TBD

Amagansett Truck Beach Trial Begins Monday

Rate this topic

581 posts in this topic

On 12/09/2021 at 5:57 PM, the3fishheads said:

East end should have the finger as it's state fish.

 

8 hours ago, Sandflee said:

 

see all relates :( 

 

Is there anybody from Long Island that can translate any of this into English for me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faakei   oofe off

28 mins ago, Cpalms said:

Your eloquence must be the pride of the Suffolk county public school system. 

 

I wasn't sure before but after further research I found exact translation for the previous material you have been asking about.

 

Faakei ouefe off very macho

 Twice

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back on the "substantive" track for a minute, it looks like the legal saga continues and that the Town is trying to exploit the loophole in the easement which (arguably) allows for driving on the beach if it's fishing-related--which the Town absolutely should do.  So if you want to drive on Truck Beach today put a rod and a sand spike in the back of your truck, cast out a sinker and maybe a hook (or not) after you park, and enjoy your day.  The other thing that's questionable in my opinion is how the court can order the Town to "enforce" the limits of the easement, since courts typically can't dictate how an executive agency allocates and exercises its enforcement powers.  The Town can put up signs that say "no beach driving" except for fishing (which it has done), but the Town's not required to enforce that restriction to the satisfaction of adjacent landowners if (e.g.) the town would prefer to allocate its limited enforcement resources elsewhere.

 

And I say this with no dog in the fight.  I don't drive on "Truck Beach" and never will, and I'm not interested in the locals vs. outsiders debate (despite its entertainment value).  But the legal aspects of this are interesting.  And it seems like the legal debate is far from over.  The landowners' victory may be short-lived if "fishing-related" driving is allowed and/or the courts ultimately can't force the Town to enforce the limits of its easement to the landowners' satisfaction.  Here's the text of a recent article discussing the current situation:

 

**************************************************************************

 

East Hampton Town posted advisory signs over the holiday weekend at the stretch of Amagansett beach commonly known as “Truck Beach” saying that, due to a February court ruling declaring the beach privately owned, vehicles may only access it for “fishing and fishing related purposes.”

 

But the homeowners who live just beyond the dunes and mounted a 12-year legal fight challenging the use of the beach by vehicles may not find the town’s admonishment — there is no reference to any statute or enforcement authority on the signs — a sufficient deterrent to comply with what the court ordered in February.

 

The town is appealing the ruling and has asked for a stay of the court order until the appeal process is completed, but the state courts have thus far not obliged and town officials say the signs are a fair interpretation of the limitations imposed by the court.

 

“We’re asking people to abide by what the court said for the time being,” East Hampton Town Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc said. “The exclusion by the court was for fishing related activities, so that’s what we posted.”

 

The February ruling by a five-judge panel of the New York State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, found that an approximately 4,000 foot stretch of beach between Napeague Lane and the western boundary of Napeague State Park, was included in the 1882 sale of the upland areas by the East Hampton Town Trustees to real estate developer Arthur Benson and is privately owned, collectively, by the homeowners who now live in the neighborhoods across the dunes.

 

The ruling said that members of the public should retain the right to access the beach for “fishing and fishing-related purposes” only, as described in a clause of the original 1882 deed that reserves for town residents the right to “land fish boats and netts [sic] to spread the netts on the adjacent sands and care for the fish and material as has been customary heretofore on the South Shore.”

 

There were, of course, no motor vehicles in 1882.

 

“I don’t really understand what they are doing — they are under a mandatory injunction to not allow anyone to park or operate a vehicle on the beach,” Ken Silverman, one of the homeowners in the Beachampton neighborhood that brought the lawsuit, said of the town’s obligation to enforce the restriction of vehicles this week. “The court has ruled it is private property. The people who, as of now, are entitled to it do not allow people to use vehicles on the beach, so I don’t know how the town thinks it can allow vehicles in any circumstance. [The court ruling] says some fishing related activities are allowed, but it doesn’t have anything to do with vehicles.”

