PeterFrohwein

The type of eminent domain you describe is I believe very dangerous.
If the public alone where to benefit by the taking of land that is one thing.
To get private individuals involved (developers/investors) benefiting
is a whole different situation which I do not agree with.

You are missing a legal point here. The State of Florida might have laws on the books concerning eminent domain but as I understand it if a case where to go to higher federal courts or as high as the Supreme Court, that any ruling by them could/would over rule Florida state law.

In essence the beach is a park which needs to be made public and protected for all. (Any lawyers in the house? Is what I am saying correct?) By-the-way there are 1000 different reasons people go to the beach, of which sunbathing is only one.

As to valuing the land? I would think that would be pretty strait forward. Say a land owner has a ¼ acre lot appraised at a fair market value of 1M. And say that 25% of the property is what the state wants to take. So 25% of 1M is $250K.

Smiling JOe

I'm not so sure it would work like that. Once you give the property owner the density based on the complete property, to "protect" their value, you cannot simply give payment based on a ratio of land to value. The lower elevation of land has limitations of use. For example, one cannot build on the lower elevation of the beach. Even to construct a walkover, one needs a permit. The land is basically unusable property compared to the upper elevations upon which a home can be built. The values of each are not in the same ballpark.

Even if it were possible for a taking by eminent domain, why would the gov't want to pay for property which has always been used by the public? Doesn't make sense.

__________________

florida girl

As long as I can remember, the beach, up to the "mean" water line, or the edge of the dunes, belonged to the state. No one could own it. How these people "bought" it, I have no idea. Who was paid as the original owner? Wouldn't that be construed as theft? They sold land to an unsuspecting buyer that they didn't own? Sounds more like a criminal offense to me. The old saying buy swamp land in Florida seems to be what's going on. What about a title search? Who showed up as owner? Or was that part just made up? Or, perhaps because the shore line has eroded to such a degree, the old mean water line has disappeared? Whether you are aware of it or not, much shore line has been lost in the last 50 years, were the old surveys kept current? In fact, the shore line continues to erode, and always has.

Bobby J

It all so clearly falls under "customary use". Even if the courts wanted to rule in favor of the homeowner I feel they know that will never fly. People have been using these beaches in complaint too long.

I am still puzzled why someone would buy property that has people playing out back and then begin to complain about these people playing out back.

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

florida girl

You know, an interesting question concerning errosion, if you compare the shore line now, to say 50 years ago, then forecast for the next 50 years, where does the beach lie then?

SHELLY

Dothan, AL.


.

__________________
But hey...Top Ramen tastes a whole lot better when you eat it off of a Granite Countertop. (Mr & Mrs Too Much Homebuyer)

Florida State Flower

florida girl

florida girl

Well that settles it, the beach in question won't even be there, and therefore no arquement!

Beach Runner

Good one.
On the other hand, really scary, too.

__________________

seaside2

Go baack a few thousand years and you will find that the gulf's edge was in North Mississippi, etc. You can find shark teeth and other ocean based items approximately 20 feet deep in certain areas.

What hs happend before can happen again!!!

__________________
"Don't underestimate the value of Doing Nothing, of just going along and not bothering" -- Winnie the Pooh

Smiling JOe

Maybe they should consider changing the name of the Emerald Coast to "Wiregrass Beach."

__________________

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Yep, a north Mississippi law firm!!!!

Andy A.

[quote=Bobby J;365515][quote=BlueMtnBeachVagrant;365474] Are you going to be there when the next tourist gets arrested for not understanding this situation [edit: and becoming beligerent as a reult of] and then tell the sheriff to their face that the "law is not clear" so they must set the tourist (trespasser) free?
BMBV, you can bet if I know of an arrest situation on Blue Mt. Beach I will be there standing with others to explain the situation the the sheriff deputy. Customary Use of the Beach is a long standing function of law. I didn't put myself in harm's way many times in my lifetime so someone could tell me I couldn't sit or play respectfully on any beach in the USA and especially on one where I live. Tourist season is upon us and we had better decide if we are going to be good neighbors or not, now.

