beach goers harrassed

[30ABandMan]

In my opinion and this is only my opinion, none of these areas are "towns". At best, they could be classified as subdivisions or communities but in all honesty, they are tourist destinations. They are businesses that have a "small town theme". Just like the facade put on by Disney, Busch Gardens or any other fanciful place, this area is a "theme park" that selling the beach with a small town, upscale feel. People who come here get bugged when parts of our theme park are off limits to them. Those of us who live here accept all of the cars and tourist flocking to our area because they are spending money. They are our lifeblood and we will lose them if they feel that they can have a better time somewhere else.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

The walkover beside the Inn at BM is not publically-OWNED, it is owned by the Village of Blue Mountain HOA (or something like that) and they let the public use it. The closest publically-owned accesses are Gulfview Heights behind Goatfeathers to the west and the one at the end of CR 83 to the east. I think they are currently building the restrooms and parking at the one at the end of CR 83 so I would go to Gulfview Heights.

As far as a County beach nourishment project there, it is still in the planning phases as part of the 30-A project. Here is a link to the update.

http://www.protectwaltoncountybeache...nitiatives.asp

Per the above link:

"3. Litigation – A lawsuit began in 2005 during the Western Walton County beach restoration project by a group of homeowners who are questioning ownership rights. On April 19th, the Florida State Supreme Court held a hearing to decide the case. The outcome of this lawsuit will directly impact the future of this project. A ruling in favor of the owners group may lead to a lengthy delay or halt the project all together. No decision has been made to date.

What do you think will happen to all the renourshiment planning if the County loses the case? Do you have any guess as to the timeframe for a decision?

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I was down for the wonderful Seaside wine festival last week and stayed in a house on Redfish Circle by the Inn at BMB. There is a public beach walkover to the west of the Inn that apparently leads to nowhere. When you step off the boardwalk onto the sand there is a sign to your right directly in the center of the beach stating Retreat only and one 3 feet to the left of that stating Inn at BMB only and another about 100 feet farther to the left stating White Cliffs only. I specifically remember a publicly funded renourishment of the area a few years back. This boardwalk must serve at least 30-40 homes on the south side of 30-a and 100's on the other side. How is anyone visiting supposed to get a positive feeling about the area with idiots putting up such a fuss about a beach? Even if you visited the Inn or White Cliffs or the Retreat it seems one would come away feeling strange about this. I own property on and off the beach and just feel lucky to be there no matter where I stay. Does anyone have an update on this issue?

I thought by now the Florida Supreme Court would have made their ruling regarding the Walton County vs. Save Our Beaches case. Of course, for now, the beach whose adjacent private property line extends to the MHWL is private.

The walkover you refer seems to be a royal screwup in regards to a "beach access to nowhere". If you followed some of the Inn@BMB history, the SAME developer is creating the huge project on the north side of 30A that spans all the way over to 83. All along, he thought he would have full access to the Inn@BMB (pool, beach access, BEACH, etc.) for use with the new development north of 30A. As of today, he does not (litigious history). Is this another bill of goods sold without a "complete" product (i.e. beach access to nowhere)?

Do you recall my little "graphic" representation of the Blue Moutain Beach area a few months ago where I showed the intense use of that single beach access by all the property in ("green hash")? Look at the concentration and there you have the most conflict.

I'm not posting this to rekindle the private/public beach debate. We can argue that all day long but until it is ruled upon on a case by case basis or unless the couny prevails in the supreme court decision and then the beaches are renourished, it is a moot point.

My point is, as others have acknowledged, I (we) have not thrown people off our beach.......yet. But the day is coming when Redfish Village will be completely sold. When it sells out and becomes fully occupied and then hundreds of people pour on to their 80 feet of beach bordered by private property on both sides, THEN will there be a problem (for them). Right now only less than 30 units of 80 units have closed for what I believe to be the very same reason.

