All you folks lucky enough to be in SoWal in October may want to carry yourselves on over to the county commissioners meeting next Tuesday and make your voices heard regarding the following:


Dear SWCC Member,

The next county commissioner meeting will be October 10th, starting at 4 pm at the courthouse in South Walton on Hwy 331. **The full agenda for the meeting is not yet available but there is one item that was continued from the previous meeting.

Seawalls on public property. **


22 property owners constructed seawalls *and/or sand filled tubes (called “Pro Tech Tubes”) on the public beach rather than on their own property. The state will not process their application for a permanent permit for the walls and tubes unless they receive permission from the owner of the property upon which the walls were built. The property owner is the county. The armoring structures range from 28’ to 50’ onto the public beach. I have attached a photo for your information.

SWCC sponsored a public forum on seawalls last year. There was a lot of information presented by a coastal engineer during that forum. We have also researched agency and private sector research on the impacts of armoring the coast. As a result, *we have serious concerns over (1) the potential adverse impact of these structures on the viability of the beach (2) the loss of public *use of a significant amount of beach, (3) the precedent of allowing private individuals to usurp public property for private benefit and *(4) the liability undertaken by the county for habitat loss under the
Federal Endangered Species Act.

The public beach belongs to all of the residents of Walton County. We strongly encourage you to participate in this decision making process. If you can come to the meeting, please make time to come. If you can’t come, please take the time to email your thoughts and questions to the commissioners. *I have listed their email address for your convenience. In addition, following the commissioner contacts, for those who want more information, *I have outlined the concerns and questions that SWCC will be presenting to the commissioners on this significant public issue.

County Commissioner Contacts

Commissioner Scott Brannon *****************Commissioner Cindy Meadows
District 1 ********************************************Distri ct 5
brascott@co.walton.fl.us ***********************meacindy@co.walton.fl.us
(850) 622-3081 ************************************(850) 622-3059

Commissioner Ken Pridgen ********************Commissioner Larry Jones
District 2 ********************************************Distri ct 3
prikenneth@co.walton.fl.us ********************jonlarry@co.walton.fl.us
(850) 834-6328 **************************************(850) 892-8474

NOTE: *I have omitted Commissioner Cuchens as a contact email as a company owned by him built many of the walls which are the subject of this meeting. As such, he will not be voting or participating in this issue.

Should the County Approve Seawalls Constructed on the Public Beach? SWCC Thoughts and Questions


Background Info. A representative for 10 property owners in the Seagrove Beach area has acknowledged that their seawalls were “inadvertently” built seaward of their gulf front property line. **Seven other gulf front *property owners have indicated they have built both a seawall and placed large sand filled tubes (“ tubes”) on the public beach. Five *property owners have indicated they have placed Tubes on public property. (the brand name of the tubes is “Pro Tech Tubes”)

According to engineering plans, these structures were built from 28’ to 50’ seaward of the private property line. The distance between the structures and the houses they are supposed to protect is even greater.

The issue has surfaced because the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) required proof of ownership of the property on which the walls and/or Tubes are located as part of the application for a permit for a permanent armoring structure. *

In many areas of South Walton, deeds *on gulf front property do not convey ownership of the beach. *In building what was clearly intended to be a permanent structure on a gulf front property line, one would think there would have been verification of the property line, particularly in light of the fact that the physical appearance of the beach front property line may have changed due to natural and storm-related dune and bluff processes. *

In the Seagrove area it is particularly difficult to understand how the walls and tubes could have been built seaward of *the property boundary as the old sidewalk along the bluff that marked the end of private property is still there in many areas.

The owners of the upland property have now asked the county to help resolve this issue with DEP so the walls and tubes can stay on the public beach. DEP has indicated that it does not have the authority to issue permits for a structure which is not on the applicant’s property. *For the walls and tubes to remain, the county must *provide authorization for the structures to permanently remain on the public beach.

The Public Trust Considerations. County government is the custodian of the public’s property. As a general premise, public property cannot be used for private benefit any more than taxpayer money can be used to promote private enterprises. In the rare instance where private use of public land is allowed, there must be significant public benefit to counteract the taking of public property.

