Will the TDC ever publish a comprehensive map showing which beaches are public vs. private (in addition to the accesses)?

On their website they finally acknowledged that there are private beaches last year. Wouldn't it be responsible to our 2008 tourists by showing that some of the public accesses are completely surrounded by private beach?

Let's not repeat the summer of 2007.

why publish a map? Just put BIG BLUE BEACH ACCESS SIGNS UP.
I'm sure they can find room between the wayfinding signs and soon to come scenic corridior signs and lighted mile marker signs and golf cart lane only signs and the trolley stop signs.......

BMBV, I thought you have been saying that the Courts are the ones who will have to decide whether the public can use the privately deeded beach. Now you want the TDC to make that determination.

John R, you will note that those two sites mentioned are not current accesses, but ones in the works. The TDC wants to build those accesses. I understood that both would already be in the works if we didn't have any storms in 2006 which would wash away the beach walkovers. I guess they decided to spend the money on the big blue signs, instead.

By the way, the ramp at the end of Mitchell, which was east of Punzy's former place, is a private parcel, and now filled in with sand and a bulkhead. The actual deeded access is to the west of your former place, across the street from Pat.

__________________

Smiling Joe, in the meantime there are undeniably private beaches out there. There is no doubt; there are no shades of gray (as much as you try to portray as such). There are public accesses and private accesses as the TDC documents. Why stop there and not document the public and private beaches?

There is a court case out there that we all know about regarding beach nourishment.

Two things have to happen for the private beaches to become public:

1. The state supreme court has to rule in favor of Walton County.

AND

2. Nourishment must take place that extends the property beyond the established erosion control line.

Until BOTH items occur, innocent tourists will get arrested if people like you contnue to insist and encourage that the county stick their head in the sand and just "wish" the propblem will go away.

The law is clear and until any case is decided, the law will be enforced where needed.

You can can philosophically disagree with any of my positions. I fully expect that. However don't make the unknowing tourists pay for your ideology.

And let us not forget that a disturbing majority that post on this forum think it is okay for the government to come onto that private property and "take" things that they find objectionable.

__________________

Please show me an example of my post where I have encouraged tourists to pay for my ideology. If anything, I have warned people of the possible arrests for sitting quietly on the beach.

You are right in that I do disagree with most of your statements. I do recognize that deeded property exists on the beach. What I have been telling you is that having a deed for property does not convey complete rights to the property.

__________________

That may have been me he was thinking of. I have said it a million times.... Owning the beach is like trying to own the sky (Thanks Dave R). Florida's economy is based on tourism dollars and use of the beaches. I feel strongly that the "Supreme Court" will rule in favor of tourism dollars. It is really a "customary use" issue and many of us have been using the beaches of SoWal uninterrupted for years. The funny thing is, the areas that many are upset over are the areas we have been using the most. Especially Blue Mountain!
This is not a taking, this is a "customary use" issue. The law is not really clear BMBV. We have been and will continue to use the beaches as we always have. That is as clear as it gets.

__________________
"You are your choices"
www.lifeonshore.com
http://bobbyjblog.com

Last year, Com. Meadows informed me that it was being worked on and would hopefully be ready by this tourist season. I'm wondering how it will be physically delineated on the beach. Landscape paint?

Thanks for the update.

Regarding delineation, I believe people like Smiling Joe and Bobby J are going to unduly antagonize the situation furthering the polarization of an already touchy issue.

Bobby J, why must we rehash the same ole crap? Didn't we more or less agree to let this concept play out in the court system?

Many beaches are private. If you disagree, then you and Smiling Joe can bring suit to a beach front owner, prove your case and move on with your life. Until then, there are private beaches, period.

I jumped into this thread stating that TDC needs to inform the "public" that not all the "Beaches of South Walton" are currently public. I've made this same comment before somewhere in another thread. Nothing more, nothing less. 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?

Now that's a banner line....
"FREE THE TOURISTAS!!!!!".

And you've also stated several times that you are not an attorney yet it certainly appears you have determined what does and does not get conveyed with beach property. If it were that simple, we would not be exchanging messages regarding this topic.

Fixed that for you. Don't leave yourself out when you use the word antagonize. I even threw myself in there for you.

ad nauseam...




I am not an attorney.

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

[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?
[quote]

You bet. If I am aware that the arrest is taking place, I will gladly explain to the police officer that "we" have been using these beaches for years and that this is all just a giant misunderstanding.

__________________
"You are your choices"
www.lifeonshore.com
http://bobbyjblog.com

And if you purchased your property after tona roma, you should have known that that strip of sand is a very special place for ALL of us!!!!!! So quit being a greedy pig!

