Imagine walking down one of Michigan's beautiful beaches with your significant other. It's cold - as it is most of the time in this state - and the wind is whipping around you as walk, holding hands at the high-tide line. You laugh as you run on to dry sand to avoid a wave that unexpectedly surges toward you.
Suddenly, your blissful moment is smashed as a crotchety, greedy landowner comes out of left field to berate you about being on his property. You try to explain that you are just passing through, that you'll be away from his home in a few moments, but it doesn't work. He insists you are breaking the law and tells you to get into the freezing water, as the law requires, if you want to "pass through."
Sound absurd? It's a likely scenario if some of Michigan's beachfront-property owners get their way in a Michigan Supreme Court lawsuit.
There is no law that explicitly states where private property ends and public property begins. A dispute between landowners has turned into a debate about where those boundaries should exist. A woman in her mid-70s, who had walked Lake Huron's beaches for 37 years has neighbors who are trying to force her feet into the cold waters.
First of all, it's a little sad that a new property law will be established on our beaches. People have shared Great Lakes coasts for years without problem. This law, no matter where it establishes the boundary, is just another testament to the fact that society's propensity for human decency is running out. It's lamentable that people continually try to control one another through threat of punishment.
It's also sad that people's greed and need for privacy has led them to the point that they would seek to hoard a few square feet of beach property. The Michigan Hotel, Motel & Resort Association, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and several others are supporting the property owners' push to make people walk in the water. They say they are worried about pesky pot-smoking teenagers who come play their loud music at beach resorts and that a ruling against owners would adversely affect Michigan's tourism industry.
It seems, though, that the tourism industry would be more affected if the court rules to restrict visitors from being able to walk freely along the beaches. If you are going to the beach, it's either to lay out or take a walk. A walk on the beach might be much less desirable if, by law, your feet have to remain in chilly water the entire time.
On the opposite side of the debate, one group is pushing to have the waterline established at the high-tide mark - where the tide reaches its highest point before receding - and another wants a few feet onto dry land. The latter is arguing that it would be nice for families and groups to not have to walk single file down the beach and be able to enjoy a leisurely stroll without worrying if they are within proper boundaries.
The best decision would be to have enough dry space so that you don't have worry about being on someone's property. The Great Lakes experience, in all facets, is something that needs to be preserved.
As long as people are just passing through and not making a commotion, property owners shouldn't complain about sharing a little sand.
As Woody Guthrie's old song states: "This land is your land, this land is my land ? this land was made for you and me."