Seawalls *are intended to provide protection for upland structures. They do not protect the beach. To the contrary, documents published by both U.S. Fish & Wildlife and the DEP indicate that coastal armoring “can result in accelerated erosion seaward of the hardened structure and adjacent to the structure, especially on the downdrift side (end scour)” (Document entitled “The Liklihood of Take of Federally Protected Species on Private Lands from Beachfront Armoring Post Hurricanes 2004-2005 Season, Walton County, Florida” U.S. Fish & Wildlife. Jan. 18, 2006)

The “DEP Report for the Governor’s Coastal High Hazard Study Commission” states on page 3, “Armoring protects upland structures but it has the adverse effect of increasing the erosion in front of the armoring structures and adjacent properties as the system becomes sand starved” Dec. 2005.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers states in a document entitled “Coastal Engineering Technical Note” *(CETN-III-8): “Seawalls generally reflect wave energy which causes scour immediately in front of the wall. Wave runup and overtopping of the wall may scour the backfill. Vertically-faced impermeable sheet-pile or massive concrete walls create the most reflection and produce the most damage to the fronting beach.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) *cites the following “potential drawbacks” for seawalls and other “hardened structures that armor the shoreline”:

********. *Often exacerbates erosion seaward of hardened structure
********. *Leads to loss of beach and intertidal habitat
********. *Alters shoreline and water dynamics
********. *May have short life-span before structure failure

The “potential benefits” of the walls are cited as: *“can slow erosion rates landward of hardened structure, particularly in high energy environments”. (NOAA Ocean & Coastal Resource Management Shoreline Management Definitions updated *July 11, 2006)

While there remains some controversy over the damage caused by seawalls under normal seasonal wave impacts, there seems to be little controversy over the potential beach erosion in high impact storms or high frequency wave occurrences.

The Seagrove walls were designed and built by professionals. Obviously, a very significant mistake was made in siting and constructing these walls. The fact that the structures encroach onto public rather than private property does not minimize the seriousness of the potential consequences of this mistake. *

It may be argued that the “public benefit” is that the walls and tubes may help protect the upland structures thereby increasingly the likelihood of maintaining the gulf front residence tax base. *Is this a sufficient benefit to risk the potential damage to the viability of the beach itself? *

If these property owners needed access to the public beach in order to further stabilize their area the best approach would have been to approach the county directly to discuss the situation rather than build structures on public property and then ask for permission. There are other options to seawalls. Other communities and even some Walton County property owners chose *“soft” erosion control options in lieu of the vertical seawalls. Such an approach, funded fairly between the beneficiaries would have provided additional dune support and restoration without creating the inherent risk to the public beach caused by vertical seawalls.

State Siting Requirements. Aside from the property rights issue of a private landowner encroaching onto public land, state law requires that “armoring shall be sited a sufficient distance inside the property boundaries to prevent destabilizing the beach and dune system on adjacent properties or increasing erosion of such properties during a storm event.” (F.A.C. 62B-33.0051 (2) (a) (3))

Depriving the Public of Use of Public Property. These walls and tubes are not even close to the property line. By placing them *on the public beach, the private property owners are usurping a considerable amount of beach property. *What is the precedent that will be established for future seawall requests? What precedent will this decision establish generally for private use of public property?

Federal Law Implications. If seawalls or other armoring structures are located more than 20’ from the residence they are supposed to be protecting, U.S. Fish & Wildlife requires the owner of the property upon which the armoring structure is located to obtain an Incidental Take Permit under the Endangered Species Act. The property owner must also fund and maintain a Habitat Conservation Plan to mitigate destruction of endangered species or their habitat from the armoring structures.

Presumably, the county, if it authorizes the walls to remain on public property, must accept the responsibility and liability imposed by the Endangered Species Act.

Other Issues That Must Be Addressed If The Walls and Tubes Become Permanent Structures.

Who will pay to restore the beach (including damage to dunes or bluff face) if in fact it is demonstrated that the walls or tubes have caused accelerated erosion of public property? If the property owners are to pay, how will payment be ensured?

