[Bigwater]

The beach houses on the public beaches in Galveston and Brazoria counties are now going to have to move. The state is going to give the homeowners $40000 each to assist them in moving the house. They will no longer be able to get any kind of wind insurance if it sits on a public beach. I for one don't see what the big hurry is.

Biggie

 

[shanker]

so you and I are paying to have private houses moved?

that is BS! we should not be using TAX DOLLARS to pay to move private property!

 

[Mr. Breeze]

Move it to a dry lot. Put on new piers and sell for $200,000 +. Still not bad.

 

[Galveston Yankee]

shanker,

Not only are they privately owned houses, the vast majority are commercial, resort rentals that rent for $1,500 or more a weekend! Many rent for $3K to $5K per week. This is taxpayer subsidies to wealthy individuals.

Biggy, If the wind blows 'em down, they don't have to pay to move them and the State or FEMA will give the City reimbursements for cleaning debris off of the beach!

TOm

 

[kenny]

The beach houses on the public beaches in Galveston and Brazoria counties are now going to have to move. The state is going to give the homeowners $40000 each to assist them in moving the house. They will no longer be able to get any kind of wind insurance if it sits on a public beach. I for one don't see what the big hurry is.

Biggie

That's wrong to help pay to move the houses in violation. What about the people whose homes were condemned and moved or torn down at their expense for being on the public beach in the past?
I'm no attorney, but isn't the state violating the 14th amendment, the Equal Protection Clause? They all signed a waiver at closing acknowledging the TOBA, so those contracts are no longer valid?

 

[Silverspoon]

I posted my thoughts on this in the Jungle.

 

[jferrell1211]

another thought....this is not the first time this has happened...I wonder, did the state jump in and help those who were put in this spot by previous storms\erosion? Maybe they did...anybody know for sure?

I've never understood why some in govt. think it's the govts. responsibility to take care of everything? I once had a house sitting on the riverbank. A flood came, it fell in. I knew when I moved in that it could happen. I took a chance. I was willing to take that chance to live there. It lasted 1 year. I lost. I moved on. It could have lated 20 years--or 50 years, nobody knew. It lasted 1, oh well, I REALLY enjoyed that year!!!

Same goes for the beach. I would love to live there. I may choose to someday. If I do, I will understand the risks associated.

I just don't get it. But really , I do. It's just sad.

(kudos to Kenny, I went off before reading your post---says basically the same thing!! I'm with Kenny!!)

 

[Rainy]

I haven't found in the CEPRA act

where they can give that money to private persons like Jerry talked about today. I believe they could probably use it to destroy the homes, but not give the money to private persons.Of course he will just go to the legislature and get it changed UNLESS we regular folks not owning vacation homes on the beach make enough noise at the legislature in opposition. And it isn't too soon to start! I know that with the houses on the beach in Surfside, that FEMA would not buy them out, but would give money to the State to use to tear them down. That is what should be done. There is also to much room for fraud the way Patterson wants to do it. And believe me we have some slick beachfront advocates that have worked all along to limit and restrict the public beach goers while trying to change all the rules, destroy the OBA and create taxpayer funds for the private owners use and benefit. That is the WGIPOA, the worst thing that ever happened to Galveston and to all of the public beaches in Texas. Of course the city of Galveston, the county, the DA could now start condemnation proceedings, since the moratorium is official over. That is what the moratorium prevented for the last two years.

 

[FishFinder]

Kenny is right on the money so to speak! Most of these homeowners and I am going out on a limb to say the majority were required to sign an acknowledgement of the OBA and what would happen to their homes if they encroached the vegetation line on the beach. The only reason the state is choking up $40 k is that most likely is what it cost to move a home! Not sure about that, but most of the 107 homes that were tagged were smaller 1-2 bedroom beach houses. Not to mention it will help the state alleviate some pressure in court when these homeowners sue. Which they will... My personal feeling is that if they (the homeowners) signed an acknowledgement of the OBA and knew what they were getting into, then they should had their homes removed along time ago at the (their) owner's expense. The real issue Texas beaches currently face in regards to property is the high erosion rates and the fact the both state and most local governments do not have sufficient set back rules in regards to how far you can build from the sand dunes. Galveston has 25' set back rule, which is ludicrous! This issue will be issue for a long time to come as long as standard set back rules are not in place. The current homeowners will all be crying for geo tubes up and down our beaches to protect our homes. With that, higher erosion rates will occur. More sand will have to be put on the beaches due to the geo tubes. Great deal for a few to have the pleasure of that beachfront home huh! Not to mention as it all happens our access quickly fades away! And guess who pays for it all in the end???

 

[speckledred]

Ok, I still don't get it & will do more research but is it a done deal that we, as tax payers, will fund up to 40K to relocate a beachfront home? I have property in Surfside and purposely avoided the beach front so as not to end up in the gulf, I don't want to pay to relocate rental properties as that is what all of those properties are. Do we have time to change this? Today was the first I noticed all this going on.

 

[Gary]

http://www.tobaforum.org/

 

[kenny]

And believe me we have some slick beachfront advocates that have worked all along to limit and restrict the public beach goers while trying to change all the rules, destroy the OBA and create taxpayer funds for the private owners use and benefit. That is the WGIPOA, the worst thing that ever happened to Galveston and to all of the public beaches in Texas.

