Smiling JOe

Seems like this issue needs its own thread, so here it is.

__________________

Chickpea

Can somebody (SJ????) please explain what the differences of opinions are in simple terms.

In reading back and forth all I can glean is that there may be some people who own gulf front property who also legally own the beach in front of their lot BUT because the public has used these beaches and claimed ownership in the past, it is unlikely that a court would uphold the rights of the property owners who may object to this?

Are there many people who would like to see the beach in front of their house become private? Please speak up and explain your position. I am interested in this issue on a number of fronts and would like to hear both sides of the argument.

For those of you who believe that beaches should remain as a public amenity as they have in the past x number of years, do you think that the private gulf lot owners are entitled to some form of finiancial compensation from the County/State for allowing or permitting this use?

Thank you.

Smiling JOe

I think the Gulf front owners who have deeded beach, should deed that beach back to the County or State, and in return, thereby reducing their liability, as well as the size of their property, which in turn, reduces their taxes substantially. I don't think they should be compensated for this in any other way. The public has used the beach without objection from the "land owners" for numerous years and to try and stop the public's use now, seems way too late.

__________________

Beachlover2

From the Destin Log




Beach issues: Harassment? Public access?
By Fraser Sherman
June 24, 2007 1:15 AM
Destin beachfront resident Kathy Wright says allowing the public to walk across private beaches allows “violent men” to threaten her family.
Wright and her husband, Mike, are now fighting in court to ban Jeffrey Reed and Bill Leech — whom the Wrights say have trespassed on their property and intimidated their children — from coming near their Gulf-front Destiny Shores home, claiming the two men trespassed on the Wright’s property and threatened their children.
Reed and Leech claim the Wrights are lying.
This week, Kathy Wright told Destin’s City Council that the two men had been on the brink of settling the court case until the city filed a brief in the case asserting the right of the public to walk and fish on private beaches up to 20 feet upland of the wet sand area.
“You gave these guys courage and confidence to go back to my property,” Wright told the council. “If you don’t understand fear when your girls are in jeopardy, you don’t understand love.”
In an interview, Reed’s attorney, Glenn Swiatek, said Wright was wrong: Reed would never have accepted settlement terms that included staying 500 feet away from the entire Destiny Shores subdivision, even when out on the water.
About the only thing that isn’t in dispute is that everything began on April 21 when Reed and Leech set up fi shing poles behind the Wright’s house. Kathy Wright contacted an Okaloosa County sheriff’s deputy, who told the men that while they could walk across private beachfront, they couldn’t stop there.
The men subsequently contacted the sheriff’s office, which confi rmed that the city does allow beachgoers to walk, sit or fish up to 20 feet upland of the wet sand. The men resumed fi shing.
According to the Wrights, the men also threatened and harassed Kathy Wright and her children, and later returned and did so again. Swiatek, the attorney, said Reed and Leech never even saw the Wright’s children. In an e-mail on file at City Hall, Reed said Kathy Wright falsely claimed Reed had spent eight hours on the beach at the Wright property May 16 when his work records would prove he’d been on his job until 3 p.m.
Since then, the Wrights have fi led suit against the two men, and have received an initial restraining order against them. Kathy Wright told the City Council this week that the restraining order proves the suit has merit. Swiatek said issuing one in a case like this is routine, regardless of the merits.
On Monday, the Wrights told the City Council that the city had interfered with the case by fi ling its brief on the 20-foot rule.
“I was shocked and dismayed the city turned the safety of my family into a political issue,” Mike Wright said, “to make a point about beach restoration. (You’re) opposing my wife’s efforts to protect my family.”
Wright said the city had been seduced into favoring tourists over residents, and that the issue was trespassing, not the 20-foot zone.
City Manager Greg Kisela said the Wright’s attorney had contacted the city with questions about the 20-foot rule, and the city had filed the brief to make the policy clear to the judge. Kisela said the brief hadn’t touched on the Wright’s allegations.
Councilor Dewey Destin said that even though the council would probably have supported fi ling the brief, Kisela should have obtained council approval before going ahead. The council voted unanimously that city attorneys should check with the council before making most court fi lings.
Councilor Cyron Marler asked if the Wrights were participants in a current lawsuit by beachfront owners opposed to the controversial beach restoration project under way in east Destin. Wright said he was not involved, but county court records list both Wrights as plaintiffs in the case as recently as May 7.
Mike Wright told the City Council that the merits of the 20-foot rule were irrelevant, since the court case “is about bullying, it’s about harassment.”
In a letter to Mayor Craig Barker about the case last month, however, Kathy Wright said the city should abandon the 20-foot rule to protect her children.
“Authority has been given for violent and or sexual predators to sit within 50 feet of my children,” Wright wrote. “If that rule is put in place, criminals will be able to sit on my back porch.”
Destin resident Bob Biel, a frequent critic of the lack of beach access in Destin, has also become involved, writing to City Hall in support of Leech and Reed and their right to use the beaches behind Destiny Shores.
The Wrights did not return The Log’s calls seeking comment for this article.