__________________
Clean water - Good for the soul !
It's Better To Wear Out, Than Rust!

And you think that would cause a 'deputy sheriff' to unarrest someone?

__________________

I would imagine if the county were not such 'greedy pigs' when it came to collecting tax revenue from this property owners, they would be more conducive to allowing the use of the land. Maybe they could license it back to the county at the same terms that the county is using to license public lands to adjoining owners.

__________________

I would imagine once the actual arrest was made it would be hard. If it was in the process... maybe.... If the officer was investigating the complaint...yep.

__________________
"You are your choices"
www.lifeonshore.com
http://bobbyjblog.com

If you feel that way, why do you continue to bring up the issue? You were the first to post something about it on this thread.

__________________

You know what really puzzles me? Why would someone purchase a beach front home knowing good and well that people use this beach and then promptly begin to complain about these same people on the beach?

If I purchased my home and folks were playing out back, I think I would have made the connection that these folks always played there....

__________________
"You are your choices"
www.lifeonshore.com
http://bobbyjblog.com

exactly. people come to the emerald coast to, um, GO TO THE BEACH.

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

Here, here.............what a concept!!!! We need a locals only beach...like 27 miles of it!!

Be sure to include a after a your next post with Bobby J to counter his ....(SoWal etiquette, I believe ).

You're doing the SJ shuffle again. Here's my first post:

I'm not debating the private / public beach thing here. I'm suggesting that TDC should ALSO provide maps of the public beaches as well as the accesses.

Oh....didn't JustaLocal just share with all of us that Meadows was looking into the TDC providing that very information?

SJ, in addition you also said:
You are wrongfully implying that a determination has to be made. It has already been made via legally recorded property deeds but of course you deny this in your rhetoric. Assuming Justalocal's post is correct, then the TDC has already acknowledged this (unlike you). At a minimum this (as you know) was on the TDC's website:


The county maintains six regional beach accesses with parking and restrooms that are available to the public. Many of the county’s beaches are private due to the way some of the area’s properties were originally deeded and beachgoers who set up tents and chairs in these areas may be asked to move.


So you see, SJ, the TDC has already made a "determination" as you call it. They just need to inform the public as I've suggested.


Another comment you made:
You are contradicting yourself. If you are warning people, then there must be a reason. If TDC acknowledges that there are private beaches, then there must be a reason. If you think TDC should not inform the public which beaches are private and which are public then you are in fact "encouraging tourists to pay for your ideology" by desiring that they stay uninformed. And I can see only one reason to want that.

And one more IMPORTANT thing.... Nobody has been arrested that was asked to leave a private beach and did so without argument or other resistance. Your imagery (sensationalism) of "possible arrests for sitting quietly on the beach" is total crap and you know it.

Why can't you simply acknowledge that it would be a good idea to also have a public beach map generated by TDC as well as the public access points?

In summary, I believe that was the essence of my first post as it followed with the title of this thread, "Public Beach & Bay Accesses - list and map", not that I wanted to re-debate the private vs. public beach issue.

The TDC hasn't made a determination as to whether the public may sit quietly on the beach. Doing so is not within their power. They are simply trying to avoid possible lawsuits. Even you have stated numerous times that the Court will have to decide each case on a case-by-case basis, so I'm not sure why you are now changing your mind.

I do acknowledge that deeds do exists for some of the sandy beach. I also note that full rights do not come with all property. Zoning, easements, customary use and prescriptive rights are some examples of a property owner not having full rights to their property. If you don't understand that simple and common part of real estate laws in Florida, I suggest you do some research. I am not an attorney, but I am familiar with the laws of the State of Florida. The public has been using the beaches in SoWal ever since their were people down here, which history shows that being some 4000-5000 years ago, long before Jesus roamed the Middle East. Only two years ago, has someone tried to defend the beaches as their property. That fits right into the Customary Use of the Florida Real Estate Law. Look it up.

BTW, no contradiction on my part. My warning is simply that people risk arrest or not having a convenient place to spend their time on the beach, and that has absolutely nothing to do with their rights to sit on the beach. Anyone can file a lawsuit or apparently have someone else arrested for criminal trespass, even without showing the Sheriff their boundary markers and current survey of the property, but that doesn't mean that they have full rights to their property, nor does it mean that the public doesn't have some rights to the property.

As for a map of private vs public beach, a map would only serve to show deeds for the beach, but that doesn't fully interpret rights of usage of that property. For example, my interior lot with a road being built across the depth of my property, without payment by the County, is one example of me not having full rights to my property. The deed shows that I own the property upon which the road and ROW sit, but that doesn't mean much about that portion of the road. In my particular case, Prescriptive Easement is the section of the law which is applicable. How you don't understand basic real estate law is beyond me. Have you actually looked up the laws and Court rulings and opinions, regarding Customary Use?

