It is a picturesque island where people like Bill Murray, Reese Witherspoon and the Obamas frequently flee to escape the stresses of life.
But the crystal-clear blue waters of Martha’s Vineyard hide a murky civil war.
A century ago, two wealthy families with seaside mansions carved out the beach overlooking Oyster Pond and claimed territorial rights to large portions of the shoreline.
But the tides of time have changed the picture, literally, as erosion, storms and rising sea levels have gradually pushed the private beach into public territory.
Richard Friedman, a resident at the center of the dispute who is also a prominent Boston real estate mogul, is now pushing to free the beaches for the general public.
Wealthy Martha’s Vineyard homeowners (pictured) are embroiled in a civil war over a private stretch of beach
Wealthy Martha’s Vineyard residents are competing for a private stretch of beach
Friedman’s fight began in the 1980s when he purchased property in Edgartown, believing his deed gave him rights to a barrier beach that stretched between Oyster Pond and the Atlantic Ocean.
Their neighbors disagreed, arguing that the land was theirs, and the Massachusetts elite took their civil war to the courts, where it was resolved for decades.
But 2016 marked a turning point in the dispute. Though still in a legal stalemate with its neighbors, Friedman’s outlook shifted with the sand.
He ruled that since the private beaches at that elevation had moved north to lie between two bodies of water considered “public” under Massachusetts law (Oyster Pond and Jobs Neck Pond), no private entity should be able to claim them.
Friedman stepped up his argument to lawmakers, pushing for legislation to define a barrier beach that transitions into public lands as public property.
The heated dispute has come to a head in recent weeks following the passage of a bill seeking to clarify access rights and redefine what is considered public land.
“I think the biggest achievement of this bill is that it’s a win for the public,” Friedman said. Boston Globe.
Richard Friedman, a resident at the center of the dispute who is also a prominent Boston real estate mogul, is pushing to free the beaches for the general public.
Pictured: Several oceanfront homes at sunset along the shoreline in Woods Hole Cape Cod MA
Pictured: Oceanfront in Oak Bluffs, Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts
Jeff Flynn, one of the trustees opposing Friedman’s bill, said “any suggestion” that it is about expanding access to a broader audience “is simply not credible.”
“There is no public interest in this legislation,” he told the Globe.
‘Rather, there are only beautiful but confusing words that, if read carefully, are intended to create a scandal.’
Jim McManus, who also represents the wealthy neighbors, said the bill would “wreak havoc on the property rights of thousands of people in Massachusetts” and expose taxpayers to land-grabbing lawsuits.
Friedman responded by saying the bill simply clarifies that the public would have a beach that “has been masquerading as private.”
“For me, this is not a personal vendetta or an ego trip; it’s simply great public policy that benefits citizens across the Commonwealth,” he told the Globe.
“Global warming, rising sea levels, etc., have made it necessary to address and clarify this issue,” he said. “I am proud to have played a role alongside others in these efforts.”
If the bill makes it to the Senate, it would need to be approved by Gov. Maura Healey.
Friedman’s team estimates that if approved, 28 similar beaches in Massachusetts would become private rather than public property.
(tags to translate)dailymail
