UPDATE: Hawaii Supreme Court Rejects Beach Ownership Case
A month ago, we asked “Who owns the sand?” and on Thursday the Hawaii Supreme Court [pdf] — and it’s complicated.
Basically, in declining to review the in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana vs. State of Hawaii, the Supreme Court, by a 3-2 vote, left the lower court’s opinion as the law of the land.
As it stands today, the state must fairly compensate oceanfront property owners if it takes any sand that piled up on beaches before 2003, but the state can take any subsequent or future beach growth without any compensation.
That leaves neither side satisfied. Oceanfront [pdf] that the appellate court erred when it ruled that landowners have no vested right to future potential beach growth, essentially freezing property lines in 2003. [pdf] that the appellate court erred on the other side when it ruled that claiming land that accumulated before 2003 was an illegal taking.
The Supreme Court majority rejected both arguments. But Justice Simeon Acoba, joined by Justice James Duffy, said he would have accepted both parties’ petitions.
In his [pdf] — quite a bit longer than the majority’s mum one-page decision — Acoba wrote that the appeals court erred in a number of matters and its ruling needed clarification.
Paul Alston, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said Thursday that he is seriously considering appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that Hawaii’s Act 73 violates the to the U.S. Constitution. He has 90 days to make the decision.
“Virtually every case that’s ever addressed this has said that the right to accretion is vested,” Alston said, but the appeals court decision “is still the law until some other court says it’s not.”
A request for comment from the Hawaii Department of the Attorney General was made Thursday afternoon. A response will be appended here if and when it is received.
DISCUSSION: Join the discussion on this and other land issues.