__________________

I disagree with the above. The TDC has not made a "determination."

I may have posted all this last Summer during the Public Beaches debate on SoWal, but I wanted to clear up my view.
I wrote the following to Com. Meadows last July after the TDC posted the FAQ on the County website:

"As a resident of South Walton I feel it very important to let you know my feelings on the County's new stand on "private beaches". I think it would have been prudent for the County to wait until the courts decide before taking a stand one way or the other. I feel confident that public access will extend at the very least to Mean High Water (MHW) and not only "wet sand" (which are very often not the same) . That aside, I am VERY disturbed about the following statement on County website under FAQ about private beaches.
"Most public beach accesses are nestled between private properties. Beachgoers should stay within the easement of the dune walkover to set up on the dry beach. Along Scenic 30A, beachgoers who wish have beach set ups outside of these areas must be on the wet sand." (bold mine)
The public beach access I use, Dune Allen, is not 'nestled between private properties'. The Gulf front properties East of the park do not extend seaward all the way to MHW. Since this is the access I use, it is the only one I've researched. But, I think the County would be wise not to err on the side of restricting public use of public beach by making the above generalization. It is misleading.
If Walton County is going to support the "private beach" idea, I think it has a duty to indicate on a map where the "private" portions actually are.
Thank you very much for allowing me to express my opinions on this matter.

She responded:
I will forward your comments to the TDC. We are working on a map showing public/private areas of the beach. we are working on the opinion but had to act in the meantime to an issue that is important to all of us.
Commissioner Cindy Meadows

Then on Aug. 1, I received this e-mail:
I received your e-mail from Commissioner Meadows. It is a tricky situation right now as there has not been a survey conducted to identify the mean high water line. The Walton County Sheriff's Department is enforcing the wet sand rule as it is their interpretation of the Florida Attorney General's opinion. As a TDC, we do not make or enforce the rules but simply serve as a communication vehicle. Our function is to market the destination, protect and maintain the area's beaches and provide leadership on tourism issues. Our FAQ sheet ensures visitors do not place themselves in a compromising situation. While we do make generalizations and err on the side of caution, it is because we'd rather have our visitors in an area that we know is public than have our visitors be harassed, asked to move or, worse, arrested. The feedback from our visitors has been very positive as they are most appreciative of us outlining the rules. They prefer to know where it is safe to set up instead of being asked to relocate later. The county is addressing this issue and we hope to have a clear understanding of where the public is allowed by the 2008 tourist season. In the meantime, we are directing visitors to our public beach accesses.
Tracy LouthainWalton County Tourist Development Council

Who knows, but people constantly do this - they buy and then immediately want to change the status quo!

__________________
The enemy is ignorance.

You are so right!

Are you knocking the smiley's? If so I have a couple I can put after posts addressed to you but I would need special dispensation to not get banned. If not then .

__________________

Haters gonna hate, Ballers gonna ball

They just feel good to me.

__________________
"You are your choices"
www.lifeonshore.com
http://bobbyjblog.com

Went through some photos I had, found one of my late great aunt who is no longer living, taken in May of 1990 at Ed Walline Park. Interesting where the beach goers are.

Attached Images

Ruth at dads park May 1990 resized.jpg (54.6 KB, 29 views)

JustaLocal, thanks for sharing your emails.

By "determination" I do understand that TDC has no authority in that arena. That is why I put the word in quotes and only in response to SJ's post. I was using the word in the context that TDC has the authority to inform the public when a beach is known to be private or public.

However as evidenced by their reply to you, it appears TDC will provide some sort of documentation where the beach is known to be public without controversy. That's really good news for everyone based on my observations.

Also I can fully appreciate your concern that people might be unnecessarily restricted from beaches that might be public.

Interesting note regarding one of TDC's comments, "While we do make generalizations and err on the side of caution, it is because we'd rather have our visitors in an area that we know is public than have our visitors be harassed, asked to move or, worse, arrested."

Until a few months ago, TDC was mistaken that Blue Mountain Beach to the east of 83 was public. So conversely I guess they could err the other way and so your concern is again a valid one.


"The county is addressing this issue and we hope to have a clear understanding of where the public is allowed by the 2008 tourist season."
We should follow up on this TDC statement to see if and when this information is put into a "tourist map".

It would appear that TDC agrees with my general premise.

Kurt, you started this thread with a post containing 2 links to the TDC's website regarding a map of public accesses. Just curious - how did it get deleted along with three other posts before me?