__________________
~~~~~~~~_/)~~~~~~~~

Smiling JOe

So are these two men, being accused, registered sexual predators? I don't understand where that comment came from. Don't the Wrights know that registered sexual predators can go to many public places where their children are playing?

If the Wright's were smart, they would have captured the threats on video. I'm wondering if the two men were being threatened by the homeowners, to leave "their" property.

__________________

scooterbug44

These people are either paranoid or have a major safety issue that they need to document via videotape to prove.

Solely based on the article it seems these people are crying wolf. They seem to have been tripped up on several major points so far.

__________________
"I hate to break it to you, but this year (and probably the next few) was going to suck even if Jesus himself was president. These problems were not created overnight and they aren't going away overnight." -Jdarg

BeachSiO2

“Authority has been given for violent and or sexual predators to sit within 50 feet of my children,” Wright wrote. “If that rule is put in place, criminals will be able to sit on my back porch.”

SJ;

What? You didn't you know that ALL non gulf-front owners, especially fishermen, should be considered violent or sexual predators, and criminals until proven innocent I have heard of luring them in by candy or electronically, but with a fishing pole. What would you say, here kiddie do you want to see my live bait???

By the way, if the water is within the 20 feet of their back porch that Destin is allowing people to use, they have bigger problems then "predators."

I can see it now, NBC's To Catch a Predator setting up sting operations in the wet sand area of the beach in Destiny Shores. Do you think Jim Cantore would co-anchor?

scooterbug44

This seems to be 100% fair and accurrate and not exaggerated one iota (heavy scooterbug sarcasm).

Between the rent-a-cops, sharks, and predatory fisherfolk, the beaches seem quite unsafe lately!

__________________
"I hate to break it to you, but this year (and probably the next few) was going to suck even if Jesus himself was president. These problems were not created overnight and they aren't going away overnight." -Jdarg

jay

I am one of the two men the article is talking about and I want everone to know that these people are lying. I have never done anything but fish there and only twice. They are slandering my good name in order to give the perception of merit to their case against me. Look at the county records (Jeffrey Reed) I have no history of violence in fact I was a single father for many years why I have not had a speeding ticket since I was a teenager. I am being made into a criminal for fishing on the gulf beaches.

BeachSiO2

Jay:

It is sad that this is happening to you. Thanks for coming on and to the board. Please keep us updated on what happens with the claims against you.

scooterbug44

Come fish over here until the restraining order gets dropped and you win your libel/slander suit and can BUY their property
As long as you stay away from the Blue Mtn. properties mentioned should be free to fish!

__________________
"I hate to break it to you, but this year (and probably the next few) was going to suck even if Jesus himself was president. These problems were not created overnight and they aren't going away overnight." -Jdarg

6thGen

Just curious as to your opinion of Kelo. What should the state or county do if they don't want to deed the beach back?

jay

Thanks for the coments, your right it is sad and I never thought this kind of thing would happen to me becuase I am a non confrentational very rational person. it is tough seeing those kinds of untrue things in print when they are about you. I am optomistic though and in the mean time the more people that know about this atempt to limit the publics access to the beaches the better.

Smiling JOe

The State or County should do exactly what they did to my property on which they expanded a jeep trail into a paved roadway with a 60' right of way. I still hold the deed to the property, but because the jeep trail had been used by the public for many years, they County continues to use it for a public road. As I said, I own the property, but the public has rights to 1/3 of it, just about .25 Acres. BTW, I'm still taxed on the part of the property which is the road & R/W.

Jay, thanks for posting on here. I never give much credibility to only one side of a newspaper story.

__________________

6thGen

What about Kelo? Where do we draw the line on public use? I say we just start throwing parties and inviting everyone to all of the great property in the US so we can take it from the rich, who always seem to have the most kick-ass land.

Smiling JOe

I could probably win a case against the County, and have them pay me for my land. After all, the 5th Amendment reads that the gov't cannot take my land for public use without just compensation (paraphrasing).

Where do we draw the line on taking private property for public use? Good question, but I think it should be drawn sometime priort to private development getting involved in the "public use," as in a shopping mall which might bring in more tax revenues. When it is the beach which is Nature-made, and available at no cost to the beachgoer, I definitely think the use is for the good of the public. Other things need to be addressed such as adequate restroom facilities, rinsing showers, and parking. We cannot continue to encourage everyone to use private owners yards as fecal dumps for beachgoers, by not constructing ample facilities. Same goes for parking. We have a few accesses in SoWal, yet many have zero parking, unless you are parking in front of someone's home, blocking the field of view for their egress.

__________________

Smiling JOe

From the actions of some homeowners erecting solid seawalls, we may not continue to have a beach to walk upon.

One other note, limit the tourists and non-beach front property owners, to the small space of "County deeded" beach, and you will chase money out of town faster than you can say, "Beaches Closed." The open beaches drive this economy, and if you think differently, perhaps you should look more closely at all local businesses. I cannot name one which isn't driven by the beaches/tourism. The beaches are the lifeblood of this entire area, and without them, there would be no desire from wealthy people to live on the beach.

__________________

6thGen

SJ,
Are you saying that the government should only take the best private land, or only the land that everyone else really, really likes, i.e. land that could make the county a whole heap of money? Your argument is very sympathetic, but it's classic class warfare.

Smiling JOe

Show me a bunch of homes built on the actual beach. I know of only a handful in Walton County. The land of which we are talking is the beach, known to be wet often, especially during storms. While it is great for walking and resting upon, and it is the cog which spins everything, it isn't truly the "best private land" for personal use.

Are you aware that private landowners have personally given access to hikers, in order to complete a 2100+ mile hiking trail from GA to Maine, crossing some of the most beautiful land imaginable? While that is possible, it seems nearly impossible to open a tiny 27 mile stretch of a God made wonder for people to view a natural wonder. Class warfare? How about calling the opposing property owners depriving me of my natural rights to experience life.

BTW, your entire post above, doesn't in the least way, represent my views. Perhaps today is Opposite Day???

__________________

6thGen

My point is that the state should not be allowed to forcefully take private land. No matter what the view.

Smiling JOe

In the case of the road and R/W, taking 1/4 Acre of my lot, the "public" took my land from constant public use over time. I hold the Deed to the property, so in effect, the State, nor County, actually took it. I'm not sure that the State would have to "take" the beach in order for the public to use it. Not my call.

__________________

6thGen

Could you set up a bonfire in the middle of the 1/4 acre?

Smiling JOe

Why would I want to do that? I guess I could, but it would melt the asphalt and I'd probably get into trouble for having a fire during our current fire ban.

By the way, beach bonfires require permits.

__________________

Beachlover2

Jay

I copied the Destin Log story because I couldn't believe it myself. I think the story makes the Wrights look bad - not you and your friend. I walk this area quite frequently and I guess I just haven't been exposed to her wrath because I keep moving. Please keep fishing and enjoying the beaches that God gave all of us - not just a few.

__________________
~~~~~~~~_/)~~~~~~~~

