Opinion ID: 865124
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the state possesses the authority to

Text: REQUIRE LEASES AND COLLECT RENTS ON THE LAND ¶44. The trial court looked to both Miss. Code Ann. Section 29-1-107(2) and Wiesenberg to hold explicitly that Mississippi has authorized the Secretary of State to require leases and collect rents on submerged tidelands belonging to the State and held in trust. The thrust of the argument of Treasure Bay and the Mladinich Family with regard to this issue is that authorizing the State to do this constitutes judicial approval of a taking, offending the Constitutions of both Mississippi and the United States. To make this argument, Treasure Bay relies on our holding in Guice, where we held that a taking occurs if the State fills tidelands below the mean high 42 water line, cutting off the landowner’s littoral rights. “It is a matter of common knowledge that the littoral rights incident to the ownership of beach front property along the Mississippi Gulf Coast is the most valuable attribute of such property. If the State, acting through the County, could ‘pump up’ the submerged bottoms adjacent to privately owned uplands, and thereby cut off direct access to the water, it could effectively destroy the value of much residential property as well as commercial and industrial water front property. Such taking of private property could not be accomplished without first paying just compensation. Mississippi Constitution, Sec. 17.” Guice, 140 So. 2d at 842. This argument confuses two issues before the Court today. While this holding does have a material effect on the first issue in this case, it is of no consequence to the issue at hand. There is quite a difference between filling up tidelands, as illustrated in Guice, and requiring leases and rent for those submerged tidelands that belong to the State. ¶45. Our statutes and our case law provide this authority and leave no room for doubt. “The Secretary of State, with the approval of the Governor, may rent or lease surface lands, tidelands or submerged lands owned or controlled by the State of Mississippi lying in or adjacent to the Mississippi Sound or Gulf of Mexico or streams emptying therein, for a period not exceeding forty (40) years for rental payable to the state annually. However, the term of any lease of state public trust tidelands to a person possessing a license under the Mississippi Gaming Control Act shall be governed by the provisions of subsection (4) of this section.” Miss. Code Ann. § 29-1-107(2)(a). We have addressed this issue before. “This statute unequivocally affords the Secretary of State the discretion to enter into a lease of the public tidelands.” Columbia 43 Land Dev., 868 So.2d at 1013. Further, in Wiesenberg, we clearly recognized that “the State from time to time has granted leases to allow private interests to use certain public trust lands.” 633 So.2d at 989. To restate a principle, “the individual States have the authority to define the limits of the lands held in public trust and to recognize private rights in such lands as they see fit.” Phillips Petroleum, 484 U.S. at 475. This issue is without merit. V. WHETHER THE STATE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO LEVY TAXES UPON THE LAND WHICH THE APPELLANTS LEASE ¶46. The trial court looked to Miss. Code Ann. § 29-15-11 to find that the State and its political subdivisions have authority to assess and collect ad valorem taxes from persons or firms occupying land held by the State in the Public Tidelands Trust. The Appellants reiterate and incorporate their earlier arguments to convince this Court otherwise. “Upon the proper authorized leasing of any state public trust tidelands, or submerged lands, the lessee shall be responsible for any county or municipal tax levy upon the leasehold interest.” Miss. Code Ann. § 29-15-11. This issue is without merit. VI. WHETHER ANY STATE ACTION IN THIS CASE AMOUNTS TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF THE LAND ¶47. On this issue, the Appellants collectively argue that the State’s action has constituted a taking of littoral rights, offending the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Miss. Const. art. 3, § 17 (1890). Because of our disposition of Issue I, above, this issue need not be addressed. 44 VII. WHETHER THERE IS A DENIAL OF THE APPELLANTS’ DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS ¶48. The arguments put forward by all of the Appellants here rests on the fact that the State granted 8.255 acres of land to the Beau Rivage because of obvious comparisons between the two casinos, or in other words, IPM was the victim of discriminatory action by the State. The trial court found that this occurred in part because the State had a rational basis for its settlements with the Beau Rivage and IPM exercised its statutory right to decline negotiation. The trial court found IPM was adamant that unless the State abandoned its claim completely, it would pursue its remedy in court. The State argues, at least in part, that because IPM did not attempt to reach amicable settlements like the Beau Rivage, it invited different treatment from that which the Beau Rivage received. However, because of our disposition of Issue I, above, addressing this argument becomes unnecessary.