The only beach available to them will be their 80 foot part and just the public access at the end of 83. All the rest of Blue Mountain Beach is private.

This is the problem. Too much "inappropriate" development...too little public beach...too many assuming bureacrats and too much abuse from the counties have resulted in private property owners banding together saying enough is enough.

Think about it: you never heard of a person getting run off the beach in our area (SoWal) just a few years ago.

[Smiling JOe]

BMBV, you refer to "their" 80ft of beach, when talking about Redfish Village, but their attorney agreed to dedicate the sandy part of the beach, seaward of that parcel which they bought, to the County for public use. Therefore, that 80ft of beach is "our" beach," without objection.

[Bob]

I thought by now the Florida Supreme Court would have made their ruling regarding the Walton County vs. Save Our Beaches case. Of course, for now, the beach whose adjacent private property line extends to the MHWL is private.

The walkover you refer seems to be a royal screwup in regards to a "beach access to nowhere". If you followed some of the Inn@BMB history, the SAME developer is creating the huge project on the north side of 30A that spans all the way over to 83. All along, he thought he would have full access to the Inn@BMB (pool, beach access, BEACH, etc.) for use with the new development north of 30A. As of today, he does not (litigious history). Is this another bill of goods sold without a "complete" product (i.e. beach access to nowhere)?

Do you recall my little "graphic" representation of the Blue Moutain Beach area a few months ago where I showed the intense use of that single beach access by all the property in ("green hash")? Look at the concentration and there you have the most conflict.

I'm not posting this to rekindle the private/public beach debate. We can argue that all day long but until it is ruled upon on a case by case basis or unless the couny prevails in the supreme court decision and then the beaches are renourished, it is a moot point.

My point is, as others have acknowledged, I (we) have not thrown people off our beach.......yet. But the day is coming when Redfish Village will be completely sold. When it sells out and becomes fully occupied and then hundreds of people pour on to their 80 feet of beach bordered by private property on both sides, THEN will there be a problem (for them). Right now only less than 30 units of 80 units have closed for what I believe to be the very same reason.

The only beach available to them will be their 80 foot part and just the public access at the end of 83. All the rest of Blue Mountain Beach is private.

This is the problem. Too much "inappropriate" development...too little public beach...too many assuming bureacrats and too much abuse from the counties have resulted in private property owners banding together saying enough is enough.

Think about it: you never heard of a person getting run off the beach in our area (SoWal) just a few years ago.

All the beaches are public, and you are going to get it handed to you in court one day. Please hire an attorney who bills north of 500/ hr.

[Pirate]

The walkover beside the Inn at BM is not publically-OWNED, it is owned by the Village of Blue Mountain HOA (or something like that) and they let the public use it. The closest publically-owned accesses are Gulfview Heights behind Goatfeathers to the west and the one at the end of CR 83 to the east. I think they are currently building the restrooms and parking at the one at the end of CR 83 so I would go to Gulfview Heights.

As far as a County beach nourishment project there, it is still in the planning phases as part of the 30-A project. Here is a link to the update.

http://www.protectwaltoncountybeache...nitiatives.asp

The walkover to the east side is built by the Inn. The walkover to the west was built by and is maintained by the county. The path leading to it was part of the deal that let the Inn be built, but is indeed a public access. Unfortunately the public beach doesn't exist. This beach was definitely renourished in approximately 2003 with taxpayer money, our money. I most likely will not return to this area and hope the beach there is eroded straight to the dunes unless it is approved for use by the general public. I wrote a letter to the county, hopefully everyone that reads this will as well.

[BeachSiO2]

The walkover to the east side is built by the Inn. The walkover to the west was built by and is maintained by the county. The path leading to it was part of the deal that let the Inn be built, but is indeed a public access. Unfortunately the public beach doesn't exist. This beach was definitely renourished in approximately 2003 with taxpayer money, our money. I most likely will not return to this area and hope the beach there is eroded straight to the dunes unless it is approved for use by the general public. I wrote a letter to the county, hopefully everyone that reads this will as well.