AND why did the title of thread change while at the same time showing me as the initiator?

I ask these questions because I only responded to your post about TDC about their beach access maps and that I feel TDC should document public beaches as well. I accused Bobby J of "rehashing the same ole crap" after he picks up on the age old private vs. public beach arguments. Yet by the above actions, it appears I'm somewhat "rehashing the same ole crap".

A side note - does TDC still have the infamous Frequently Asked Questions page on their website? I can't find it.

The thread was split, your post happened to be the first one. The original thread is in the general forum.

floridagirl, I hear that there is a unofficial group of people who are collecting information, testimony, and photos of the historical use of all of the beach in Walton County. I'm sure your photo above, and other photos showing the general public sunning on the beaches, recently being claimed as private, will be much appreciated. You might ask around and see if you can find someone in the group to accept some photos as evidence. You might start with Commissioner Brannon's office, though I'm not in ANY way suggesting that he is personally involved in the group, but he, or his staffer, may know someone to contact.

__________________

I see. I believe you would agree that it changes the context of first my post somewhat by not having your original post. [Edit: also the title was changed from Public Beach & Bay Accesses - list and map to Public vs Private Beach by you.] Enough said. Thanks.

Sorry for the drive-by post (too busy to read them all). In a conversation yesterday, I was surprised that the public/private beach controversy in South Walton County is really affecting potential renters.

My doctor's fiancée wants to get married at the beach. He planned to rent a beachfront home south of 30-A plus several homes adjacent to it for their guests. Our neighborhood is booked up. Someone told him about the public/private beach controversy, and it was suggested that they consider having the wedding at the beach at a state park. No way -- of course, they want the wedding to be in view of their accommodations. So he is going to fly everyone to the Caribbean.

The publicity about beach access is getting around. Not a good thing.

__________________

I think the bigger issue is that you have to have a permit to get married on the beach.

__________________

that would be a different permit than to get married somewhere else?

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

Yes, I think if you have a gathering of something like 50 or more people, you need a permit, but that is not difficult to obtain. Having a cop arrest the mother of the bride for trespassing at the wedding, is an entirely different mess, and isn't even in the same ocean with getting a beach permit for a large gathering, as WaltonGOP is trying to say.

__________________

You've got to be kidding! I remember the peanut boil parties we used to have down at Grayton, although that's probably why they created an ordinance!

Have we had permits for our SoWal beach soirées?

__________________

I doubt it. You could always say that you are two different gatherings, fighting for the same space on the beach.

__________________

Hopefully the Florida Supreme Court and/or the US Supreme Court will resolve the private/public beach issue in the near future. All the beaches in Florida should be public.
Also, there should be beach accesses every ½ mile or so along all the beaches. Let the State of Florida use eminent domain to take the property up to the dune and also take selected strips of property for accesses. The property owners will be paid for their taken land. If the land owners don’t like that, then they can sell their property and buy
Beach front in the Caribbean, where they can stare at all the sand and water they want, and not have to deal with other people.

I am SO tired of all this private/public beach nonsense!

THE BEACH IS PUBLIC!

You can have a private access and restrict its use, you can restrict parking, you can provide no amenities, but once they manage to get to the sand it's public.

You can biatch and moan all you want about people's behavior, but we already have rules and regulations in place to deal with most of it and the rest is just how people behave.

If someone is parking where they shouldn't to use your private beach access you can have them towed.

If someone is leaving trash on the beach you can have them ticketed for littering.

If someone is being loud and obnoxious you can have them arrested for being drunk and disorderly.

If someone is leaving chairs and tents and coolers on the beach day to day, you can have it ticketed and removed.

But if there are too many people and the beach is crowded - that's the reality of life on the planet - you built it, so now they will come!

I grew up on a lake next to a public park. Same issues - cars parking in front of our house/driveway/mailbox, leaving trash in the water and our front yard, kids setting off fireworks, extra noise, dogs going to the bathroom when they weren't even allowed in the park etc.

Our pier was private property and the fenced portion of our yard was private property, all of the lake and both the wet and dry area of shoreline were public. As long as people didn't touch our pier and were following the law, they were doing nothing wrong.

A few obnoxious people is the price you pay for beachfront living and a front row seat to a natural resource. Get over it!

__________________
The enemy is ignorance.

The State of FLorida does not currently recognize that all the beachs in Florida are Public. Until the State recognizes this, likely by a court ruling,
then all the beach is not public.

If you doubt this, find one of those obnoxious people and put your beach chair on the beach in front of their house. But, be perpared for a ride to Defuniak Springs as a guest of a Walton County Deputy Sheriff.

