.

[sharon kinsella]

Donald that is a great idea!