 

The stretch of beach has long been one of only a smattering of areas where the town has allowed 4x4 vehicles to access the beach during the day in summertime since a broad prohibition of it was imposed in the 1980s. Most other town beaches are closed to vehicles between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. from mid-May until mid-September. East Hampton Town and the East Hampton Town Trustees, who own most of the ocean beaches, issue 4x4 permits to residents that allow the driving of vehicles on the sand when allowed.

 

The inclement weather over the Memorial Day weekend meant the power of the court order, and how violations might be addressed, was not tested. When the sun shines and the temperatures rise, those who have flocked to the beach in their 4x4s in increasingly large numbers over the last 20 years as the prevalence of SUVs exploded, may have to disperse to the other, smaller stretches of town beach that allow 4x4 access in summer or to the adjacent New York State park beaches, which require the purchase of a special permit but allow vehicle access at all times.

 

Mr. Van Scoyoc said he was unclear as to who would have the standing as the property owner to make a legal complaint against any vehicles using Truck Beach despite the town’s admonishment.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a picture of the sign the Town has posted.  In my prior post I recommended throwing a rod in the back of your truck, but another option is to have your kid bring a plastic shovel and if anyone complains say you're digging for sand fleas and thus engaged in a "fishing related purpose." 

 

Truck-Beach-Access-Sign-053121_5847-scaled.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sandbox said:

Getting back on the "substantive" track for a minute, it looks like the legal saga continues and that the Town is trying to exploit the loophole in the easement which (arguably) allows for driving on the beach if it's fishing-related--which the Town absolutely should do.  So if you want to drive on Truck Beach today put a rod and a sand spike in the back of your truck, cast out a sinker and maybe a hook (or not) after you park, and enjoy your day.  The other thing that's questionable in my opinion is how the court can order the Town to "enforce" the limits of the easement, since courts typically can't dictate how an executive agency allocates and exercises its enforcement powers.  The Town can put up signs that say "no beach driving" except for fishing (which it has done), but the Town's not required to enforce that restriction to the satisfaction of adjacent landowners if (e.g.) the town would prefer to allocate its limited enforcement resources elsewhere.

 

And I say this with no dog in the fight.  I don't drive on "Truck Beach" and never will, and I'm not interested in the locals vs. outsiders debate (despite its entertainment value).  But the legal aspects of this are interesting.  And it seems like the legal debate is far from over.  The landowners' victory may be short-lived if "fishing-related" driving is allowed and/or the courts ultimately can't force the Town to enforce the limits of its easement to the landowners' satisfaction.  Here's the text of a recent article discussing the current situation:

 

**************************************************************************

 

East Hampton Town posted advisory signs over the holiday weekend at the stretch of Amagansett beach commonly known as “Truck Beach” saying that, due to a February court ruling declaring the beach privately owned, vehicles may only access it for “fishing and fishing related purposes.”

 

But the homeowners who live just beyond the dunes and mounted a 12-year legal fight challenging the use of the beach by vehicles may not find the town’s admonishment — there is no reference to any statute or enforcement authority on the signs — a sufficient deterrent to comply with what the court ordered in February.

 

The town is appealing the ruling and has asked for a stay of the court order until the appeal process is completed, but the state courts have thus far not obliged and town officials say the signs are a fair interpretation of the limitations imposed by the court.

 

“We’re asking people to abide by what the court said for the time being,” East Hampton Town Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc said. “The exclusion by the court was for fishing related activities, so that’s what we posted.”

 

The February ruling by a five-judge panel of the New York State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, found that an approximately 4,000 foot stretch of beach between Napeague Lane and the western boundary of Napeague State Park, was included in the 1882 sale of the upland areas by the East Hampton Town Trustees to real estate developer Arthur Benson and is privately owned, collectively, by the homeowners who now live in the neighborhoods across the dunes.

 

The ruling said that members of the public should retain the right to access the beach for “fishing and fishing-related purposes” only, as described in a clause of the original 1882 deed that reserves for town residents the right to “land fish boats and netts [sic] to spread the netts on the adjacent sands and care for the fish and material as has been customary heretofore on the South Shore.”

 

There were, of course, no motor vehicles in 1882.