How can the county ensure that any obligations agreed to by the property owners will be accepted by subsequent purchasers or heirs of the property?

Who will pay for the removal of the debris from walls and tubes which have failed? Again, how will payment be ensured?

Who will bear the financial burden of keeping the walls and tubes covered with beach compatible white sand? What happens if the walls and tubes are not kept covered as required by state and federal law? Who bears the risk?

How long will the walls and tubes be allowed to remain on public property?

Conclusion.

There are many questions that must be answered at this meeting. *We encourage the public to become informed, ask questions and let your thoughts be known. We encourage the commissioners to take what time is needed to fully explore the issues so that their decision can be based upon solid information that best ensures that nothing is done that could ultimately undermine the health and viability of the beach and dune system. *

The South Walton Community Council

Anita Page
Executive Director

Note: *The bulk of our research has pertained to walls rather than the Pro Tech Tubes. We are aware that similar concerns have been expressed over the *impact of the tubes on the beaches. We hope to have more information on the impacts of the tubes at the meeting. In this case, however, only 5 of the structures are tubes. The rest are walls or a combination of walls and tubes.

SWCC has not objected to walls which were built on private property and are otherwise in compliance with state and county requirements.

__________________

"Peace .... starts with the person who attempts to diffuse the tension and backs away from the inflammatory rhetoric."

Here are some aerial pictures I shot of Montgomery Street properties that are a few of the properties involved in this issue:

Montgomery Street properties (to the right of 6 green roofed buildings) in South Walton County on July 16, 2005, six days after Hurricane Dennis.


Same properties 11 months later on June 6, 2006.




Scott Jackson
PhotosFlorida.com

Scott,
Great photos. You are like a walking, digital history book.

For the County to say that they were unaware of the wall would be stupid, because I know several people who spoke with County Engineer, Greg Graham regarding these specific properties, the seawall, and the dark sand (dirt) which they were illegally using. Greg took the fall for that. By the way, Greg is still employed by the County. Imagine that. Anyway, they were informed. Now they play dumb, and they will leave the seawalls in place. Mark my words. I may not be the brightest apple in the bunch, but I know how politics around here works.

Here are some shots from the ground of those same properties:

__________________

You gotta be kidding me.

__________________
I know I don't get there often enough,
but God knows I surely try
It's a magic kind of medicine,
that no doctor could prescribe.

...and a few of the homeowners who did this crap put their homes up for sale. Be careful of that property of which you are looking to buy. Not all properties are bad, but there are some dangerous ones out there. I would ask many questions and get the owners to put the answers in writing, prior to making the contract solid. The listing or selling agents would most often not be aware of any such potential for lawsuits unless the sellers made the agents aware. So be careful out there.

As a quick reminder. Real estate can have a negative value. I am not saying that these do, but negative value is a possibility in some cases. I think these will be waved right on through without incident. Think about it. It would cost more to remove these seawalls and geotubes than it did to install them. Also, I doubt anyone would remove them and risk the lawsuit when the houses crumble to the ground when the sand is pulled out from beneath the foundations. It just doesn't make sense, and I think the owners knew this going in. Obviously they didn't care about the dark, illegal sand being dumped on the property, nor did the County.

__________________

It doesn't suprise me

__________________
I know I don't get there often enough,
but God knows I surely try
It's a magic kind of medicine,
that no doctor could prescribe.

thid reminds me of another lively discussion that took place on this board. i wonder if the county needs to be looking at other areas, not just seagrove...

jr

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

It seems to me that if these people knowingly violated the law (and it seems absurd to think they didn't) then they need to be held accountable for any damages that may occur as a result. Perhaps they should have to contribulte to a hefty trust fund dedicated to resolving the almost certain damages that will occur to this section of the beach in the future. If they fail to fund the trust a lien could be placed on their property to be collected when they sell the property or if they default on their mortgage and/or tax obilgations. In this way, future purchasers and the public would receive at least some protection. In my opinion, if the current owners lose their property or investment value they have only themselves to blame. No one should be permitted to flagrantly violate the law.