I hate to disagree with you but I am pretty tight with the guy from the County that has been responsible with the walkovers and beach renourishment since 2000 and rechecked with him and the walkover has not been rebuilt by the County since then.

[Pirate]

I thought by now the Florida Supreme Court would have made their ruling regarding the Walton County vs. Save Our Beaches case. Of course, for now, the beach whose adjacent private property line extends to the MHWL is private.

The walkover you refer seems to be a royal screwup in regards to a "beach access to nowhere". If you followed some of the Inn@BMB history, the SAME developer is creating the huge project on the north side of 30A that spans all the way over to 83. All along, he thought he would have full access to the Inn@BMB (pool, beach access, BEACH, etc.) for use with the new development north of 30A. As of today, he does not (litigious history). Is this another bill of goods sold without a "complete" product (i.e. beach access to nowhere)?

Do you recall my little "graphic" representation of the Blue Moutain Beach area a few months ago where I showed the intense use of that single beach access by all the property in ("green hash")? Look at the concentration and there you have the most conflict.

I'm not posting this to rekindle the private/public beach debate. We can argue that all day long but until it is ruled upon on a case by case basis or unless the couny prevails in the supreme court decision and then the beaches are renourished, it is a moot point.

My point is, as others have acknowledged, I (we) have not thrown people off our beach.......yet. But the day is coming when Redfish Village will be completely sold. When it sells out and becomes fully occupied and then hundreds of people pour on to their 80 feet of beach bordered by private property on both sides, THEN will there be a problem (for them). Right now only less than 30 units of 80 units have closed for what I believe to be the very same reason.

The only beach available to them will be their 80 foot part and just the public access at the end of 83. All the rest of Blue Mountain Beach is private.

This is the problem. Too much "inappropriate" development...too little public beach...too many assuming bureacrats and too much abuse from the counties have resulted in private property owners banding together saying enough is enough.

Think about it: you never heard of a person getting run off the beach in our area (SoWal) just a few years ago.

I agree it was abuse by the county to allow the beach club by Redfish Village. The real problem is that the entire beach in the area should be public. Maybe the county should have bought the Redfish lot and put public bathrooms there. The ocean isn't private and neither should 20-50 feet of beach be.

When I am at the beach I appreciate it and realize how lucky I am. To see other people enjoying it is wonderful. Unless people are being a nuisance or destroying things how could that possibly affect a high and mighty gulf fronter? Why not just realize you are fortunate to even walk on the beach instead of making a graphic about how awful it will be if people come to "your" beach.

If I ever buy gulf front in BMB I will be happy to grant the use of the sandy beach to the public. For anyone to be so self absorbed and bored that they feel in the right to run someone off of a gift to all of us like a beach is beyond words.

[Pirate]

I hate to disagree with you but I am pretty tight with the guy from the County that has been responsible with the walkovers and beach renourishment since 2000 and rechecked with him and the walkover has not been rebuilt by the County since then.

My friend states he has an e-mail from the county regarding the issue from 4-5 years ago. I am told the access is a condition of the construction of the Inn and the path was to be constructed by the Inn and the dune walkover by the county. This access definitely has a county maintained flag. I will post the pertinent quotes here when I have a copy. I believe you are incorrect but will certainly verify it.

[Beach Runner]

I don't live there yet but own and pay plenty of taxes. I stand guilty of never attending a county commissioner's meeting. I would probably get kicked out anyhow because of running my mouth too much. Would it really make any difference?
I have e-mailed each of them with concerns in the past.(

I have been to quite a few Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners meetings in the past year or so. They do listen, and your emails do make a difference. I was impressed that in a recent meeting of the BCC, commissioners had read our emails so thoroughly that they could quote excerpts from them. They were definitely prepared. And I was impressed at how gracefully they responded to simple, uneducated people who felt strongy about issues that affected their everyday quality of life and who had the guts to speak out, even though these people were clearly intimidated by the formality of the proceedings. It's great ... to be ... an American.

