Latest news with #Section33

Boston Globe

The fight over a private Martha's Vineyard beach with statewide implications

Each time, the courts have reaffirmed that when underwater land emerges over time at the edge of a great pond or the ocean (known as 'accretion') that land belongs to the upland property owner along the shore — not the Commonwealth or the public. That principle has been upheld in rulings like Kubic v. Audette and White v. Hartigan because it respects longstanding ownership, ensures clarity, and preserves the character of coastal neighborhoods. Friedman wants to rewrite that rule for one reason: to claim access to a beach he does not own. Having exhausted the legal process, he is attempting to accomplish what he could not in court: change settled law. Advertisement Section 33 asserts that the Commonwealth 'retains title to any waters or land below the low water line of a great pond in perpetuity.' That sounds benign — perhaps even principled — until you realize that it would retroactively turn privately owned beaches into state-owned property, including carefully stewarded conservation land. That would trigger a flood of lawsuits and claims for thousands of parcels in the state. The cost to the Commonwealth could be hundreds of millions in legal fees, settlements, and lost tax revenue. Advertisement There is a healthy dose of hypocrisy at the heart of Friedman's quest. Years ago, he placed a conservation restriction on his Edgartown property for the purpose of blocking any future public access to Oyster Pond and the beach beyond. Even as he positions himself as a champion for public access, that restriction remains in place. When Healey was attorney general, she opposed Friedman's arguments in a 2018 amicus brief in the Kubic case, affirming the rights of upland property owners. It's not clear why she would contradict that view today now that she's governor. What is clear is that Section 33 is about not public access but instead about one man's private interest. It will not protect Massachusetts communities from rising seas or strengthen the careful environmental stewardship private owners have practiced for generations. What it will do is undermine long-held property rights, pit neighbors against one another, and send countless acres of sensitive environmental lands into stewardship turmoil. Advertisement That's not lawmaking in the public interest. It's supporting a private gain — and the Legislature should reject it.