Comments on: Constitutions http://www.neohouston.com/2009/05/constitutions/ advocating urbanism in the opportunity city Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:06:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Appetitus Rationi Pareat http://www.neohouston.com/2009/05/constitutions/#comment-308 Appetitus Rationi Pareat Fri, 29 May 2009 15:30:28 +0000 http://www.neohouston.com/?p=1051#comment-308 Not to be too lawyerly about this, but the section of the beach that is engulfed by normal tides (like all public waterways) has been and always will be, held in trust by the state for the benefit of all citizens. It is based on the rather ancient legal principle of navigable waterways and the sovereign’s duty (in Texas’s case likely the King of Spain) to hold those waterways for the benefit and use of all citizens. It’s basically the same reason that Texas can’t sell, say, the land under the Gulf of Mexico (and hence the water above it) to a private company. It sounds somewhat ridicules but think how valuable something like that would be to a private shipping company. This is really about public access to the beaches; basically easements across private land so the public can reach the public sections of the beach. It follows the same legal principle as an easement of necessity where a landlocked parcel of land has an implied easement across adjoining property so that the landlocked landowner can reach the public road and the county courthouse (that was the original justification I believe). Alright – law nerd over. Anyway, I am glad it is on the statute book and (hopefully) will be within the state constitution. But I do agree with you that the Texas Constitution is a mess though. Sadly, I see it as a sign that we are continuing to turn away from our common law roots and becoming more and more like a civil law society (and the fact that the public is generally ignorant in regards to basic legal principles). Not to be too lawyerly about this, but the section of the beach that is engulfed by normal tides (like all public waterways) has been and always will be, held in trust by the state for the benefit of all citizens. It is based on the rather ancient legal principle of navigable waterways and the sovereign’s duty (in Texas’s case likely the King of Spain) to hold those waterways for the benefit and use of all citizens. It’s basically the same reason that Texas can’t sell, say, the land under the Gulf of Mexico (and hence the water above it) to a private company. It sounds somewhat ridicules but think how valuable something like that would be to a private shipping company.

This is really about public access to the beaches; basically easements across private land so the public can reach the public sections of the beach. It follows the same legal principle as an easement of necessity where a landlocked parcel of land has an implied easement across adjoining property so that the landlocked landowner can reach the public road and the county courthouse (that was the original justification I believe).

Alright – law nerd over. Anyway, I am glad it is on the statute book and (hopefully) will be within the state constitution. But I do agree with you that the Texas Constitution is a mess though. Sadly, I see it as a sign that we are continuing to turn away from our common law roots and becoming more and more like a civil law society (and the fact that the public is generally ignorant in regards to basic legal principles).

]]>