Right now, only the issue of beach nourishment and the resulting conversion of newly added sand to public use is what will be determined soon; nothing more as far as I am aware.

Quote:

Also, there should be beach accesses every ½ mile or so along all the beaches. Let the State of Florida use eminent domain to take the property up to the dune and also take selected strips of property for accesses. The property owners will be paid for their taken land....

I would certainly entertain that.



It should be via negotiation, and can not be done via eminent domain (not one of the valid reasons for eminent domain). Again, the same end result could occur through negotiation. But I'm very afraid the county (and my socialist buddies) would rather try to TAKE it by other means in the name of tourism and other "opinions".

I think we're having a major breakthrough here.... Finally someone who thinks the beaches should be public AND acknowledges that there are private beaches AND that a private beach has value to its owner.

If the Supreme Court rules against Walton County on the existing case, then I believe negotiation will be the only "real" possiblity of converting private beaches to public beaches in Walton County. Everything else is just noise.

Good posts IMO (and no, I don't know PeterFrohwein from Adam).

This part of the story is particularly troubling. If the obnoxious dune holder wants to press a trespassing complaint, The Deputy should only fill out the citation and have the complainant sign it. Then they go to court and the officer is uninvolved further. Arrest of a beach goer at 1030 am AND holding him until 830 pm sounds to me like an abuse of power, and a waste of tax payer funded resources.

__________________
Clean water - Good for the soul !
It's Better To Wear Out, Than Rust!

If I correctly recall the law of eminent domain, gov't cannot use eminent domain to take property for recreational purposes, and I think sunbathing would fall into the definition of recreation.

__________________

I think that the key to eminent domain is that the land be devoted to
"public use" . I believe that good government lawyers could make
a sucessful argumant(s) and win a case or cases that could expand the
current defination of eminent domain to also include beaches.

It could be argued that the beach could be loosely defined as a public park.

"Traditionally, eminent domain has been utilized to facilitate transportation, the supplying of water, and the like, 184 but the use of the power to establish public parks, to preserve places of historic interest, and to promote beautification has substantial precedent.
Quote weblink: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ment05/14.html
President Case below:
Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U.S. 282 (1893) (establishment of public park in District of Columbia)
Case weblink: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...5/14.html#f184

I don't think that will fly. From what I understand, each state can have varying laws involving eminent domain. Example: Florida, I believe, changed eminent domain regarding seizing private property for the purpose of increasing the tax base....i.e. allowing developers to redevelop valuable coastal porperty when maybe only mobile homes are currently sitting on the land and are perhaps homesteaded. This form of eminent domain is now a no-no (as it should be).

BUT.....

Let's assume it could happen. You sound like a fair minded individual. Let's say the state and/or county can seize private beaches via eminent domain.

The BIG question is how does one establish the value of the beach seized (basically dune line to water line)?

As you state, the property owner must be compensated for the value of the land "taken".

In the case of private beaches, is it generally the current difference in value of beach front vs. first tier? vs. 2nd tier? vs. 1/2 mile off the beach?

How does one truly value a piece property in which so many can financially benefit from?

These are questions looking for answers not confrontation.

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.

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.

__________________

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.

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.

__________________
"You are your choices"
www.lifeonshore.com
http://bobbyjblog.com

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?

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

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

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

__________________

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

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

__________________

Yep, a north Mississippi law firm!!!!

[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.

__________________
Speak out freely...Hold to the truth...Question boldly.

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?

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!

__________________
Speak out freely...Hold to the truth...Question boldly.

Well said, Andy.

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

__________________
Speak out freely...Hold to the truth...Question boldly.

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

__________________
Speak out freely...Hold to the truth...Question boldly.

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.

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 .

__________________
The enemy is ignorance.

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.

__________________
Speak out freely...Hold to the truth...Question boldly.

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.

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.

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


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

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.

...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.

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).

"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.

__________________
"You are your choices"
www.lifeonshore.com
http://bobbyjblog.com

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

Does that help?

- the tradition of SoWal etiquette continued.

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.

__________________
"You are your choices"
www.lifeonshore.com
http://bobbyjblog.com

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.

__________________
Speak out freely...Hold to the truth...Question boldly.

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.

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.

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

__________________
"You are your choices"
www.lifeonshore.com
http://bobbyjblog.com

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.

What did your research on Customary Use teach you?

__________________

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.

__________________
appreciate today

... 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.

__________________

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.

__________________
The enemy is ignorance.

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

__________________
"You are your choices"
www.lifeonshore.com
http://bobbyjblog.com

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.

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?

Now that's just plain MEAN!

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.