Talk Elections

Sponsor: TJ in Cleve

Can you explain your reasoning behind this bill please, Assemblyman TJ in Cleve?

There have been numerous disputes in Ohio over the state government attempting to define property lines as the high-water mark from ten years ago. This has caused considerable backlash among property owners who have claimed the change would cause portions of their backyards to be taken away public domain. I want to ensure this practice is prohibited in the Mideast. This is not an effort to elminate public beaches or curb waterfront access, just to ensure private property rights are respected.

Thank you for explaining. I wanted to make sure I got the intention of your bill right, and it seems I did.
If this bill helps to protect private owners from losing parts of their backyards, I'm in support of it.

Out of interest, as I'm not familiar with maritime law, what would be the argument for retaining property lines as the high water mark? Would giving property owners rights over everything to the low water mark not effectively grant them ownership of "the sea" (in terms of semi-permanent water covered areas of land?)

You are correct in pointing that out. This current bill needs to be altered to address that because it would change our understanding of public beaches along ocean shorelines where there is a large tidal difference. When I wrote this, I was thinking of large lakes more than ocean shoreline where the difference between high and low water marks results from rainfall variation rather than tides. Along the lakeshores, there are some public beachheads, but the majority of the land is private property and most of the disputes involve long-term water level changes and local understandings overturned by state governments. I forgot we do have a tiny little strip of ocean shoreline.

The tidelands have been considered public domain since the Colonial Ordinances of 1641 in the American colonies and based off some Roman ideas of public property. Changing that’s not really what I wanted to do with this bill, so, I’d like to make the following amendment (the other correction is a typo):
 

The amendment is brought to a vote.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This is a 24-hour vote.

Aye (obviously)

Aye

AYE

Voting is now closed.  The AYEs are 3, and the NAYs are 0, with 2 not voting.  The AYEs have it and the amendment is agreed to.

The following version is now brought to a final vote.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

AYE

Aye

Aye

Voting is closed.  The AYEs are 3, and the NAYs are 0, with 2 not voting.  The AYEs have it and the bill is passed.

Signed

x Afleitch