Wealthy homeowners on idyllic island beloved by the Obamas could lose stunning private beach as ugly civil war takes new twist

It's a picturesque island where the likes of Bill Murray, Reese Witherspoon and the Obamas frequently flee to escape the stresses of life.  

But the clear blue waters of Martha's Vineyard belie a murky civil war.

A century ago, two wealthy families with oceanside mansions carved out the beach overlooking Oyster Pond, claiming land rights to large slices of the shoreline. 

But the tides of time have changed the picture - quite literally - as erosion, storms, and rising sea levels have gradually pushed the private beach into public territory. 

Richard Friedman, a resident at the center of the dispute who is also a famed Boston real estate mogul, is now pushing to liberate the beaches to the general public.

Friedman's fight began in the 1980s when he purchased property in Edgartown, believing his deed gave him the rights to a barrier beach straddling Oyster Pond and the Atlantic Ocean.

His neighbors disagreed, arguing that the land was theirs, and the Massachusetts elite took their civil war to the courts where they hashed it out for decades. 

But 2016 marked a watershed moment in the dispute. Though still locked in a legal stalemate with his neighbors, Friedman's perspective shifted with the sands. 

He decided that, since the private beaches had by this point moved north to rest between two bodies of water considered 'public' under Massachusetts law - Oyster Pond and Jobs Neck Pond - no private entity should be able to lay claim to them. 

Friedman escalated his argument to lawmakers, pushing for legislation defining a barrier beach which moves on to public land as public property. 

The fiery dispute has come to a head in recent weeks after the passing of a bill which seeks to clarify access rights, and redefine what counts as public land.

'I believe the biggest win about this bill is that this is a win for the public,' Friedman told the Boston Globe. 

Jeff Flynn, one of the trustees opposing Friedman's bill, said 'any suggestion' that it's about expanding access for the broader public is 'simply not credible'.

'There is no public interest in this legislation,' he told the Globe.

'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.' 

Jim McManus, who also represents the wealthy neighbors, said the bill would 'wreak havoc on the property rights of thousands of people in Massachusetts' and expose taxpayers to suits for land takings.   

Friedman hit back, saying the bill simply clarifies the public would have a beach that 'has been masquerading as private'.

'For me, this is not a personal vendetta or an ego trip, it is simply great public policy that benefits citizens across the Commonwealth,' he told the Globe. 

'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.' 

If the bill reaches the Senate, it would need to be passed by Governor Maura Healey.  

Friedman's team estimates that if it passes, 28 similar beaches in Massachusetts will then be considered private property rather than public.