Beachfront residents sue for not getting free land

Damn. Talk about a sense of entitlement!

The U.S. Supreme Court is getting ready to hear an absurd case filed by wealthy Florida beachfront residents. The residents claim that the state of Florida should just give them beachfront land for free - because they kick so much ass and all.

No, I'm not making this up.

The dispute arose when the state placed more sand along the beaches because they were eroding. The affluent residents say this land is now theirs - but the law says it's public.

In Florida (as in many other states), all beachfront land below the high water line is public. End of story. The plaintiffs seem to be arguing that restored land is now under their private ownership, even though it had been public. They think that if land is restored, it automatically becomes theirs just because they own everything up to where the restored beach begins.

They think they shouldn't have to BUY it. They think they should get it for free, because they already have the land above it.

They're arguing that the state is "taking" their land by not giving them land that they never owned in the first place.

There was a case like this in Michigan a few years ago. Rich property owners argued that they automatically gained more land when Lake Huron's water level receded. Last I heard, a judge had finally put them in their place.

Ironically, the Florida beach restoration wouldn't have been necessary if the plaintiffs hadn't built too much along the beach - which led to the erosion. You don't get free land for ruining the public land that existed.

What moronic matchbook law theory are the plaintiffs using to argue this case?

(Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jR37NbRYyvjQayincxcfA3xkxfHwD9C9VEDO2;
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-beaches-1129-1130nov30,0,4521879.story)