:!: Great idea, Paradise Sea! That was some dark dirt alright! Saw that down in Seacrest some too!

I would have a survey completed before I built a fence. These yahoos were installing an expensive seawall and geotube, costing many thousands of dollars, yet they didn't have a simple survey completed prior to spending all that money. That should be the first thought addressed by the County Commissioners. Hello!!! Are you reading this???

__________________

I'm trying to figure out why the contractor(s) wouldn't require one. No licensed fencing company would put up a picket fence without a current survey. Why would the contractor not do the same? I honestly am stunned that Ro Cutchens has not been asked to resign over this. It is not enough that he is recusing himself from the vote. What a joke. He helped CAUSE the problem and has not done his job as a commissioner of protecting county property. The homeowners are also at fault, of course, but a licensed general contractor should know enough to follow the law and do no harm. But a county commissioner playing a part in this? It is unbelievable and shows that Walton County has a lot of growing up to do.

Who was the contractor on this job?

From Rita's original post:

I think it was noted in one meeting by someone, not Ro, that Ro's company installed more than 60% of the emergency seawalls in Walton County last year.

As TFT, you would think that a normal, average (responsible) company would try to lessen their risk, and require a survey prior to constructing anything. I guess this shows us a little something about Ro's company.

__________________

In the end, the OWNER is responsible for the location of the retaining wall. The owner can then sue their retaining wall contractor for faulty installation or breach of contract UNLESS the owner had instructed him in writing to proceed without a survey. Also I guess if the contractor was consistantly negligent, their license could be yanked.

Keep in mind that there were some time issues. Retaining walls had to be "started" by a certain date. Some surveyors got behind on their promise date forcing some owners to proceed without a survey. I don't know about this particular situation. However someone posted the wall was out past the boundary by several feet. I could understand an error of a foot or two.

Question: Why do some gulf front properties own all the way to the water line as opposed to those homes on Montgomery Street that only own just part of the beach?

These homes on Montgomery Street are some of the first homes in the area...long before most of us ever heard of Seagrove...even older than some of us are . I'm just wondering what allowed the different platting rules. If anything, I would think the newer properties would not own to the water line and the older properties would (but that's my simplistic view).

How conveeeenient for the contractor!!! Seems like if a homeowner signs a contract that states the contractor will obtain all permits that the contractor should be held liable, otherwise what is his final motivation to comply with environmental protection laws, greed for the big buck or good ethics?

Also could someone actually come out and tell me to get off their beach? Doesn't the actual beach belong to us all? What a nerve for someone to claim the beach as their own private property! Sounds like the white man taking everything of nature as their own private land like in our American history books. Anyone can fish off the dock I built on Old Hickory Lake in my backyard up here in TN. The lake is for everyone and the Army Corp of Engineers enforces guidelines. People should have respected the dunes on the south side of 30A in the first place by not building right on top of them, but they have rights you know. When I saw this giant construction machine jack hammering big steel girters in to the bluff so near the edge of the protected bluff then hollowing out the inside of the bluff, for that new high mess in Seacrest, almost in the dern Gulf of Mexico, I wondered who permitted this mess? It just made you wanna cry seeing the bluff tore up like that. Is that for undergrond parking? When the little Mexican guy flags all the pedestrians around their loud machines over a pile of sand next to oncoming 30A traffic, on even Saturday and Sunday mornings I'm wondering where are the rules. This is ridiculous! Anyone could've easily wrecked their bike in that mess, and even towing babies had to go over their big hump of sand because their machine is on the path whenever they want! Where is enforcement? Are there some kind of favors going on somewhere? Is there an Ethics Review Committee for the county council? Is this construction person related to the council in anyway? Just makes you wonder....

Yes. I've seen it happen.

If it ever happened to me I would politely pick up my stuff, "accidentally" trip and fall over some of THEIR uneven sand on my way out, then tell them I'm going to sue for neglectfully not keeping THEIR beach properly raked. "Oh. You mean I can stay now? Thanks!"

