In an act of civil disobedience, commercial fishermen and their supporters once again drove onto the 4,000-foot stretch of Napeague sands known as Truck Beach on Sunday in defiance of a New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division decision barring them from doing so. Fourteen of them were cited for trespassing.
The group, which staged a similar demonstration in June, was protesting the court's February conclusion that the landward property owners' deeds extend to the mean high-water mark and that other residents of the town therefore have no right to drive or park vehicles on the beach.
In September, the New York State Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state, rejected appeals by the town and the trustees to reconsider the February ruling. That brought to an end a legal battle that dates back to 2009, when several property owners associations asserted in parallel lawsuits that an 1882 deed in which the town trustees conveyed some 1,000 acres to the developer Arthur Benson gave them ownership of the beach to the mean high-water mark.
Baymen and their supporters continue to disagree.
Town officials have discussed initiating eminent domain proceedings, using public benefit as justification, in which the shorefront between the mean high-water mark and the toe of the sand dunes would be condemned and the property owners paid fair market value, as was planned before a 2016 decision affirming the public's right to access the beach. That decision was overturned in February and there is again talk of eminent domain proceedings.
At the Napeague road end on Sunday, before the caravan entered the beach, Dan Rodgers, an attorney representing some of the fishermen, announced another strategy to resolve the matter. "In practical reality, we have to remember that, as part of this decade-long lawsuit, the homeowners asked the court to extinguish a reservation that has existed for over 100 years," he said, referring to the 1882 deed that "reserved to the inhabitants of the Town of East Hampton the right to land fish boats and netts [sic] to spread the netts [sic] 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."
The court, Mr. Rodgers continued, "refused to do that." While the Appellate Division's decision stated that town residents' rights "cannot be construed as broadly" as the town and trustees contend, it "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." The point, Mr. Rodgers said, is that "that reservation is a property right that accrues to every single resident of the Town of East Hampton, to be on this beach. It's a property right. You own it."
After a discussion between Mr. Rodgers and Ed Michels, the town's chief harbormaster, on Sunday morning, 14 participants in the demonstration were issued citations for trespassing, specifically for driving "a vehicle on privately owned property, above the mean high-tide line on the beach," according to a police report.
Justice Steven Tekulsky recused himself, Mr. Rodgers said yesterday, and instead of a Wednesday appearance in Justice Court, those cited are due to be arraigned before Justice Lisa Rana on Nov. 10.
"We want to get it into court," Mr. Rodgers told Mr. Michels on Sunday. "We're willing to live with the results."
Accusing the property owners of a "bullying tactic" by asserting that the fair market value of the beach could be as high as $500 million, "We're going to ask the town supervisor and the town board to issue a proclamation this week." This, he said, would be "a declaration that each and every resident of the Town of East Hampton is a fisherman. Once that's done, we're going to send a bill to the homeowners for $500 million, if they're interested in buying out our right to be on this beach."
Mr. Rodgers's letter to Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc was delivered on Monday. By declaring that all town residents are fishermen, he said, the town would no longer be compelled to condemn the beach, as every resident owns the beach "as long as they are engaged in any manner of fishing or fishing-related activity."
During the town board's work session on Tuesday, Mr. Van Scoyoc commended the protesters for "demonstrating in an orderly fashion." After the work session, he said that he had tried unsuccessfully to reach Mr. Rodgers "to ask him why he thought that was a good idea," referring to his request for the proclamation. "It seems quite arbitrary," the supervisor said. "I would not take that step."
