I hope you are all paying attention to what I believe is an assault on property rights happening before our eyes. Freedom and property rights, which are intricately linked, do not disappear overnight. They erode gradually until one day you wake up and realize we have replaced God as our shepherd with government.
At the Jan. 29 City Council meeting, there was a six-minute segment following executive session that may have been overlooked during the more than two-hour meeting. The mayor of Isle of Palms made a motion to forgo seeking permanent easements from residents for the upcoming beach renourishment and instead proposed simply assuming an easement. This was done with the concurrence of the city administrator, who stated that obtaining easements had been difficult during the last renourishment effort.
New council member David Cohen wisely objected, saying, “I disagree. I don’t think that we should be going onto people’s properties without their permission.” Thank you, David, for your commitment to property rights. Why is this important?
Under South Carolina beach management law (48-39-280 A1), the baseline is set at the crest of the primary dune for standard zones and at the 40-year erosion line for inlet zones. When renourishment is performed, it is done so that the crest of the new dune aligns with the existing baseline, with all renourishment occurring seaward of the dune and baseline. No easement is required for this work, as the state has jurisdiction seaward of the setback line.
The area between the baseline/setback line and a homeowner’s escarpment is the responsibility of the homeowner, as is done on Folly Beach. Any interference landward of the setback line without an easement would constitute trespassing — something the mayor and city administrator appeared willing to disregard by using the power of the city to assume jurisdiction.
Why should every property owner decline to provide either a temporary or permanent easement? Because if an easement is granted, the plan is not to place the dune at the baseline, but rather at the eroded property escarpment. When the next survey is conducted to reset the baseline — which is scheduled to occur for Isle of Palms this year — the baseline would then be drawn at the crest of the new dune located on the escarpment.
This would reset the baseline landward for all affected properties, potentially placing the setback line through private yards. The result would be a permanent loss of property jurisdiction for landowners without compensation. The city administrator has already publicly stated that once renourishment occurs, the renourished land becomes “property of the state.” Having worked with beach management laws for two years, I believe this statement is inconsistent with the law, but it is what the Department of Environmental Services and the far-left, radical, tax-exempt Coastal Conservation League want property owners to believe.
The 2018 amendment to the beach management laws abandoned retreat and adopted replenishment and renourishment as policy. Lawmakers assumed DES would adopt a policy consistent with renourishment, which it has not. The amendment also stated that the baseline could not be moved seaward of the 2018 baseline due to renourishment. However, the law is so poorly written that unelected officials are interpreting it to mean that once the baseline is moved landward, it can never move seaward again.
In summary, granting any type of easement allows the dune to be placed landward of the baseline, which resets the baseline landward. Officials then argue that because renourishment occurred, the baseline cannot be moved seaward again. Challenging this interpretation would require litigation, which, as my own case demonstrates, is a long and costly process.
The broader plan to take private property became evident once correspondence was obtained through discovery. We also learned that city engineer Steve Traynum participated on a DES “blue ribbon” panel. That panel was part of a settlement in a lawsuit between DES and the Coastal Conservation League, in which the league demanded — as a condition of settlement — that DES change regulations to expand jurisdiction into a loosely defined “beaches critical area” landward of the state-approved setback line.
The panel helped pass these regulations in May 2024. At trial, DES claimed its determination of this new critical area was based on subjective observations of a vegetative line, which would grant the state random and unpredictable authority over private property if allowed to stand. CSE and Traynum were complicit in changes that I believe are illegal and will ultimately need to be unwound in court. I find it ironic that the city pays CSE with taxpayer funds while the firm works against taxpayer interests.
Regardless of the divisions within our community, I urge residents to stand together in defense of property rights.
-
Reddy or Not represents the opinion of Lucky Dog Publishing owner Rom Reddy but not necessarily the opinion of the newspaper. In keeping with our philosophy of publishing all opinions, we welcome responses, which must be limited to 400 words and will be published on a space-available basis.