__________________
Congress only does two things well...Nothing at all and overreacting.

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Andy, I appreciate your serving your country and all if that's what you meant by "I didn't put myself in harm's way many times in my lifetime...". However, neither you or I could stop an arrest at the Retreat. We are only two individuals. And the quickest way to get thrown in jail is to argue with the sheriff about "Customary Use" when one is asked to leave private property. And what makes you think that you and a sheriff are going to settle a long and complicated issue such as this at the height of emotional duress while standing on the beach?

I fully understand (and hope) that your comment is more figurative than literal.

Since you feel compelled to share your private beach with the public, I feel compelled to share (again) that your beach lies over 1000 feet from the nearest public access so overcrowding of your beach is not ever likely. Also since you are just one of several owners in your association, so is your voice. It would truly be interesting to see if your association members concur with your beliefs about their property.

Would you open your association's access to the public so they would not have to walk over 1000 feet to get your beach? I know that "nice?" new development next to Sally's would love to cross the street and use your property to get to the beach.

Andy, I truly believe you mean good, but I'm just a bit confused how you can "give away" a private beach that doesn't belong entirely to you in the first place.

A side note...do you believe your association had the "right" to construct a seawall on the beach?

Andy A.

First of all, BMBV, our board has stated many times in the past that our beach is useable by all. I have served on the board, my wife is now vice president and we believe the beach is for everyon's use as long as it is respectful usage. I am also sure that out of' nineteen owners you can find one or two who are as narrow minded on the use of the beach as you are. They don't live here, though, and I do. You are right about using our private access to the beach. We don't allow it. If the people across the street wish to use our aqcess, I'm sure we would consider a proposal. But then, I don't expect tourists to be trapsing through your living room to get to the beach, either. Once there, you know my feelings on beach usage. If it makes you happier, I'll just give away my 1/19th of our beach for usage. Am I allowed to do that as a U.S. citizen and "small" property owner? And yes, I was being literal in my post. I think this situation has to be ajudicated to a final conclusion and it seems the only way to do that is make waves. I'm hardheaded and have made them before and am sure not against making them again. I was going to also comment on the sea wall but I've decided it is to ludicrous to do so. Suffice it to say everything was done as we were instructed and allowed to do in order to save our building. It almost appears the next thing "private beach owners" will demand is that the public not be allowed to walk on the beach. What a travesty this situation is, where the American public cannot have free access to their own shores!

__________________
Congress only does two things well...Nothing at all and overreacting.

goodwitch58

Well said, Andy.

Andy A.

8Thank you, Goodwitch58. As you will note, I have very strong feelings on this subject.

__________________
Congress only does two things well...Nothing at all and overreacting.

Andy A.

Damn you, SJ, I tried for 20 minutes to kill that bug on my computer screen.

__________________
Congress only does two things well...Nothing at all and overreacting.

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Andy, I thought we were not going to get personal here but believe me, you're not the first. I won't return the favor.

I don't believe that a majority of the owners where you live want to give away their beach (assume via easement).

I can't imagine that your board can make such a decision on its own (creating an easement) without the official approval of the members of the association during an official association meeting. That's a pretty serious change. And if the board did, shouldn't that be recorded in the by-laws as well as recorded easement? Or is it?

If your board did make such a decision without approval, your board would be wide open to a lawsuit by any association member.

You state that your access is private. Lack of public access is as much of a problem as the beach itself being private (per Surfrider). There's over 1/2 mile beach without public access between 83 and the Inn at BMB and your association's property lies right in the middle. So let's assume the public can use your part of the beach. What good does it do when it's practically impossible for an average family to realistically access it?

Feeling REALLY generous?...Open up your access so the public can realistically access your part of the beach.

scooterbug44

I don't have a problem w/ private accesses, especially when the people who own and maintain the accesses are good neighbors and happy to share the sand with others. Making them all public just opens a can of liability and parking worms.

