Submitted by Susan Hardee Steger
January 14, 2015 7:55 p.m.
An Elizabeth Street homeowner failed in his attempt to eliminate newly created beach parking spaces by placing boulders on a City of Fernandina Beach right of way. Michelle Forstrom, code compliance officer, visited the homeowner to request the boulders be removed within two weeks. And where are the Elizabeth Street signs placed by the City to designate beach parking? They have disappeared.
According to Deputy City Manager Marshall McCrary, on December 29, city officials were notified that beach parking signs on Elizabeth Street were removed. “Unfortunately, City installed signage – particularly beach parking signage in residential areas – goes missing far too often. If we catch someone ‘in the act’ or find clear evidence of a theft, we will prosecute, ” says McCrary.
To secure Federal dollars for the City’s upcoming beach renourishment project, the City is increasing beach parking spaces to meet federal guidelines. The Elizabeth Street location was one area identified for additional parking.
A June 2014 letter addressing the parking situation from City Manager Joe Gerrity assured the U S Army Corps of Engineers, that “the city will be in compliance with those stipulations [parking/access] prior to the next construction.” Although the Elizabeth Street parking spaces were not adjacent to a beach access, the parking spaces did meet federal guidelines that require the spaces be “within a practical walking distance of a pedestrian access to the beach.”
On December 16, 2014, in response to a request from the Elizabeth Street homeowner, the city commission passed a resolution to abandon a portion of a utility and drainage easement due to a 1.1 foot encroachment of the 2801 Elizabeth Street home. According to McCrary, “ample room [for utility and drainage] remains within the easement despite the encroachment.” The new beach parking spaces were in the vicinity of the easement.
Great job Michelle and City staff in protecting the beach access parking. Guess it is time to get out the welding torch and permanently attach the signs to the post and make it a little bit harder to remove them. Or have the NSA surveillance satellite and drones over Kings Bay keep an eye on things in FB as well! LOL
Thuggery comes in many forms. Good job city.
It was concerned private citizens that brought this to the attention of city officials before any action was taken. Great job private citizens. One must wonder if the city conducted any investigation of the responsible property owner to determine if they or their contractors removed the city signage at the location? Was the landscaping in the public parking area and removal of the city signs a coincidence?
Kudos to the city. Federal law requires public access at regular intervals. The Surf Rider Foundation and other watchdog groups have successfully litigated these issues in the past. Surf Rider, an environmental and public beach access organization, has attorneys on staff who do this for a living and they usually win the cases they take and litigate. With all its budgetary shortfalls and woes, the city can ill afford allowing this to happen because there is so much precedent in this area of law and it almost always comes down on the side of the public. It’s rare for a court to rule against private citizens when they block or try to block public access to beaches. In addition, because the federal government/Corps of Engineers have oversight, the city risks losing funding for sand to do beach renourishment if the city isn’t in compliance with the terms. Municipalities don’t generally bar right of way parking to beaches unless there are safety or traffic engineering issues or, in some cases, where right of way parking would be such that people who use it have no access to the beach from it without literally walking across someone’s private property. And not to put too fine a point on the lance but if you want to live at a beach where there is established public parking along right of ways and you don’t like it, perhaps you shouldn’t live there at all unless you’re willing to follow the rules. Allowing this to go unchecked establishes a dangerous precedent and would literally allow other property owners to do the same once the precedent is established. And like the old saying goes, once you allow the camel’s nose under the tent, the rest of the camel will soon follow. And when that happens, it’s nearly impossible to get rid of the beast. Kudos again to the city for doing the right thing. Public access to beaches is a right in this state and should be always safeguarded. The alternative is to have beaches that are essentially private because there’s nowhere to park and there are a number of states where this is a serious issue.
Totally agree!! Having lived on Oahu, which had a limited beach access, and in CA, where it can be very difficult to get to a beach, have always appreciated the generous access on this island.
Joe is right on point.
An unanticipated consequence of the property owner’s actions is increased publicity regarding the availability of public parking in the area. If they left things alone, I imagine that fewer people would be parking there.
Joe is spot on with his comments about other communities and the difficulty there has been with maintaining public access. All one has to do is look at Ponte Vedra Beach where property owners put up fences and landscaping to block public access pathways to the beach. While I understand the need for parking restrictions on A1A in that area due to narrowness of the street, the lot at Mickler Road fills up quickly even on fair weather days.
I guess the homeowner has a right to be upset. I can only imagine that after searching for a home, going through the process of buying it, upgrading it, making it their special place, then some rule in a federal money game for beach renourishment plops a public parking area right next store with all it’s amenities. Stinking garbage cans, late night gatherings with music and screams, fisherman dumping unwanted bait on the ground, homeless people ravaging through the garbage, so on and so forth. I sorta feel how defenseless the homeowner felt in not even having any word, consideration or choice in the matter. Doesn’t make what the homeowner did is right, but makes me understand how frustrated they must be. So the city will receive their federal funds and pat themselves on the back for doing such a cracker jack job, but what about the taxpayer homeowner. Anybody from the city offer to put up privacy fencing or any other ideas? Somewhat reminds us of “taxation without representation” now doesn’t it. Now for you that will ponce on this post with your political and judgemental attitudes, don’t bother, everybody has already heard your rhetoric. Have another cup of kool-aid.
Public land attached to said homeowners yard. The city is finally putting to good use.
It looks like the homeowner has made some welcome improvements to that property. If the city can utilize the easement are they not responsible for maintaining it? So does that mean if the homeowner had left the grass intact would the city : maintain and mow it, reinforce that beach goers stay within parking limitations and repair damage caused to homeowners property, and pick up the trash that beach goers leave? I personally wouldn’t want to be responsible to maintain a city parking lot. Double edge sword. I tend to agree with Randy. Also when I look at the plot map the city’s abandonment of the utility easement is irrelevant to the placement of parking and shouldn’t have even been an issue in this article.