Big MS Supreme Court decision gives property owner — not state — right to waterfront land

The family that once ran Fisherman’s Wharf restaurant in east Biloxi owns the property from the waterfront to U.S. 90, the state Supreme Court has decided in a contentious lawsuit that started more than 20 years ago and has broader implications for the state, and for waterfront property owners in the city.

The Secretary of State’s Office claimed that what is known as the Aldrich property, about one acre that runs from the waterfront to U.S. 90, is tidelands the state holds in trust for the public.

Secretary of State Michael Watson had appealed Chancery Court Judge James Person’s decision that the land belonged to the Aldriches. Tidelands are comprised of properties subject to the ebb and flow of the tides that the state holds in trust for the public on the Mississippi Sound and coastal bays.

But the Supreme Court found that the Aldriches could trace the land’s title back to the 1784 Spanish Land grant. The tidelands were never owned by the U.S. government or passed to the state, the court found.

Aldrich has optioned his land as part of a proposed casino development. But the deal would be dead under proposed state legislation that further restricts waterfront casino locations.

Before passing such a law, Holleman. said, the Legislature needs to sort out what property in East Biloxi is Spanish Land Grant property and what actually belongs to the state.

“That’s a significant issue,” he said.

Even more significantly, the decision has broad implications for waterfront properties in another way, said Biloxi attorney Gerald Blessey, who represented the city in the case. The city sided with the Aldriches, as did Harrison County.

The Aldrich land is not unlike other properties in East Biloxi where dredged material, along with oyster shells from seafood factories, built solid ground on what had been water bottoms. The proposed Senate bill now defines those filled lands as state property.

Biloxi properties serve ‘higher public purpose’

But the Supreme Court ruling also finds those properties, because they were filled for “a higher public purpose,” belong to the upland landowner, in this case Aldrich.

“This is an important case,” Blessey said. “It confirms the history of the development of Point Cadet and the whole peninsula and the seafood factories that extended their land like this.”

The secretary of state charges casinos fees to lease tidelands for their operations.

“The public trust is not designed to make money for the state, like an industrial park or something,” Blessey said. “The public trust for tidelands is to encourage use of the waterfront by public and private owners for higher public purposes of the trust, like seafood factories.”

Holleman said the Supreme Court’s decision could affect properties from the Biloxi lighthouse east to the Mississippi state line with Alabama. He also said the Legislature needs to hold off on a bill it is considering to further restrict casino locations on the waterfront until the implications of the court’s ruling are sorted out.

John Aldrich speaks out on casino site

John Aldrich, owner of the property that was in dispute, sent out a statement late Thursday night. His statement said the property has played a part in the gambling industry since it started onshore in 1992 in Biloxi. The land was leased for Lady Luck Casino until it closed in 1998.

Aldrich said in his statement that the Supreme Court ruling ended 26 years of “legal turmoil.” He added that “many developers over the years have literally just had to walk away from their designs and dreams due to the fact that the ongoing litigation with the secretary of state has prevented me from selling and/or leasing my property.”

He said the Legislature needs to reverse paths because the proposed tidelands/casino bill is “clear overreach.”

“The court has spoken very clearly,” he wrote, “and it’s time to turn the page and get meaningful economic development projects moving for Biloxi and the state of Mississippi.”

Secretary of State Michael Watson’s office said Friday afternoon that he and staff members are still digesting the opinion and did not want to answer questions yet about what it means or how it might affect pending legislation.