IMO people having to walk a little further to get to the beach just means they'll look better in their swimsuits when they get there .

__________________
"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

Andy A.

BMBV, why would there need to be an "easement" when we have already made it clear the beach is usable by ALL provided they use it respectively. And please stop trying to turn the beach access question into use of the beach. There are several reasons why our access is private not the least of which is the liability factor. Come on, your smarter than that and the two questions are not compatible.

__________________
Congress only does two things well...Nothing at all and overreacting.

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

I strongly disagree with you that the questions are not compatible. One of Surfrider's primary goals is beach access.

If the distance I mention between the 83 access and the other access was 2 miles, do the questions remain unrelated regarding your stretch of the beach?

You said, "There are several reasons why our access is private not the least of which is the liability factor" but you don't share any of the reasons. What could they possibly be?...
1. Parking?
2. Noise?
3. Safety?
4. Trash?

Public beach means nothing without access. This is clearly documented on Surfrider's website and actually just plain common sense. It's nice to be generous when it doesn't cost one hardly anything.

You said that your board has stated many times in the past that your beach is useable by all. What about my previous questions, "And if the board did, shouldn't that be recorded in the by-laws as well as recorded easement? Or is it?"

Without it being legally recorded, those actions mean nothing if just one owner in your association were to enforce their private property rights. In fact, if the board stepped in the way, I would guess they could be sued all over the place by that one association member.

Andy, I believe you're a stand-up guy. But I also believe you take the legalities of private property too lightly, especially considering you ask us to believe that you're speaking for the ENTIRE association.

In my experience, on devisive issues such as this, you'll never get 100% agreement from all the association members. And that is what I believe it would take to make the change you're asking us to believe.

Regarding your board, I'm guessing it consists of 3 members. You state your wife is on the board. It takes only 2 votes for a board motion to pass. I assume your wife feels the same as you. You then already have 50% of the vote needed to support your statement...hardly a consensus of your association.

First you say I'm narrow minded, then you say I'm smarter than that. Oh well, I guess you're even.

Miss Kitty

BMBV...could you ask your neighbors down there to cover up those ugly seawalls with some sand? Check out Kurt's latest pics for the offensive evidence.

__________________
The mind is like a parachute, it works best when it is open.

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Why in the hell didn't I think of that?????


Andy, forgive me. I have a great pair of binoculars we can share.

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Oh Miss Kitty....don't you know the private / public beach debate would still be here even if the walls were covered? And I'm flattered if you think I have that much influence on my neighbors. Better to ask people like Ecopal regarding those walls. (more SoWal etiquette). Besides, "ugly" is in the eye of the beholder.
One more thing, those walls probably won't be here anyway after another decent hurricane hits. But that's all another topic as well as your post above.

Miss Kitty

...just thought I'd ask. At least when those things are covered by sand, we can pretend they are not there.

__________________
The mind is like a parachute, it works best when it is open.

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Would you ever come to BMB to see those walls since you're in Watercolor? Aren't we low rent compared to you guys? We do share one thing however...we're both private beaches. Maybe you can carry Andy's torch in your neck of the woods.
back atya (even more SoWal etiquette).

Bobby J

"Private beaches" that I personally haved surfed on and at for about 30 years. I am amazed at how this has become an issue over the past few years. I wish someone would answer my earlier questions regarding buying property that has folks playing out back and then complaining about them being there once they purchase. I guess the supposed "private" declaration overrides common sense? Help me understand.

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

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

I thought you surfed in the water, not on the sand.

Does that help?

- the tradition of SoWal etiquette continued.

Bobby J

My post says on and at the beach. In order to get into the surf one must walk on the sand. This is another "common sense" thing that seems to be overlooked like my earlier question.

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

Andy A.

I am through arguing this point with you, BMBV. Obviously, you don't think I have any "property rights" as a townhouse owner. And our 5 member board's business is none of your business. We will all have to wait and see what happens this summer. With not neighborly property owners like you and the retreat, it ought to get interesting.