Bobby J

Jay,
This beach access issue is really getting out of hand especially in the last year. Signs are everywhere and the county better get a handle on it. Once again we will be used as an example in Florida of how not to do something (see seawall section). I ask everyone to please get involved. This is just the beginning and we all have to start speaking up and let the county know we will continue to use our beaches! See www.surfrider.org for more info about the "private beaches". Please join and get involved.

__________________
www.lifeonshore.com
www.beachpropertiesofflorida.com
www.bobbyjblog.com

jay

Your right I think it makes them look bad as well but I come from a very conservative upbringing and it is hurtfull to see those kind of things said about me in public. I will stick to Walton county beaches and other areas until this gets better. Thanks for the support

jay

Yes people need to get involved in this issue before it gets out of hand. Thanks for your support.

Smiling JOe

From the State Attorney General's Office:

"The Tona-Rama (FL Supreme Court) case recognizes the common law principle of "customary use" by the public of Florida's dry sand beaches. The court held that if the public's recreational use of a privately owned sandy area adjacent to the mean high tide has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute, such use, as a matter of custom, should not be interfered with by the owner. However, the owner is allowed to make any use of his property that is consistent with such public use and is not calculated to interfere with the exercise of the right of the public to enjoy the dry sandy area as a recreational adjunct of the wet sand or foreshore area, which is held by the state in trust for the people.[12]

...

