For years, wealthy Martha’s Vineyard property owners have fought over a beach. Now, lawmakers are stepping into the fray. - The Boston Globe (2024)

A central player in the drama is Richard Friedman, a wealthy and colorful real estate specialist who says his push behind the bill passed by the House is to let “people have use of what they already own.”

The dispute has a decadeslong back story. When Friedman bought property near Oyster Pond in Edgartown in the early 1980s, he believed his deed gave him ownership rights to a barrier beach that separates the 208-acre pond from the Atlantic Ocean.

His neighbors, who claim ownership to a large swath of the beach, disagreed. The two sides have been locked in litigation for years that is still ongoing in a state appellate court. Eventually, Friedman came up with a different argument, as the Globe reported in 2016: The stretch of beach he and his neighbors had long fought over should be public.

Oyster Pond and the nearby Jobs Neck Pond, which also borders the beach in question, are considered “great ponds,” bodies of water of at least 10 acres that, under Massachusetts law, are considered public property. The beach itself, however, has slowly been shifting northward — propelled either by sea level rise, waves, or winds — to the point it now rests within the ponds themselves.

For more than a decade, Friedman has pushed a version of legislation that seeks to declare that a barrier beach that moves into a publicly owned great pond “shall be and shall remain” public property itself.

To the surprise of many on Beacon Hill, the legislation finally moved Thursday, passing the House without any debate, without a recorded roll call vote, and in the closing days of the Legislature’s final sessions for the year.

Representative Sean Garballey, an Arlington Democrat who sponsored the bill, said a state study suggested there are as many as 28 great ponds separated from the Atlantic Ocean by barrier beaches, many of which are on Martha’s Vineyard.

While he said he’s aware of the legal dispute over “who has the rights to these properties” on Martha’s Vineyard’s south shore, he said his motivation was to preserve public access to the ocean. Garballey, who heads the House committee on global warming and climate change, said he has not spoken to Friedman “in person or by email.”

“I believe the biggest win about this bill is that this is a win for the public,” he said.

Members of a trust battling Friedman in court are not convinced. Jeff Flynn, one of the trustees, charged in a statement that the bill is “for the direct and personal benefit of Dick Friedman.”

“Any suggestion that this narrow and targeted bill is about expanding access for the broader public is simply not credible,” Flynn said.

It gets more complicated. The bill the House adopted included language stating that it would not “convert ownership” of any private property to the public — an apparent attempt to address concerns that it could mean the state would be taking privately held land and, therefore, have to reimburse the owners or face expensive litigation.

But the barrier beaches, like the one in dispute near Oyster Pond and Jobs Neck Pond, have never been publicly owned, meaning the language is “essentially double speak,” said Eric Peters, an Edgartown attorney and another member of the trust that’s fought Friedman in court. Peters wrote in a letter this week to Senate leaders that the “exposure of the Commonwealth to eminent domain takings is enormous,” warning the state would be on the hook to pay property owners for any private beach that becomes public land, regardless of that language.

The bill “turns settled real estate law on its head,” he wrote, later adding: “There is no public interest in this legislation. Rather, there are only nice sounding but confusing words that, once carefully read, are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”

Friedman denies that. In a statement, he said the bill simply clarifies that the public would have access to a beach that, he argues, “has been masquerading as private.”

He also said he has no “personal benefit” in the bill passing, given he gained beach rights through other nearby property he owns. He and other property owners who are actively fighting the opposing trusts are awaiting a decision from a state appellate court over their latest dispute, this one over the so-called Jobs Neck section of the beach.

“For me, this is not a personal vendetta or an ego trip, it is simply great public policy that benefits citizens across the Commonwealth,” Friedman said. The bill, he contends, would not put any added cost on taxpayers.

“Due to global warming, sea level rising, etc., there is a need to address and clarify this issue,” he said. “I am proud to have played a role with others in these efforts.”

It’s unclear if or when the bill could emerge in the Senate, which too must pass it for it to reach Governor Maura Healey’s desk. Lawmakers wrapped up formal sessions Thursday after a marathon 23-hour session during which the bill did not surface. It’s possible that legislation could pass later in the year during one of the so-called informal sessions that dot the Legislature’s calendar the rest of the year, though a single dissenting lawmaker can jam up a bill in one of these lightly attended sessions.

Senator Julian Cyr, a Provincetown Democrat who filed a similar bill in his chamber and represents Martha’s Vineyard, said he, too, is concerned about access for the public at large.

“I want to be supportive of any opportunity to expand public beach access,” he said.

Matt Stout can be reached at matt.stout@globe.com. Follow him @mattpstout.