Obamas' private Martha's Vineyard beach could be opened to PUBLIC if wealthy developer gets his way
Boston real estate mogul Richard Friedman has been fighting his neighbors in the wealthy enclave for years over access to a two-mile stretch of barrier beach, Oyster Pond.
He bought a 20-acree property in 1983, believing the purchase gave him ownership of the barrier beach. But his wealthy neighbors disagreed, saying they owned the beach.
A lengthy legal saga ensued that was ultimately brought to an end by natural erosion and shifts in the beach's sands.
As the court battle went on for decades, Friedman decided that, since the private beaches had by this point moved north to rest between two bodies of water considered 'public' under Massachusetts law - Oyster Pond and Jobs Neck Pond - no private entity should be able to lay claim to them.
Now Democratic governor Maura Healy is pushing to open the beach stretch to the public, adding a measure to a $3 billion environmental bond bill that would define a barrier beach which moves - whether by erosion or rising sea levels - on to public land as public property.
The bill declares that a beach that moves into the 'former bottom of the great pond shall be and remain in Commonwealth ownership in perpetuity.'
Hundreds of homeowners would be affected if the measure passes, including Barack and Michelle Obama, whose 28-acre estate includes a barrier beach that would become open to the public.
As the Boston Globe points out, Friedman is a Healy donor and is even scheduled to host a fundraiser for her this weekend.
Critics of the bill have accused her of doing a donor's bidding but she insists the planned law will open more of her state's most stunning beaches to regular people who aren't super-rich.
The Democrat has denied being swayed by her wealthy donor. Her spokesperson said in a statement: 'As someone who grew up on the Seacoast, Governor Healey has always felt strongly about increasing public access to beaches and great ponds.'
The Obamas purchased the sprawling vacation home on Martha's Vineyard for $11.75 million in 2020.
The battle between millionaire families has been raging since a century ago, when two wealthy clans - the Nortons and the Flynns - with oceanside mansions carved out the beach overlooking Oyster Pond, claiming land rights to large slices of the shoreline.
The Norton land is now owned by three trusts - with Friedman being the principal owner, and the Flynn land is owned by six trusts.
Last September, a court ruled against Richard and in favor of the neighbors who say they own the beach.
Representatives for the Flynn trusts have been fighting Friedman's efforts for decades, and experts told the Boston Globe that the law would likely invite lawsuits from the affected homeowners of properties with private beaches.
Eric Peters, one of the attorneys for the Flynn trusts, said 'There is no public interest promoted' by this bill...Rather, this legislation promotes the of a real estate developer.'
Friedman's lawyers meanwhile have claimed 28 beaches that are now considered private would be open to the public if the law is changed.
Friedman is the developer behind the famed Charles Hotel in Cambridge and the Liberty Hotel in Boston.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump ‘clearly furious' that his summer victory tour has been swallowed by Epstein fallout, insiders reveal
President Donald Trump's victory celebrations following an uphill battle to pass his spending bill have been consumed by the Jeffrey Epstein saga — making Trump 'clearly furious,' according to a report. Trump signed what he called his 'big, beautiful bill' into law on July 4. The bill's passage marked a huge victory for the president's agenda, but it didn't spark the Independence Day fireworks that he hoped for. The news was swallowed up by the firestorm that followed two days later. The Justice Department released a July 6 memo stating there would be no further disclosures in the Epstein case. The response was explosive. Trump's MAGA supporters have demanded heightened transparency, the president has sued the Wall Street Journal for $10 billion after new allegations emerged around the president's ties to the late financier, and the attorney general has asked judges to unseal grand jury testimonies in the case. In recent weeks, Trump has also threatened new tariffs and met with world leaders. Still, the Epstein saga has sucked all the oxygen out of the room. The president isn't happy about it, according to staff and allies. 'POTUS is clearly furious,' a person close to the White House told Politico. 'It's the first time I've seen them sort of paralyzed.' A senior White House official told the outlet that Trump is 'frustrated' by the nonstop coverage on the case — which started in February when Attorney General Pam Bondi released 'Phase 1' of the files, which revealed little new information — and his team's ineffectiveness in stopping the spread of conspiracy theories. 'He feels there are way bigger stories that deserve attention,' the official said. Trump hasn't been shy about showing a bit of this frustration publicly as his MAGA supporters and prominent members of his own party have groaned about wanting more information on the case. During a July 8 cabinet meeting, Trump interrupted a question on the topic, asking: 'Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy's been talked about for years. You're asking — we have Texas, we have this, we have all of the things. And are people still talking about this guy, this creep? That is unbelievable.' Last week, he went so far as to attack his 'past supporters' for buying into ' this 'bulls***,' hook, line and sinker. ' He wrote on social media: 'Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats' work, don't even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don't want their support anymore!' On Tuesday, CNN published newly unveiled photos showing Epstein at Trump's 1993 wedding to Marla Maples. When a reporter called Trump to ask about it, the president said: 'You've got to be kidding me.' He then repeatedly branded the network 'fake news' and, after 30 seconds, hung up, the outlet reported. This frustration comes from an acknowledgement that the topic is 'a vulnerability,' a White House ally told Politico. To add insult to injury, declassifying the Epstein files was a campaign promise. 'They're the ones that opened the can of worms on the Epstein conversation. No one made them do this, which makes it sting even worse,' the ally added. The president is no stranger to dominating the news cycle, but this saga appears to have slipped through his fingers, out of his control. Trump has tried to deflect the narrative to something else, such as his recent trade deals. Yet these attempts have come up unsuccessful. Aside from dealing with reports of mounting public pressure, reports of clashes within his administration have also surfaced. 'When you're working 12 to 15 hours a day to solve real problems and you turn on the TV and see people talking about Jeffrey Epstein, that's frustrating. That's where the president's mindset is,' the senior White House official told the outlet. Now, in an apparent effort to quell the uproar, Trump asked Bondi to release the grand jury transcripts in the cases of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend who is serving 20 years behind bars after her 2021 conviction for her role in a scheme to abuse girls with Epstein. Bondi filed motions to unseal transcripts in both cases; the judges overseeing the cases have asked the Justice Department for more information before proceeding. 'They would like to move on and talk about the things they think are Ws,' the White House ally told Politico. 'They are really annoyed that it's an overshadowing news cycle.'