While the court rejected a finding of a public easement in the property, it acknowledged the historical right of the public to use Florida's beaches:

"We recognize the propriety of protecting the public interest in, and right to utilization of, the beaches and oceans of the State of Florida. No part of Florida is more exclusively hers, nor more properly utilized by her people than her beaches. And the right of the public of access to, and enjoyment of, Florida's oceans and beaches has long been recognized by this Court."[14]

The court recognized the "customary rights doctrine" or "customary right of use doctrine" as it is employed to afford the public full use of beach property in Florida:

"If the recreational use of the sandy area adjacent to mean high tide has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption and free from dispute, such use, as a matter of custom, should not be interfered with by the owner. However, the owner may make any use of his property which is consistent with such public use and not calculated to interfere with exercise of the right of the public to enjoy the dry sand area as a recreational adjunct of the wet sand or foreshore area."

This right of customary use of the dry sand area of the beaches by the public does not create any interest in the land itself. Although this right of use cannot be revoked by the land owner, it is subject to appropriate governmental regulation and may be abandoned by the public.[15]

The court concluded:

"The general public may continue to use the dry sand area for their usual recreational activities, not because the public has any interest in the land itself, but because of a right gained through custom to use this particular area of the beach as they have without dispute and without interruption for many years."[16]

In any particular case, however, whether this "customary right of use" exists in a particular piece of property is a mixed question of law and fact that must be resolved judicially. As the Fifth District Court of Appeal recently recognized in the case of Reynolds v. County of Volusia,[17] "[t]hat doctrine requires the courts to ascertain in each case the degree of customary and ancient use the beach has been subjected to and, in addition, to balance whether the proposed use of the land by the fee owners will interfere with such use enjoyed by the public in the past."[18]

The right of a municipality to regulate and control dry sand beach property within its municipal boundaries is not dependent on the finding of the Florida Supreme Court in City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc. However, that case establishes the "customary use" doctrine in Florida, which may be relied on and would provide direction in cases involving private property rights and trespass.

__________________

John R

this will get quite interesting before it gets resolved in Walton County.

__________________
click >> Filter your water instead of using bottled water << click

jay

Check out the thread Taken Away In Handcuffs, this guy was criminally trespassed for being in the wet sand and spent half a day in jail.

joho

Your all getting your g-strings in a twist.........

The property owners of the Retreat apparently own to the mean high water line, if they didn't there would'nt have been an arrest.

I'm sure an arrogant homeowner called the police which the officer probably explained the situation to the "accidental tourist".

This is where all of this could have been avoided.
Instead of the "accidental tourist" quietly moving one way or another or deciding to relax on one of our many other beaches, he decided to revolt. Who knows from there what kind of lashing outbursts took place?

It's an unfortunate situation for all and chances are we will probably hear more of these situations..............

Bobby J

I am very thankful to the fellow that got arrested. I think this is the kind of publicity that will bring this growing debate to the media. We need to get allot of attention on this. This will backfire on the homeowners!

__________________
www.lifeonshore.com
www.beachpropertiesofflorida.com
www.bobbyjblog.com

Smiling JOe

I wonder if it is possible to SoWal while in jail. I need to go on a diet anyway. Jdarg, are you gonna feed my dogs? Now I just need someone to pay my rent.

__________________

jdarg

If you take one for the team, I can feed the dogs. Kate will bake you a sand castle cake.

Smiling JOe

Good. I learned how to pick locks last night. I youtube.com.

__________________

NoHall

Oh, Lordy--you been hangin' out with Hop?

__________________

Andy A.

I do not know who you are, Smiling Joe, but you are obviously a very intelligent and well informed individual. I live on the beach and while some of the issues concerning seawalls and other things are erroneous, the beach use issue is not. The beach is there for EVERYONE to use, not just wealthy homeowners. I just returned from a walk to look at the signs in question at the Village of White Cliffs and the Inn at Blue Mountain Beach. Both signs are atrocious and out of context with the beauty of the beach. Both Homeowner's Associations should be ashamed of themselves! Keep us informed, Smiling Joe, some of us need it more than others.

Pirate

Anyone who calls the police because "their beach" is being used by someone should be flogged with a 9 iron. These homowners should be ashamed. I own a house in Blue Mountain but may not much longer.

Smiling JOe

May I borrow your 9 iron, or should I use my PW?

__________________

Andy A.

I think we should use my driver and its left handed so they probably won't see it coming.

Smiling JOe

Glad I already finished drinking my coffee, because I would have spit it all over my monitor.

__________________

6thGen

I finally read the decision. The Court may have went one step past common law of adverse possession in order to protect one of the state's most valuable resources.

