There are only two US states where it's legal to own the ocean

You’d also have a hard time establishing harm/loss. We’re talking land you can’t really do a lot with. Ability to build a pier isn’t really impacted much by that shift. Building there is already heavily restricted by zoning and environmental regs. You really can’t build much there to begin with, can’t plant on it. There’s not much in terms of resources to be extracted out of it. You can’t live there.

It’s underwater 50% of the time. It might not even be that much land. If you made that change here it’d be like 25 foot band of rocks running the length of the property.

Ownership of beaches is predominantly about access.

1 Like

Yeah, I love that about the Potomac. It’s not the only river in the word on a political boundary that’s like that, as opposed to the usual mid-point or channel centerline methods, but it’s certainly rare. Those on the VA shore do still have to deal with MD authorities to build piers, which must be a hassle.

There are exceptions in the Maritimes. Properties that were established prior to confederation had water lots grandfathered in. My parents own one. I don’t think you can legally do much with it though.

Agreed! I don’t exactly trust the legal system to be reasonable about much of anything, but the value lost to the homeowner should be very small.

Yeah, talk about burying the lede. You find out from the quote near the end they ay are Boston and Massachusetts

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.