I understand your point but don't think I'm wrong in the example I gave to you.
From the
Wiki article on the subject:
On June 23, 2006 - on the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued an executive order stating in Section I that the federal government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." He limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken".[7] However, eminent domain is more often exercised by local and state governments, albeit often with funds obtained from the Federal government.
I don't dispute for a moment that there have been abuses of it.
Bringing this thread around, full-circle, I don't believe that the Shoreline Protection Act takes away the property owner's right his/her property. I'm also impacted by the law because of the inlet to Winni that runs along two sides of my property and although my house is grandfathered, my plans to put up a garage are now down the tubes. But I also "get it" that something has to be done to control erosion and the impact that construction has on the lake and the wetlands. Conservation is very important; it just seems complicated now.