[Miss Kitty]

Nice post, BR.

[seacrestkristi]

Yes, encouraging to hear.

[NotDeadYet]

Pirate, here is a repost of post # 448 from the Led Away in Handcuffs thread. I looked up the court case regarding the walkover at the Inn at Blue Mountain:

Back to the Inn at Blue Mountain Beach. Circuit Court Case# 93-1133-CA, Claude D. and Elizabeth C. Jones, Plaintiffs, VS. Walton County. This case involved a long-running dispute between Jones and the developers of the Inn. Maybe some old timers remember that originally this was going to be a highrise, as the developers claimed grandfathering exempting them from the height limitation. That was one of the issues that landed them in court. An order approving a settlement agreement was filed on 3/12/98. The agreement is between the Joneses, Walton County, and Blue Mountain Beach Associates L.C. Of interest to this thread:

"Public parking for beach access - 5 spaces.
Public beach access shall be maintained with designated parking spaces, as shown on the site plan, and walking/biking access is to be provided as shown on the site plan attached hereto as Exhibit D. (Sorry I do not have the site plan, should be available from the clerk of court,)
This agreement is binding on all the parties hereto, their assigns, successors, predecessors, heirs and agents. "

So it looks like the access is public. Apparently nobody contemplated that the public access would lead to a private beach. In fact, it sort of implies that the beach is public, why else would you worry about a public access? Just so you could keep going, trudging through the wet sand to somewhere else? But it isn't spelled out. An attorney might have fun with this, though.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

All the beaches are public, and you are going to get it handed to you in court one day. Please hire an attorney who bills north of 500/ hr.

Thanks for clearing things up!

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

BMBV, you refer to "their" 80ft of beach, when talking about Redfish Village, but their attorney agreed to dedicate the sandy part of the beach, seaward of that parcel which they bought, to the County for public use. Therefore, that 80ft of beach is "our" beach," without objection.

SJ, it is "their" 80 ft. of beach.

They provided an easement to the county for public use. The county does not own it.

And what real difference does that make in this discussion? You're saying it is public. Fine. How does the "public" get to use it when 400+ RFV tourists eventually pour on to it via their trolley system?


I thought you were going to make a comment for me saying the rest of BMB is private. Did you find out any news on the beach to the east of the 83 access that you and Brad Pickel seem to think was "public"?
:
:
:

[dBaseball]

Attn Morons: You DO NOT own the beach. This is FLORIDA, not california! This is what make our state great, public lands, not private ownership. If you want to go by high tide mark, it will be measured @ high tide, on a full moon and when there is a storm surge coming in! Did you pay to restore the Beach, let me answer for you NO! It is Public, Now start acting like an adult human being and be couerteous to others who are acting the same. If not NUDE ORGY in your "private Beach" TBA.

[Bob]

Thanks for clearing things up!

You can accept all those Redfish millionaires ruining your view, can't you? Some may have speedos after the airport is up and running.

[Trey Merrill]

Has there been a ruling on this? I've tried searching through numerous threads to find an answer but have been unsuccessful. Keep the beaches public!

[ray]

this issue has kind of died a little the lat 18 months or so as the supreme ct voted for the city of destin i believe against homeowners who claimed the city can't put sand in from of there property for sand nourisment to create a beach. i think that was thr problem. i rent my home and the condo on the beach which we have private deeded beach access has tried enforcing this by telling people to move over. its not a big deal as off the walkway its 4 feet to left so no big deal. no renter has ever mentioned to me. i peronally sit in the private area as i won't be told were to sit. a few times they asked me to moe and i said no the wet area is public and they knew and left. neer a problem. i think someone said the polic won't even come out on this issue now

[Trey Merrill]

this issue has kind of died a little the lat 18 months or so as the supreme ct voted for the city of destin i believe against homeowners who claimed the city can't put sand in from of there property for sand nourisment to create a beach. i think that was thr problem. i rent my home and the condo on the beach which we have private deeded beach access has tried enforcing this by telling people to move over. its not a big deal as off the walkway its 4 feet to left so no big deal. no renter has ever mentioned to me. i peronally sit in the private area as i won't be told were to sit. a few times they asked me to moe and i said no the wet area is public and they knew and left. neer a problem. i think someone said the polic won't even come out on this issue now

Sounds like a stalemate--anything's better than being arrested!