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Nearly half of parents say they plan to go into debt this year to pay for school supplies because they are so expensive
Fears over rising prices — driven in part by President Donald Trump's tariffs — are convincing some parents to shop early and even consider going into debt for their children's school supplies. According to a report from Intuit Credit Karma aimed at parents with school-age children, 39 percent of respondents said they can't afford their back-to-school shopping this year. In the same survey, 44 percent of respondents said they planned to go into debt to cover the costs of school shopping. The number of parents who expect to go into debt to afford supplies for their children has risen by 10 percent since last year. When Intuit asked the same question in 2024, only 34 percent of parents reported planning to take on debt. According to a CNBC price and inflation tracker, the price of many school supply staples has increased since the pandemic. The cost of backpacks has increased by nearly 30 percent since 2021. Lead pencils and art supplies have increased by 26 percent, and tablets and paper pads by 24 percent. In other words, if a backpack was $12 around 2021, it's likely now around $15.60. In 2021, Amazon sold a 24-pack of Ticonderoga #2 lead pencils for $3.49. That same pack on Amazon today costs $5.49. Families with children in elementary school are reportedly planning, on average, $858.07 on school supplies this year. That number is a decrease from last year, when parents planned to spend $874.68, according to the National Retail Federation. The fear of rising prices has already shifted some parents' buying habits — according to the Intuit survey, more than half — 56 percent — of respondents said they're already cutting back on nonessential school purchases to save money. The potential for Trump's tariffs to drive up prices has driven early back-to-school shopping by parents hoping to save some money, a survey from Coresight Research found. Well over half of the respondents to that survey — 62 percent — said they planned to begin back-to-school shopping before August. John Mercer, an analyst at Coresight, told CNBC that the early buying was "probably to preempt any price rises." He said that retailers haven't raised prices yet, primarily due to Trump's pause on tariffs, but he expects that once the pause ends, prices will rise. 'At some point, if tariffs come in, there will be price impacts,' Mercer said, noting that 'consumers are right to be concerned.' The National Retail Foundation shared similar findings — parents are adjusting their buying this year in part due to fears that tariffs and inflation will lighten their wallets beyond what they can bear. 'Consumers are being mindful of the potential impacts of tariffs and inflation on back-to-school items, and have turned to early shopping, discount stores and summer sales for savings on school essentials,' Katherine Cullen, the National Retail Foundation's vice president of industry and consumer insights, said in a statement.
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ilhan Omar labels GOP ‘the pedophile protection party' for dodging vote on releasing Epstein files
Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar has denounced the Republican Party after House Speaker Mike Johnson declined to hold a vote on the release of files relating to Jeffrey Epstein before Congress breaks for its summer recess. 'The pedophile protection party is shutting down Congress just to avoid voting on the release of the Epstein files,' Omar wrote on X on Tuesday. Despite risking President Donald Trump 's ire by calling for the release of the files himself last week on a podcast, Johnson has since changed course and said on Monday the administration needed 'space' to vet the documents in question due to their likely sensitivity. Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, Johnson was asked whether the House of Representatives would get to vote on whether or not to release the files and answered: 'If further congressional action is necessary or appropriate, then we'll look at that... I don't think we're at that point yet, because we agree with the president.' A day later, he called an early start to representatives' five-week recess, leaving no time for a vote on the matter until their return in September, by which point other matters may be considered more pressing. 'The American people are best served by putting an end to Democrats' side shows,' Johnson said at a press conference defending his manoeuvre. 'That's what we're doing by not allowing the Rules Committee to continue with that nonsense this week. We're done being lectured on transparency.' Omar, who is regularly targeted by conservatives, was by no means the only member of Congress to attack Johnson over the decision. Her ally, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, wrote on X: 'Ummm so let me get this straight: Republicans have ground Congress to a halt and are considering adjourning the entire House for six weeks to avoid releasing the info they have on Epstein? What is going on here?' Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, an anti-Trump Republican rebel who has drafted legislation of his own calling for the release of the files, addressed the House GOP leader in a post on X that read: 'Speaker Johnson, why are you running cover for an underage sex trafficking ring and pretending this is a partisan issue? MAGA voted for this.' There could be some movement in the interim on the Epstein case, which has bitterly divided his base and left him scrambling to change the national conversation amid awkward questions about his past friendship with the financier. A panel of federal court judges is currently weighing up whether relevant grand jury transcripts can be released at Attorney General Pam Bondi 's request. Meanwhile, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has announced that he is attempting to arrange a meeting with the pedophile's jailed accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. Trump signaled his apparent approval of that step in the Oval Office on Tuesday, saying it 'sounded appropriate.' The House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee has also voted to subpoena Maxwell. 'This is progress. We will not stop fighting until the Epstein files are released. Trump and Bondi must stop blocking the American people from the truth,' Oversight Committee Democrats wrote on X.