Rainy

That's true.
This guy Jerry Mohn just made up WGIPOA and made himself leader. It is an unelected special interest group on the West end with a lot of power$$$$$$.
It and it's leaders should be audited as I guess it's a non-profit. I wonder how you go about doing that?

Tim,
like I've said in the past, no one should ever have been allowed to build on the beach side of 3005, which by the way, will be washed out sooner or later like 87 so access will only be by 4-WD.

 

[Brew]

If I understood him correctly I think his story was the $40k is a lot less then what it would cost to take these folks to court. Sounds like we'll be paying one way or the other.

I guess/hope since the 40k is a reimbersment only after the house has been moved it at least gaurantees a few of them will be gone.

Royer asked him what would happen if nobody took them up on the 40k and he replied "you will end up in court, you will lose and then lose your house altogether."

I would hope that they limit the reimbersements to one per person/company since theres only like 42 actual homeowners total for the 116 houses in question.

I guess only time will tell.

Jeff

 

[kenny]

If I understood him correctly I think his story was the $40k is a lot less then what it would cost to take these folks to court. Sounds like we'll be paying one way or the other.

I guess/hope since the 40k is a reimbersment only after the house has been moved it at least gaurantees a few of them will be gone.

Royer asked him what would happen if nobody took them up on the 40k and he replied "you will end up in court, you will lose and then lose your house altogether."

I would hope that they limit the reimbersements to one per person/company since theres only like 42 actual homeowners total for the 116 houses in question.

I guess only time will tell.

Jeff

That's interesting information Jeff. We'll see, but believe it or not, I don't trust any politicians especially Galveston politicians

 

[Galveston Yankee]

That's wrong to help pay to move the houses in violation. What about the people whose homes were condemned and moved or torn down at their expense for being on the public beach in the past?
I'm no attorney, but isn't the state violating the 14th amendment, the Equal Protection Clause? They all signed a waiver at closing acknowledging the TOBA, so those contracts are no longer valid?

Kenny,

I didn't know you are an attorney. Check out Article 1, Section 28 of the Texas Constitution. It reserves the authority to suspend enforcement of the State's laws solely to the legislature. In my opinion, the change to the Open Beaches Act (31 TAC 61.185) is unconstitutional. The commissioner should never have been allowed to issue the moratorium in the first place.

I had a chance to listen to the whole announcement last night. I have a problem with the commissioner picking and choosing which parts of the law he is going to enforce because he either likes a part or dislikes a part. THat is basically what this is coming down to.

The point of paying people to move their structures doesn't sit well with me for a lot of reasons, some of which have been stated here. However, it would actually save the State a lot of money in the long run.

Lorraine and I went back and forth in email with the commissioner yesterday and last night about some of this. He is looking for a way to fulfill his responsibility as painlessly as possible for the affected people. I wish he would act as considerately for the general public when it comes to access in places like Galveston - and told him so.

This problem is not going to go away. I would prefer to have seen the commissioner announce that he is going to request legislation that will give the the GLO condemnation authority, which that office does not currently have. It is senseless to have a government office being responsible for initiating legal action for the removal of encroachments on public easements without that office having condemnation authority.

The commissioner could have announced that he was going to refer the offending property owners to the Texas Department of Transportation for condemnation proceedings to remove encroachments from the State highway system as the beaches are part of it.

I would have liked to hear that there is a restriction against coverage by this action for any person who purchases property seaward of the intracoastal waterway from the time of the announcement forward. That would at least limit the State's potential cost following future determinations of encroachment. This announcement further reduces the risk to affluent property purchasers and developers which may exacerbate the problem of development in high-risk areas rather than alleviate the problem of removing encroachments.

There are already provisions in the OBA for the State to include in a law suit a claim for reimbursement for expenses incurred by the State to remove encroachments from the public beach.

We will keep a steady stream of information on the TOBA website on developments and/or conversations with the land office as this proceeds along through the rule making process.

Tom

 

[stargazer]

Good read Tom.

 

[speckle-catcher]

only thing about giving them condemnation authority is that it will probably cost more than $40K per structure to go through the process.

 

[surffan]

only thing about giving them condemnation authority is that it will probably cost more than $40K per structure to go through the process.

I don't think a suit to remove encroachments is strickly speaking a condemnation proceeding. A suit to remove encroachments from state property might be the simplest way to go. Problem is getting anyone at State level to act.

 

[Galveston Yankee]

only thing about giving them condemnation authority is that it will probably cost more than $40K per structure to go through the process.

Probably so, but there is no guarentee that any one of the affected property owners are going to take up this offer, anyway. As Jeff stated, only 42 property owners for 116 properties. That tells me there are a lot of cash cows situated on our beaches.

I would prefer to see this offer limited to actual home owners who reside there full time.

Channel 11 did their thing last night saying that the state is going to make 100 families move their homes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Geesh! I wish they would actually report the news rather than try to create a story!

Tom

 

[Gary]

Probably so, but there is no guarentee that any one of the affected property owners are going to take up this offer, anyway. As Jeff stated, only 42 property owners for 116 properties. That tells me there are a lot of cash cows situated on our beaches.

I would prefer to see this offer limited to actual home owners who reside there full time.

Channel 11 did their thing last night saying that the state is going to make 100 families move their homes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Geesh! I wish they would actually report the news rather than try to create a story!

Tom

Typical Liberal media!