Beach Life

The newspaper this months brings another host of problems to us here in Point Roberts. The newest one is the county’s shoreline management amendments. As I previously mentioned, Washington seems to give ownership on waterfront property clear down to the low tide mark. However, it makes up for it, happily, by requiring something of those who own that property. Currently, it is defining buildings/structures/houses/etc. within 150 feet of the water (not clear to me whether that’s high water mark, low water mark, or some midline) as ‘non-conforming structures.’ And, as ‘non-conforming structures, they need to have special permits if the owners wish to rebuild or add to the building/structure/etc., if the addition has a value in excess of $5,781. (Such a nice, precise number, no? You do wonder where that came from.)

Local waterfront owners are, the newspaper reports, up in arms, although it may also be local realtors who are feeling bad. Some waterfront property owners have filed a suit against the county on the grounds that the County Council is not following proper procedures in making these changes, but the unhappiness is all about property rights. You might think that if you were lucky enough to have a piece of beachfront property in Whatcom County, you’d be willing just to count your blessings. But here in the land of libertarians, people surely do feel that they have pretty much an absolute right to do whatever they want on their own property. Lots of luck when the Washington State Department of Ecology AND the county are on the other side of the court.

The unhappy lawsuit filers have declared in their suit that these new rules are excessively restrictive. I wonder if they get the same people to quantify ‘excessive’ as the County gets to quantify the allowable addition’s value? And what would that line of work be called? Excessively restrictive seems a little like overkill to me. Excessively inconvenient to the owners, doubtless. But they seem about as restrictive as they are.

Nevertheless, the litigants maintain in their suit, according to the All Point Bulletin, that this excessive restrictiveness must be stopped because, if it is allowed to go forward, their waterfront property will ‘be rendered virtually valueless .’ Is virtually valueless much more than actually valueless? That statement itself seems excessively hysterical, I’d say. Perhaps I ought to make an offer to one of the beachfront owners. I'd be willing to offer a quarter of the assessed value of one of these places. After all, if they’re ‘virtually valueless,’ a quarter of the assessed value ought to be a terrific offer which would be quickly taken up. And then I too would be lucky enough to live on the beach, even if in a ‘non-conforming structure,’ and could worry about my rights being violated.