Impacts of Seawalls




1) Passive erosion -"Wherever a hard structure is built along a shoreline undergoing long-term net erosion, the shoreline will eventually migrate landward beyond the structure. The effect of this migration will be the gradual loss of beach in front of the seawall or revetment as the water deepens and the shoreface moves landward.... While private structures may be temporarily saved, the public beach is lost. This process of passive erosion appears to be a generally agreed upon result of fixing the position of the shoreline on an otherwise eroding stretch of coast, and is independent of the type of seawall constructed." It is evident that passive erosion will eventually destroy the recreational beach area unless this area is continually replenished. Excessive passive erosion may impact the beach profile such that shallow areas required to create breaking waves for surfing are lost (Seaside Reef).

2) Placement loss - Seawalls are placed on the beach. In many cases, construction of seawalls is on public property (beach). In Solana Beach for example most land for seawalls is leased free of charge to the property owners. This is a taking of extremely valuable public property.

3) Active Erosion - Refers to the interrelationship between wall and beach whereby due to wave reflection, storm surf zone narrowing and a thousand other processes the wall may actually increase the rate of loss of beach. This is site specific and dependent on sand input. There are varying opinions on if this effect actually exists. However, as watchdogs of the coast, until there is overwhelming evidence that this effect is not significant, many of us have opposed seawalls on this basis.

4) Public access impacts - these can be a result of passive erosion, placement loss or active erosion. Seawalls built on eroding beaches, will lead to the loss of access. Solana Beach and North County beaches are eroding.

5) Visual/aesthetic impacts - Seawalls are ugly and detract from simple pleasures as a walk on the beach.

6) Economic issues - local, state or federal subsidies or construction to protect private property, or insurance coverage. Construction is performed on State or Municipal land. The public has never been compensated for this loss of valuable property.

7) Loss of sand supplied by eroding bluffs that are armored. A minimal fee for this sand is collected from property owners for the sand that would provide beach material. Additionally, the eroded area would create a beach. We do not feel the public is sufficiently mitigated for the loss of sand and beach.

8) The most important thing to remember is that a seawall is never built to protect the beach. Rather, it is built to protect property, structures or a cliff from erosion.

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

Anita,

We will see you at the meeting.

Bobby J

Surfrider Foundation
PanHandle Chapter

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

Question: Why do some gulf front properties own all the way to the water line as opposed to those homes on Montgomery Street that only own just part of the beach?

I believe it depends on your deed and platted S/D

Ro is a crook of all crooks. People should ask him to not only recuse himself but ask that he be removed from the building in case any other commissioners are influenced by is nasty presence.

I thought Ro was going to cry at one of the meetings regarding his giving specific directions to dump the illegal sand on the beach. As stated, we need his resignation for such acts that his company committed, and his company needs to suffer the consequences if Ro convinced homeowners that the illegaly sand was going to pass, or if he told the homeowners that they didn't need no stinkin' survey to put up a seawall. As stated earlier, a reputable company will require a current survey before installing a fence, much less building a $200,000+ seawall with another $100,000 of sand, and who knows how much for the geotube, multiplied by the six homes in violation.

Sounds very much like the judge's son (the Realtor) and his partner and Broker/owner getting off with a wrist slap for dredging illegal canals on the development in Freeport. --- small town politics.

__________________

In Atlanta I have been fined 30k once by the EPA for disturbing vegetation in a stream buffer and 10k for letting erosion out of a silt fence. I have also seen a building permit revoked and the land deemed unbuildable for similar offenses. I realize the shovel full of silt in the woods is much worse than hundreds of tons of dirt on a beach but hey...

The offending parcels should be bought by the offending contractor and all illegal fill removed. Then the property should be restored in accordance with the law and donated as a public park. Or the offenders could simply go to prison for conversion of property and violating the endangered species act. Where is the talk of legal action here?