__________________
Congress only does two things well...Nothing at all and overreacting.

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Andy, if you've read my posts, you would not compare me with the Retreat on a personal basis. You're a little quick to pull the trigger.

And if your board's business is none of my business, why did you bring it up in the first place? I thought I was asking you some legitmate questions as to the actions you said they took.

It is obvious that you're taking this all very personally. I am impassioned about this topic as much on one side as you are the other. I fear big government. I fear what they can do and have done. I fear the very people that allow big government to have their power.

I have researched this topic every which way I can think of as a layman. Everything points to the beach being private and staying that way unless the impending supreme court decision regarding nourishment goes in favor of the county.

Regardless of our differences, we are neighbors. If you don't like my position or questions, that's fine. Don't take it personally.

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Bobby J, is this not what I was sharing in my earlier post? I believe that's what I was driving at when I referred to Surfrider.

Damn if I agree with Surfrider and damn if don't.

Bobby J

Not sure what you are talking about? You seem to be avoiding my question. What up?

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

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

First you ask "someone" to answer your question (such as it is).

Then you state that I am avoiding your question.

I'll take a stab since "nobody" else will and since you've called me out at sundown.

At the risk of being repetitive, since this issue has been dissected down to the molecular level, I'll speak from my personal perspective (and I'll try to make it brief). When we purchased the beach front property in Blue Mountain Beach, we did so because it was not Panama City; it was not Destin; it was not Fort Walton Beach; it was Blue Mountain Beach, a very low key, uncrowded beach that happens to be private.

If you followed the Redfish Village, as an example, you would understand how developers tried to benefit by developing a large upland condominium project and then use the beach to "enhance" their value...any resulting profits go into their pockets with no benefit to beachfront owners...just an increase of problems associated with more people in a confined area: parking, trash, noise, overcrowding, etc.

As you know, the problem is that the majority of the beach where these extra 80 units will dump into via "their" 80 ft wide beach access, is right in the middle of residential property whose beach is private.

What makes matters WORSE is that the county gave their BLESSINGS to this concept (sans Sara Comander). Ms. Comander voted against this for a reason. It is not that she desires to deprive people of the beach. It is because there is a much bigger issue...and that is private property rights. I and others applaud her for clearly recognizing that.

Bobby, this is the problem...not you or your buddies that desire to occasionally use the beach. It is not about enforcing trespassing to the letter of the law. It is about sending a CLEAR SIGNAL to the county that the trampling of private property rights won't be tolerated. It is about discouraging inappropriate runaway growth fueled by developers looking for a dollar and certain commissioners assisting in their endeavor.

I hope this helps you understand my thinking as well as many, many other beachfront private property owners'. You can try to single me out (divide and conquer stuff) but it it really won't matter. Again, I expect nothing less from you and others, as I am one of the very few who speak up in defense of private property rights here on SoWal.

Smiling JOe

What did your research on Customary Use teach you?

__________________

Bob

Everyone building south of 98 is using the beach to enhance the value of their property. The beach is for the public to use, and opposition to that use will bring an end to arresting beachgoers, by forcing court decision. Perhaps Molokai would be a better venue for you.

Smiling JOe

... When we purchased the beach front property in Blue Mountain Beach, we did so because it was not Panama City; it was not Destin; it was not Fort Walton Beach; it was Blue Mountain Beach, a very low key, uncrowded beach that happens to be private....[/quote]
I'm just curious to know what you thought about the general public using the beach which you call private, when you decided to purchase, and I am also curious to why the "private" beach owners have allowed the public to use the beach up until last year. The law says that one has to defend their property. If one fails to do so, he or she may give up some rights to that property. I keep hearing you talk about Private Property Rights and no big gov't. However, if you go back to the beginning of private property rights history in this country, you will see that it includes defending your property, and this homesteading was done by fencing of the property to show the boundary to others. So, if you are going to talk about property rights, please be sure to include the historical parts, and the Customary Use Doctrine.