 

“I don’t really understand what they are doing — they are under a mandatory injunction to not allow anyone to park or operate a vehicle on the beach,” Ken Silverman, one of the homeowners in the Beachampton neighborhood that brought the lawsuit, said of the town’s obligation to enforce the restriction of vehicles this week. “The court has ruled it is private property. The people who, as of now, are entitled to it do not allow people to use vehicles on the beach, so I don’t know how the town thinks it can allow vehicles in any circumstance. [The court ruling] says some fishing related activities are allowed, but it doesn’t have anything to do with vehicles.”

 

The stretch of beach has long been one of only a smattering of areas where the town has allowed 4x4 vehicles to access the beach during the day in summertime since a broad prohibition of it was imposed in the 1980s. Most other town beaches are closed to vehicles between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. from mid-May until mid-September. East Hampton Town and the East Hampton Town Trustees, who own most of the ocean beaches, issue 4x4 permits to residents that allow the driving of vehicles on the sand when allowed.

 

The inclement weather over the Memorial Day weekend meant the power of the court order, and how violations might be addressed, was not tested. When the sun shines and the temperatures rise, those who have flocked to the beach in their 4x4s in increasingly large numbers over the last 20 years as the prevalence of SUVs exploded, may have to disperse to the other, smaller stretches of town beach that allow 4x4 access in summer or to the adjacent New York State park beaches, which require the purchase of a special permit but allow vehicle access at all times.

 

Mr. Van Scoyoc said he was unclear as to who would have the standing as the property owner to make a legal complaint against any vehicles using Truck Beach despite the town’s admonishment.

 

 

 

This is all old news.  The latest from today's EH star:

 

 

"Town Loses Napeague Beach Access Battle

A signed placed on the beach at Napeague in June referenced a February ruling by a panel of State Appellate Division judges that the landward property owners there own the beach to the mean high-water mark.

Durell Godfrey

By Christopher Walsh

September 15, 2021 

The years long court battle pitting East Hampton Town and the town trustees against property owners along a 4,000-foot stretch of ocean beach on Napeague popularly known as Truck Beach ended on Tuesday, as the homeowners' associations prevailed in their quest to claim ownership of the beach adjacent to their properties. 

The New York State Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state, rejected appeals by the town and the trustees to reconsider a February ruling by a panel of State Appellate Division judges that the landward property owners own the beach where residents of the town drove and parked vehicles to fish and recreate for generations. 

That ruling reversed a 2016 State Supreme Court decision in the town's favor, in which Justice Ralph Gazzillo, citing an 1882 deed in which the trustees conveyed some 1,000 acres on Napeague to Arthur Benson, ruled that the deed "clearly reserved some rights 'to the inhabitants of East Hampton' and, arguably, the allowances for some public use."

The Appellate Division judges came to a starkly different conclusion, writing in February that, contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the homeowners associations "established their title claims by a preponderance of the evidence." A land title expert had testified to the homeowners associations' chains of title to their respective properties at the 2016 trial, they wrote, concluding that the titles extended to the mean high-water mark of the ocean.

The town and trustees had contended that even if the homeowners associations established their respective title claims, the town nevertheless retained the right to allow the public to operate and park vehicles along the entire beach based on a reservation contained in the Benson deed. The clause at issue "reserved to the inhabitants of the Town of East Hampton the right to land fish boats and netts to spread the netts on the adjacent sands and care for the fish and material as has been customary heretofore on the South Shore of the Town lying westerly of these conveyed premises.".................That may mean eminent domain proceedings, using public benefit as justification, in which the shorefront between the mean high-water mark and the toe of the sand would be condemned and the property owners paid fair market value, as was planned before the 2016 decision affirming the public's right to access the beach. "We obviously are going to continue to look at all possible avenues," Mr. Van Scoyoc said. 

Condemnation is "extraordinarily risky," Mr. Angel said, "because in this particular case, I don't know whether they'd get beyond the public benefit or public necessity. It's hard to contemplate condemnation so you could have a beach with trucks on it." Further, he said, "value is a very difficult concept. It could be $100 million -- who knows? Is the town willing to roll those dice?""