Smiling JOe

FL Supreme Court, Tona-Rama (full report)

Even if it should be found t h a t such an easement had been acquired by prescription, the defendant-owner could make
any use of the land consistent with, or n o t calculated t o
i n t e r f e r e with, the exercise of the easement by the public.
See Tifjfany, (Third Edition), V o l . 3, Section
811. The erection of the sky tower was consistent with the
recreational use of the land by the public and could not i n t e r -
fere with the exercise of any easement the public may have acquired
by prescription, i f such w e r e the case.
The beaches of Florida are of such a character as to
use and potential development as to require separate consideration
from other lands w i t h respect to the elements and consequences
of t i t l e . The sandy portion of the beaches are of no
use for farming, grazing, t i m b e r production, or residency--
the t r a d i t i o n a l uses of land--but has served as a thoroughfare
and haven for fishermen and bathers, as w e l l as a place of
recreation for the public. The i n t e r e s t and r i g h t s of the public
to the f u l l use of the beaches should be protected. Two states,
Oregon and Hawaii, have used the "customary r i g h t s doctrine" to
afford the r i g h t s in beach property. State ex rel. Thornton v.
Bay, 254 O r e . 584, 462 P.2d 671 (1969); In re: Ashford, 50 Hawaii
314, 440 P.2d 76 (1968). See also Fla. Law Review, Easements:
Judicial and Lesislative Protection of the Public's Riqhts i n
Florida's Beaches by W. Roderick Bowdoin, Vol. XXV, No. 3, pp 586-
590 (Spring 1973).
As stated in Tiffany Real Property, (Third Edition), Vol,
3, 935:
"In England, persons of a certain l o c a l i t y
or of a certain class may have, by immemorial
custom, a right to make use of land belonging
t o an individual. Thus, there may be a custom
for the inhabitants of a certain town t o dance
or play games on a particular piece of land
belonging t o an individual, or to go thereon
in order to get w a t e r . So there may be a custom
for fishermen to dry nets on certain land,
or for persons in a c e r t a i n t r a d e ( v i c t u a l e r s )
to erect booths upon c e r t a i n p r i v a t e land during
a f a i r . The custom, to be valid, 'must have
continued from t i m e i m m e m o r i a l , without
i n t e r r u p t i o n , and as of r i g h t ; it must be
c e r t a i n as to the place, and as to the
persons; and it must be c e r t a i n and reasonable
as to the subject matter or r i g h t s
created,
. . .
"Occasionally i n t h i s country it has
been decided t h a t r i g h t s to use p r i v a t e
land cannot thus be created by custom, f o r
the reason t h a t they would tend so to burden
land as to i n t e r f e r e with its improvement
and a l i e n a t i o n , and also because there can
be no usage i n t h i s country of an i m m e m o r i a l
character. In one state, on the other hand,
the existence of such customary r i g h t s is
affirmed, and i n others t h i s is assumed in
decisions adverse to the existence of the
r i g h t i n the p a r t i c u l a r case." (pp. 623-
624)
If the r e c r e a t i o n a l use of the sandy area adjacent to mean
high tide has been ancient, reasonable, without i n t e r r u p t i o n
and free from dispute, such use, as a matter of custom, should
not be i n t e r f e r e d with by the owner. However, the owner may
make any use of his property which is c o n s i s t e n t with such public
use and not calculated to i n t e r f e r e with the exercise of
the r i g h t of the public to enjoy the dry sand area as a recrea
t i o n a l adjunct of the w e t sand or foreshore area.
This r i g h t of customary use of the dry sand area of the
beaches by the public does not create any i n t e r e s t in the land
itself. Although t h i s r i g h t of use cannot be revoked by the
land owner, it is subject to appropriate governmental regulation
and may be abandoned by the public. The r i g h t s of the owner of
the dry sand area may be compared to r i g h t s of a part-owner of
a land-locked nannavigable lake, as described i n Duval v, Thomas,
114 So.2d 791 (Fla. 1959).
Testimony was presented t h a t the p u b l i c ' s presence on
the land and its use of the land was not adverse to the i n t e r -
est of defendant, but r a t h e r t h a t the defendant's Main S t r e e t
p i e r relied on the presence of such seekers of the sea for its
business. Thus, the issue of adversity was c l e a r l y raised and
the evidence f a i l e d to show any adverse use by the public. In
fact, the construction of the sea t o w e r was c o n s i s t e n t with the
general recreational use by the public.
may continue t o use the dry sand area for t h e i r usual recre-
The general public
a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s , not because the public has any i n t e r e s t
i n the land i t s e l f , but because of a r i g h t gained through
custom to use t h i s p a r t i c u l a r area of the beach as they have
without dispute and without interruption for many years.
The decision of the D i s t r i c t Court of Appeal is quashed
and t h i s cause is remanded to the D i s t r i c t Court with instructions
to f u r t h e r remand the same to the t r i a l court for the
purpose of entering f i n a l judgment for defendant.
It is so ordered.