Redfish Marine was involved in the "GEE YOO TUBE is UGLY" below Montgomery St. What a quality outfit they are...NOT!
ALSO NOTE: TDC is now submitting NEW Beach Oridinances that for starters would NOT allow county residents to take their dogs onto the beach. This PUBLIC beach they've wrecklessly allowed these walls and tubes installed apon? Whom are these folks really protecting. OH wait didn't one county commissioner have a stake in one local seawall company?
Anyone see a need for some change in local leadership? Or should we just keep letting ourselves be governed by "special interests"? I reiterate my plea to VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS regardless of political affiliations. Gov't was not intented to be run by professional lawyers and corporations. It was a public service provided by citizens who sevred their terms and then moved on in life. NOT a lifetime career. Where lets see they give themselves a FAT raise each term, waste untold billions like it's their right and look you in the eye and LIE like the airlines to you.
Nov. 6th is less than a month away. Register. Vote. Remember they make it hard to vote(one day.long lines) so they can keep stickin it to us!
I'll try a deep breath now. Hard to calm down bout this Sorry but it's important!

Well, they wouldn't want a dog scratching through the sand and accidently ripping open the geotubes, thereby sending all of the black-colored sand onto our beaches, now would they? I sometimes feel like taking action into my own hands, but for now, I will refrain, because I am usually a peaceful soul.

__________________

I hope it is ok to weigh in here, but I am COMPLETELY confused on how the TDC became involved in this matter so I guess I will have to go search more links.

For the record, the TDC still does not have a role in the decision making for seawalls OR dogs on the beach. The TDC has not had a meeting since September and I know they haven't made any comment regarding dogs on the beach unless it occurred today while I have been out of town.

For the record, the Beach Improvements Committee of the TDC asked Leslie Campbell to come to our last meeting to highlight concerns by individuals or groups regarding the beach activities ordinance that SHE oversees. The whole purpose was for public information and education, which this board typically supports. Much discussion occurred, and individual communtiy members made input but the committee made no recommendation AT ALL. Additionally, the recommendation of the committee would have gone to the TDC, which there is no recommendation.

I guess my point is that I have been trying to actively participate in the discussions on this board and provide accurate information where possible. All I ask in return is to receive those questions directly so that an honest discussion can occur instead of he said she said. I personally don't believe its fair to attack until a lack of understanding is reached. My email address continues to be bpickel@beachesofsouthwalton.com

PLEASE email me directly if you have concerns so that I can try and find the answer instead of unfair, and more importantly, unfounded criticisms occur. If I appear ovrly sensitive, I apologize, its just that I have always felt that this board wants to know all sides of an issue before they start lobbing hand grenades and it hasn't happened in this case. Thank you, I am now off my soapbox.

Brad Pickel
Director of Beach Management
Walton County TDC

Thanks for chiming in, Brad. We appreciate the direct reports.

__________________

No problem SJ. All I ask in return is a little common courtesy to find out the facts from the source before we blast people who are not involved.

Bp

The real joke in this County has nothing to do with the TDC. It lies in the fact that many people understand that in order to get things done in WalCo, it is much easier, faster, and cheaper to ask forgiveness, rather than permission. I think this seawall example is par for the course, unfortunately. This ball of twine has grown so large that the Commissioners cannot see the other side of the ball. Tomorrow's decision by the BCC will be speedy. Sure, there will be several of the usual vocals, who are in the majority, oddly enough (usually, the minority is most vocal), stand up and state their case and the BCC will sit there unfased. After hearing the discussion, they will rapidly approve of the seawalls and move on, with some boos and hisses from the audience. I am not a betting man, but you can rest assure that the outcome will be as I describe.

__________________

What agency is responsible for ethics violations by county commissioners? Is there even such a thing in the State of Florida?

(Donning my superbrowser cape, I exit to the MyFlorida site, looking for the answers......)

Maybe I should erect a privacy fence around the third of my property which the WalCo took from me to make road, even though there is land on the otherside of my property which was designated as the road way in the county plats. When, I ask, will this County stand up and do the right thing? It seems to me that when the County decides to allow the taking of public property for private use, they are setting precedent for further taking iof public land in the future, and so the cycle continues.

Can someone please explain this to me? I just don't understand the logic.

__________________

What?