 

 

 

Good luck with the bring a fishing rod loophole.  Why the town keeps flailing away with this silly narrative is laughable at this point.  The courts, just like everybody else knows the truck beach issue is not about fishing access. It's about 150 trucks driving onto this tiny stretch of beach every weekend of the summer to rub suntan lotion on their bloated asses and drinking beer instead of parking in the lot a mile away. How many of the truck beach yokels are were there to fish? like none.  Hard to figure out how watching your kids boogie board from your shtbox pickup truck qualifies as a public necessity.  Hard to consider that fishing loophole as plausible when nobody was there for purpose of fishing prior to these court rulings.

 

Time to start holding the local politicians accountable.  Best of luck in the condemnation proceedings townies LOL.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cpalms said:

Good luck with the bring a fishing rod loophole.  Why the town keeps flailing away with this silly narrative is laughable at this point.  The courts, just like everybody else knows the truck beach issue is not about fishing access. It's about 150 trucks driving onto this tiny stretch of beach every weekend of the summer to rub suntan lotion on their bloated asses and drinking beer instead of parking in the lot a mile away. How many of the truck beach yokels are were there to fish? like none.  Hard to figure out how watching your kids boogie board from your shtbox pickup truck qualifies as a public necessity.  Hard to consider that fishing loophole as plausible when nobody was there for purpose of fishing prior to these court rulings.

Thanks for the update on the court ruling - basically the Court of Appeals declined to allow the Town to appeal the lower court's ruling from February.  So the ownership issue is now conclusively resolved.  But the scope of the easement may not be.  The key part of the lower court's decision from February is this, describing the nature of the Town's easement or reservation over the landowners' properties:

 

"The reservation is in the nature of an easement allowing the public to use the homeowners associations’ portion of the beach only for fishing and fishing-related purposes, as contemplated by the plain wording of the reservation. Thus, the reservation does not confer upon the Town and Trustees lawful governmental or regulatory power to issue permits allowing members of the public to operate and park vehicles on any portion of the beach owned by the homeowners associations."

 

So I can clearly walk out and fish on the beach, and the landowners can do nothing about it.  And I can drag my gear in a fishing cart and set up shop.  But can I drive out on the beach and fish?  Unclear.  I get your point that in the past nobody was fishing out there, and fishing wasn't the problem.  But the question is whether there's a workaround for folks who still want to drive out there now.  According to the Town's sign, there is:  I can drive out there if I'm engaged in fishing or fishing-related purposes, which to me is loophole so big you could ... wait for it ... drive a truck through it.

 

But the court's order is more ambiguous.  The Town is assuming that the public's right to fish on the beach includes the right to drive out there to fish.  If I had to bet I'd say the Town ultimately will lose that argument.  But in the meantime, if you want to drive out to Truck Beach to drink beer and rub suntan lotion on yourself, just make sure you've got a rod in the truck.      

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sandbox said:

 

But the court's order is more ambiguous.  The Town is assuming that the public's right to fish on the beach includes the right to drive out there to fish.  If I had to bet I'd say the Town ultimately will lose that argument.  But in the meantime, if you want to drive out to Truck Beach to drink beer and rub suntan lotion on yourself, just make sure you've got a rod in the truck.      

  

I think it is safe to say at this point - everything the Town thinks, believes or assumes is completely out the window.  They have been wrong (and humiliated) at every turn. Everything the Town has assumed has been blown to bits by the homeowner's attorneys.  If I had to bet, I'd say the homeowner's attorneys will be able handle the "make sure you have a rod in the truck" argument without breaking a sweat. Remember no matter what the current narrative the Town is pushing, this is not about fishing access.  It's about lazy locals and their trucks turning that stretch of beach into the Talledega infield every summer weekend.  You know, cuz it's traditional, like because of whaling and stuff.

 

The only question that remains, as the article states, are the idiot local politicians willing to risk bankrupting the entire Town in order to provide a few locals the privilege of driving their trucks onto to somebody else's private property just so they can watch their kids boogie board and pound Miller Lites?  Common sense says surely not, but these are locals we are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.