Idaho Supreme Court wants more details on Sanders Beach case

The Idaho Supreme Court wants more information about whether Coeur d’Alene’s shoreline laws that ban fences on Sanders Beach take value and use away from property owners.

In a rare move Thursday, the high court sent a case about two chain-link fences constructed in 1997 by Sanders Beach property owner Jack Simpson back to the 1st District Court for more extensive arguments. Simpson allegedly built the fences to keep the public off his beach, which now has new owners.

Also in the 3-2 decision, the high court said it wants more consideration on exactly what property is at issue – whether it’s the beach property or the beach and the upland property on the north side of East Lakeshore Drive, where a house is located.

Attorney Mike Haman, who represents Coeur d’Alene, said the city thinks it’s both properties. Simpson has argued it’s just the waterfront land, which is part of the popular stretch of Sanders Beach between 12th and 15th streets.

“Justice is further delayed,” Haman said. “The battle goes on.”

Haman said these issues were fully discussed during the original district court hearing in 2002. He contends that the city’s law isn’t unconstitutional because it doesn’t take away value and is aimed at preserving the aesthetics of the shoreline.

The city hasn’t decided whether it will file a motion for rehearing before the Supreme Court.

Simpson’s attorney, John Magnuson, wasn’t available for comment.

The decision replaces the high court’s February 2005 ruling that concluded that Simpson’s two chain-link fences violated Coeur d’Alene’s shoreline laws that prohibit structures 40 feet from the high water mark.

At the time, the court said the city wasn’t taking Simpson’s East Lakeshore Drive land or reducing the waterfront property’s value by ordering that the fence come down.

Now the court says the fate of the fences and the validity of Coeur d’Alene’s shoreline laws can’t be determined until it’s decided whether the city’s rules violate the constitution by reducing the value of the waterfront property.

The high court reconsidered the case after Simpson’s attorney requested a rehearing because the 3-2 ruling was so close and because the dissent by the two justices showed that the decision was “far from certain,” Magnuson said at the time.

Meanwhile, Haman said he plans to file a motion today in a separate Sanders Beach lawsuit to get clarification on who can use what portions of the popular beach this summer.

The city needs to know the exact location of the invisible high water mark, declared by a judge in September, to enforce trespass laws and other rules for public parks, such as a leash requirement for dogs and a ban on alcohol.

Haman wants District Judge James Judd to clarify whether a temporary injunction governing the beach last summer is still in effect, even though he set the ordinary high water mark at 2,130 feet above sea level – 2 feet higher than the summer lake level and what the state considers the high water mark.

The injunction declared that land below the Sanders Beach seawalls was open to the public.

Property owners along the beach have appealed Judd’s decision to the Idaho Supreme Court, which likely won’t rule until October.

The 2,130-foot mark is invisible, and only one seawall sits at that elevation. Haman said until a final decision is made, it makes sense to designate the seawalls as the marker.

If not, the city might have to draw a literal line in the sand for law enforcement and the public.

Haman said he hopes to have clarification before Memorial Day.