__________________

scooterbug44

From BMBV's post in the beach restoration thread:

"Under Florida law, waterfront landowners’ title extends to the ordinary high water mark and includes several rights such as access and view of the water, title to accretions, and the right to have the property remain in contact with the water. These rights are protected property rights under Florida case law."

I read this as "beachfront property owners have access rights, not full control or the right to run others off."

This sounds identical to the lake shore issue I grew up with - technically it's your property, but you can't prevent the public from using the shoreline or water. There is the area that is "your yard" and then there is the shoreline area where you cannot erect fences or gates and impede passage in any way.

I definitely agree that this is an issue because of poorly planned (and approved, so make sure those chickens come home to roost at election time) developments, but that doesn't change the reality that the beach is still a public resource.

__________________
"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

Bobby J

I am sure that was the original intent. Greed changes perception. I think the courts will look at the intent and customary use. History has proven beach goer will win.

BMBV, thanks for your comments

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

full time

Hey - if I lived in Blue Mountain and could get my coffee everyday at PJ's in Redfish Village, I would call that a benefit to the Blue Mountain folks.

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Gosh I'm surprised Shelley didn't jump all over you for that comment coming from a real estate professional!! (granite counter tops and all).

Today, I believe it is the other way...

Perception changes greed (c)2008 BMBV

Would one not consider the victory of Save Our Beaches (vs. Walton County) as part of history?

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Now that's just plain MEAN!

BeachSiO2

That's a good question. I would say not yet since the Supreme Court has taken it up to see whether it is a valid decision since the lower court decided with the County and the appeals sided with SOB. Plus, the Supreme Court did not issue a stay like the SOB's wanted and the project was allowed to be completed.

JustaLocal

Coincidentally, that is funny!

But on the thread subject, even if Save Our Beaches does win the rights to accretion argument, that does not mean the beach is off limits to the public.

John R

if one lived next door to the RV beach access, one could just hop on the shuttle to go get coffee. how easy is that?

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

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

So what's your take as to the hold-up on their decision?

Question: Regardless of who prevails in the State Supreme Court, could this thing go to Federal Supreme Court?

BeachSiO2

As for part 1, I think it is because they also see public/private OWNERSHIP vs public/private USE is a huge issue for the state. Also, the ECL requirement is a state requirement and if it is invalidated then the state could either be subject to statewide takings claims (their are over 375 miles of restored beaches with ECL's) or have to deed land.

As for part 2, my understanding was "no" due to the "type" of lawsuit it was it would stay at the state level but I don't know all the details.

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Wow! That is a lot of restored beach. I am certain a good chunk of those areas were in dire need of (re)nourishment. It obviously would not be good for the state if there was a reversal on the ECLs.

I see a possible dilema:
Walton County has already expended public funds to nourish private beaches with the "expectation" that they will prevail in court. However a negative decision can and will affect the entire state as well as just Walton County.

Do you think that if Walton County just folded up their case and walked away before the Supreme Court ruled, that the existing decision (in favor of SOB) from the District Court of Appeals would affect the rest of the state regarding ECLs assuming no more cases were filed in those areas? I really don't have any idea on this.

Regarding part 2, I've wondered why the situation in Oregon, for example, didn't rise to the Federal Supreme Court. So I think you're right; there seems to be a reason that it's held back at the state level. Thanks.

BeachSiO2

Actually in this case Walton County is only one party to the lawsuit and is actually the more minor party. The state of Florida is the more major party because the appeals court ruling invalidated a state statute. So whether or not Walton Cty wanted to continue the state would still have to defend their state statute. As for public funds, from a legal standpoint that is irrelevant, the material issue is that the state statute requires an ECL line and that ECL line is required no matter who pays.

One quick note as far as nourished beaches in Florida, you would be hard pressed to find many sandy beach areas in Florida that are not a state park, or federal land that has not been restored or is in some phase of planning for restoration.