__________________

Wrong button on blackberry led to inadvertent post before I typed my message.. Sorry

I was just going to say thanks for the response. I knew the last thing we wanted to be "responsible" for was dogs. :)

I am glad to be part of a community that actively participates in the decision-making process so please continue to let me know if I can answer any questions and I will try.

I also do appreciate Mr. Pickle trying to be part of the forum here. But I stand by my statements. This County has Knowingly and Intentially allowed Unpermitted structures (tubes and walls) to be placed onto Public Property. And I hope the DEP does the right thing by forcing their removal.And our elected officials have Knowingly violated State and Federal laws in regards to this matter.For any of them to say they knew nothing about this is complete and utter BS!!!
As per new dogs ordinances...it may be true nothing has been discussed concerning this, however this forum exists, in part I believe, to help inform local residents of "rumors" heard around here. And some false ones will be spread for sure but the good will outweigh the bad here. My point is such "Rumors" help locals try and determine what kind of County we want to have here.To rally support for important causes. This forum allows for Pre-Activism to Occur. I'm trying to rally support for Dogs on the beach! They aren't the problem on the beach. The Animals that own dogs are. The Animals that don't own dogs are too. Dogs don't leave straws,cups chairs,tents,umbrellas,beer cans,bottles,baggies,Ciggy Butts, food and so on. WE DUMB ANIMALS DO!
I've been told now by both Miss Meadows and Mr. Pickle that no such new beach oridinances concerning dogs are being crafted. Good, I'm estatic, and I hope I'm hearing the Truth. I'll spread that rumor/truth now also. So now I can stop wasting my time here and go walk my dog on the beach. Whom this Dumb Animal will pick up after if by chance he poops there. Enforce the codes on the books and unleash,nonpermitted,crap leaving Animals won't trash up the best beach in the Country. And their dogs can come too!
My soap box is getting too tall to jump off any more. Sorry.

Thanks BS. I want to focus on the second half of your email regarding rumors and the TDC, as that is why I weighed in.

Pre-activism is critical, activism is critical and post-activism is critical and makes our area great. But, this thread alone shows to me how activism can work with facts and not rumors. Anita and the SWCC have done a tremendous job of research to educate all of us on seawalls and public property issues. She has clearly defined a stance and developed a position paper. This takes a tremendous amount of effort and should be appreciated no matter which side you take.

My concern came when a VERY factual based thread had a rumor included that had not been checked. I would not expect the level of fact checking that the SWCC has exerted, all I asked for was a phone call or an email. As someone who has worked for the County for almost 7 years, I spend a tremendous amount of time clarifying rumors, and the unfortunate side is that a rumor can be like a cancer. It spreads and spreads and the doctor hopes they get it all just like this County employee hopes he can reach all the people who have the incorrect information. I personally believe that this approach leads to more angst and consternation with no positive outcome. I can't speak for other agencies but the TDC does its best to be as transparent and open as possible. I just am not sure how spreading rumors help any situation.

Finally, based on your last post, it appears that you did fact check with Comm. Meadows and she told you the TDC wasn't working on an ordinace. I have posted more times than I can count that we are not a regulatory agency and yet we were not even contacted and this information was not included in your original post.

I will end by saying a collaboration is only good as its communication. If you have concerns, ask questions- if you are ignored, let people know. This is a much more productive avenue for change IMO.

I honestly don't know where the dog issue stands in the ordinance so for the most up-to-date information regarding the Beach Activity Ordinance, contact Leslie Campbell at the County planning office or camleslie@co.walton.fl.us

Thanks again all for this opportunity.

Brad

Rumor has it that Miss Titus says a County beach ordidance is being Drafted to not alow dogs on the beach along with answering the question of tents,chairs and umbrellas left on the beach. Who drafts such documents that are sent to the County for approval?

As posted previously the review and any recommended changes are being overseen by Leslie Campbell- Beach Activities Coordinator, not the TDC.

For anyone wanting to view the Montgomery Street Plat with exact sizes of the lots and designation of the beach as public this is how to do it:

go to this website:
http://clerkofcourts.co.walton.fl.us...kpageframe.htm

then enter PLAT, book 2, page 46