__________________

Smiling JOe

Here are some new changes in enforcement. I like those apples. Finally, they decided to listen to my idea. It should be up to the person filing the complaint to prove that a trespass exists, prior to someone being arrested, locked in jail. Otherwise, anyone could charge anyone else with trespassing just to have the other person arrested and locked in jail.


From www.waltonsun.com


County looks to dodge beach privatization bullet

By Sean Boone sean_boone@link.freedom.com




In July 2007, a visitor from Atlanta was arrested for not leaving a private beach property near The Retreat subdivision in Blue Mountain Beach. That arrest sparked controversy over what and where is deemed off limits to the public on South Walton beaches.
At the time of the incident, the Walton County Sheriff’s Office was enforcing the wet sand line as to where a person could legally sit or loiter in front of a private beach. But since the incident, the WCSO is now enforcing a state attorney’s code that requires proof of representative authority.
According to a state attorney’s document sent to the WCSO in August 2007, a representative of the property or property owner must obtain a sworn statement from the complainant that includes the exact latitude/longitude of the trespass and have proper photographs to show landmarks around where the trespass took place.
Captain Eddie Farris of the WCSO said their enforcement would continue to adhere to what the state attorney asks of them.
“As long as we meet the state attorney’s request,” he said. “We will go by what they say.”
Under the new code, the wet sand enforcement would also be changed requiring an owner to provide the plot of the mean-high-tide area over a 19-year period.
The 1974 City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama Inc. case brought beach privatization into full light, ruling that property that historically had been used as public access, could not be deemed private.
But many gray areas remain as to what is historic public access in the state of Florida.
Recently, Walton and Okaloosa County beach renourishment efforts have raised questions over what is the private beach owner’s rightful land and what is part of public beach after additional sand is added that extends property.
A lawsuit from three homeowners challenging the state’s erosion control permit was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2007, but a decision in the matter has not yet been tendered.
South Walton Tourist Development Beach Maintenance Manager David Sell said in a recent e-mail that the Remove It Or Lose It program, which removes items left on county beaches overnight, would not be able to patrol renourished beaches in the western end of the county until the Supreme Court ruling is made to determine if the area of beach is private or public.
“It is the county position that it should be public from the CCL (Coastal Construction Line) to the water,” he said. “However, we must wait to hear how the courts rule on it.”
Last year, Edgewater Condominiums in Miramar Beach fi led suit against Walton County after threats were made to remove their volleyball net, which was seen as a removable item under the TDC’s program.
“Since the code said chairs, tents, toys etc., Edgewater management thought the county had over-stepped its authority,” said Edgewater President Suzanne Harris. “Edgewater thought it was selective enforcement because an investigation by our attorney found there were many volleyball nets that had not been tagged, such as the one at the Whale’s Tail restaurant that was (on) public beach.”
BEACH SAFETY
LOOPHOLE
The South Walton Fire District’s Beach Safety program currently patrols more than 26 miles of beaches in South Walton. Much of the patrolling is done by roving (vehicles) below the high tide mark of private beaches.
“The majority of our responses are on private beaches,” said SWFD Beach Safety Director Gary Wise. “Without roving patrol west of Pompano Joe’s there would be no response (on west end of county beaches).”
Walton County currently has eight public beach accesses with lifeguard towers, but according to Wise many of the private beach areas have the worst rip currents.
“Two of the worst rip current areas are in Miramar Beach (on private property),” he said. “There are 26 miles of beach. Divide that by eight and you don’t have an ideal mathematical equation.”
Wise said his lifeguards were involved with 45 rescues and more than 50 assists (helped from the water) during Memorial Day weekend – many of who were swimming in front of private beach properties.

Private beach property creates a tricky legal situation for Walton County authorities. (Sean Boone/ The Sun)

__________________

5thGenFlo

We have a public road on our property as well. We brought this to the attention of the tax assessor's office and they exempted the road from our assessed property size. It reduced our taxes somewhat without changing the property deminsions we own.

__________________
Ben