A recent op-ed in this paper (“Maine beach access case carries huge implications for private property,” Aug. 24) suggested how bad it would be for the court to return the ownership of the coastal intertidal zone to the state. The opening of the op-ed raised the threat of “drastically expanding public rights” at the shore. 

First, “fishing fowling and navigation” already cover about everything except enjoying fishing, fowling and navigation with an umbrella. 

Second, if the court should happen to cave to these lawyers from California, I look forward to seeing formal appraised values on their local property assessment forms and the local tax revenue each town would collect.

No one is currently being taxed based on the size of the nearby beaches. Their taxes are high because the next person who buys that house will also be able to see the water. Please call the local assessor.

Third, would a clam flat or bed of rockweed be taxed more or less than a shining stretch of empty beach? If someone “owns” a beach, can they rent it out for weddings?

Fourth, please consider doing the title searches to find out when any upland owner was ever deeded intertidal acreage from the state.  A lot of shore property owners simply added the area to low tide to their deeds in the 1980s. See the Goose Rocks Case, Almeder vs. the town of Kennebunkport, 2023. It affirmed that intertidal ownership is not universal, and has to be proven, not disproven.

George Seaver
Business owner
Waldoboro