public tells uppity landowners to fuck off

"The Supreme Court overturned a ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which said the state owns land below the high water mark but owners of adjacent riparian property have exclusive use of it and can kick others out." - Detroit Free Press

http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0508/01/metro-264320.htm

This court ruling made me very happy. I just wish I had been following the case, because I didn't even know it was going on (in the courts) until this news! Relates to my comments below on public access to the lakes.

The plaintiffs' attorney is quoted as saying, "This is not what riparians bargained for when they purchased their land." Well, I'm sorry Mr. Strattard, but being denied a walk on the beach is not what Michiganders bargained for when they found themselves living near 1/5 of the world's fresh water. Whether you moved here or were born here, the big lakes are a public good. Someone's claim to a plot of land should not be cause to deny everyone else access to such a great resource. Why don't we just go back to the feudal system while we're at it? Firstly, the lakes are large enough that claiming exclusive access to the beach is ridiculous. But it's also pretty presumptuous of a landowner to tell others to get out, when odds are the person isn't from the area.

I'd like to research this to see what the figures are, but in my experience the pretentious lakeside landowners are from out of the area. It's really offensive when for decades the people of an area enjoy a beach, then as soon as someone builds a house on it they start telling the locals to keep away. The house is seldom on the beach anyway, but is set further back. Regardless, they bring their fear and mistrust along with their big bucks. I've seen old public beaches sealed off with fences and even armed guards, because someone "didn't want people there breaking in or stealing their things". They just can't believe that people might just want to lay on the beach, like they have for years, and don't give a damn about the million-dollar house back on the dune. I understand that I have a personal bias - not all landowners are assholes, of course. But this kind of thing happens all the time in the U.P. It hasn't given me a good impression of the upper-middle class people who build "summer homes" up north and spend the other 9-10 months of the year down the line in a warmer climate. Maybe if you spent some time appreciating the particularities of the land, and contributed something to the community other than suburban-esque land use schemes, I'd feel obliged to respect your request for solitude.

Sadly, it's also the case that these are the people who put food on the table, for the locals who are dependent on seasonal tourism and service jobs for their livelihood. This is America folks. Has this already happened all over the country, or is it a more recent phenomenon?


I often wonder how far development will go - thinking, perhaps wrongly, that it would never reach into areas with cold climates or a lot of bugs. (There will never be freeways or strip malls by my home...I used to believe) But then, the city I live in now probably used to have a lot of bugs before it got developed. Maybe it was colder too, before there were thousands of cars circling around the pavement maze. On that note...what is the ratio in this city, of pavement to green? Even where there are trees to offer shade, is there really a lot of natural turf? Looking at maps and aerial photos can be very revealing, but I wonder what the actual acreage is.