Stilts v. Rhode Island
Rhode Island’s beach expansion law moves public beach onto private property
Stilts filed a lawsuit challenging the Rhode Island law that illegally converts private beachfront property into public property.
Rhode Island Association of Coastal Taxpayers v. Jeffrey Willis
Rhode Island’s beach expansion law moves public beach onto private property
In America, the right to own, occupy, and use your private property is a cornerstone of individual freedom and protected by the Constitution. If the government takes your property, it must pay just compensation—even when it is taking the property for a “good” purpose. Rhode Island lawmakers recently ignored these constitutional limits by enacting a law that takes private land from every coastal property owner in the state and gives it to the public for beach use
Daniel Knight v. Richardson Bay Regional Authority
California man fights government overreach to protect his houseboat and his rights
Daniel Knight called Richardson Bay—in Marin County, California—home since he first dropped anchor there in 1999. For the 65-year-old retired truck driver with a fixed income, several medical problems, and no nearby family, boats have served as the only affordable form of housing. Daniel lived on a fully operational, 35-foot sailboat, complete with electricity, a hot water system and shower, and working engine and sail systems. Daniel had the good fortune of timing when he bought the vessel—the former owner had to move to Alaska and sold the boat to Daniel for a steeply discounted price of $6,000.
Sheffield v. George P. Bush, GLO Commissioner
Texas moves the public beach onto private, residential properties
Charles Sheffield is a long-time Texan and surfer who bought beachfront homes in Surfside Beach as a retirement investment. Merry Porter is a native Texan and resident of Surfside Beach who owns and uses a small beachfront home for rental income. In March 2021, without prior notice or compensation, the Texas General Land Office moved the public beach boundary at Surfside Beach to 200 feet inland of the low tide. This expansion of the beach converts Charles’ and Merry’s residential properties into public property, taking away their privacy rights and ability to use and repair their properties. Government cannot turn private land into a public park without just compensation or due process, so Charles is fighting back.
Andrews v. City of Mentor
Government can’t use zoning permits to erase property rights
Charles Andrews hoped to build a new subdivision on 16 undeveloped acres of land in Mentor, Ohio, that’s been in his family for more than 50 years. For the development to be economically feasible, however, he needed a zoning change to a higher residential density zone. The city denied Charles’ request, ending a streak of approvals for similar rezoning requests dating back to 2004. Because government can’t use zoning codes to erase property rights, Charles is fighting back.
Hollister Ranch Owners’ Association v. Xavier Becerra
Ranch owners fight legislation that gives the government unfettered access to private, sensitive coastal land and potentially punishes owners for defending their way of life
Hollister Ranch, California, is widely known for its 150 years as a working cattle ranch and for its biologically significant coastal habitat spread across miles of shoreline downcoast of California’s Point Conception. Over the years, the ranch has carefully restricted development and activity on its 14,400 acres in order to protect the existing environment and traditional rural western lifestyle and culture while fostering strategic public, educational, and scientific access. A new state law, however, threatens to eliminate the ranch’s right to privacy and will upend longtime conservation efforts, destroying a host of constitutional rights in the process. To protect their privacy, property rights, the environment, and coastal resources and to uphold existing constitutional rights, Hollister Ranch property owners are calling attention to this unfair legislation.
Wall v. Ainsworth
Family challenges government’s arbitrary, unlawful permit conditions
In 2018, the Wall family wanted to build a swimming pool next to their home on their property in Hollister Ranch, California. Like all land owners within the 14,500-acre, century-old working cattle ranch, the Walls needed a permit. Santa Barbara County approved the project; however, the California Coastal Commission denied the permit. The Commission said the construction would violate the Coastal Act’s public access rules, even though the Walls’ property is nearly a mile from the shoreline and no one has ever used their property to get to the coast. The Walls are challenging the Commission’s arbitrary and unlawful permit denial.
Zito v. North Carolina Coastal Resource Commission; Town of Nags Head
Fighting government’s blurred lines on property rights
All Michael and Cathy Zito wanted to do was rebuild their vacation cottage in Nags Head, North Carolina after fire destroyed it in 2016. But state and local governments denied building permits because the property is now within a no-build zone. The Zitos were left with the only vacant lot in a line of beach homes and can do little more than pitch a tent and camp on their property.
Ballinger v. City of Oakland
Unconstitutional tenant relocation scheme hurts families, housing
When the Air Force reassigned Lyndsey and Sharon Ballinger to Washington DC, in 2015, they kept their house in Oakland, California, renting it on a month-to-month lease so they could return to it. When the couple and their two small children came home this spring, a new city law forced them to pay their tech-sector tenants $6,500—for the right to move back into their own home. The law aims to help residents affected by soaring housing costs. But because the law’s good intent comes at the expense of their constitutional protections, the Ballingers filed a federal lawsuit.