Do any Blue Gulf Resort owners use the public access to the west of "The Inn"? I purchased a piece of property on the east (north) side of 30A in BGR (Kingfish) and would love to be able to use the access to avoid the 30A traffic traveling to the public access near 83. I'm not sure if I need to join the BMB Club (I was told it was optional when I purchased the property)?

Also, it was interesting to note the beach in front of "The Inn" changed hands in Feb 12. I tried finding a telephone number to the Blue Mountain Beach Master Owners Association, but have been unsuccessful.

If using the access is going to cause trouble, I'd rather just avoid it altogether and go to the one near 83. But if it's open to the public, and it's not going to cause a ruckus, it would be awfully convenient to use.

Thanks for the previous info!

Respectfully,
Trey

[Arkiehawg]

Sounds like a stalemate--anything's better than being arrested!

Do any Blue Gulf Resort owners use the public access to the west of "The Inn"? I purchased a piece of property on the east (north) side of 30A in BGR (Kingfish) and would love to be able to use the access to avoid the 30A traffic traveling to the public access near 83. I'm not sure if I need to join the BMB Club (I was told it was optional when I purchased the property)?

Also, it was interesting to note the beach in front of "The Inn" changed hands in Feb 12. I tried finding a telephone number to the Blue Mountain Beach Master Owners Association, but have been unsuccessful.

If using the access is going to cause trouble, I'd rather just avoid it altogether and go to the one near 83. But if it's open to the public, and it's not going to cause a ruckus, it would be awfully convenient to use.

Thanks for the previous info!

Respectfully,
Trey

Trey,

I'm one of your neighbors and have used the public access next to the Inn for years without issue. You don't need to waste your money on joining the club.

The only "issue" that I have had in the last couple of years is from the rent-a-cop at the Retreat telling me that I'm tresspassing when I put my chairs up West of the public access near the water. I just telling them were they can stick it and haven't had any issues. They know that the WCSO isn't going to get involved and have little to no legal recourse.

Go enjoy the beach from that access!

[Andy A]

I'm definitely with Arkiehawg on this one. I have been told the county was given the public access as part of the original development order. I can't swear as to the accuracy of this, but it came from a good source some years ago. I live in a townhome that has a "private beach". We have yet, since it was built, to post a sign or ask anyone not to use the beach. All we ask is that you pick up after yourselves and deposit trash in the depository located at the foot of our walkover. And no, our walkover is not a public access.

[NotDeadYet]

I'm definitely with Arkiehawg on this one. I have been told the county was given the public access as part of the original development order. I can't swear as to the accuracy of this, but it came from a good source some years ago. I live in a townhome that has a "private beach". We have yet, since it was built, to post a sign or ask anyone not to use the beach. All we ask is that you pick up after yourselves and deposit trash in the depository located at the foot of our walkover. And no, our walkover is not a public access.

That's my recollection also. But I looked at the map of public beach accesses and it's not there.

Map is here:
http://www.sowal.com/beach-accesses-map

[beachmouse]

Alternately, look up the parcel on tax records and see who is listed as the owner. We're got a couple of trails/linear parks in my development that don't show up on any Okaloosa County lists of parks, but if you go to the online property record for that particular parcel, the county (BCC) is listed as the owner, the owner's address as the county seat, and the legal description is "RECREATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION AREAS AND RETENTION AREAS AS IDENTIFIED".

[NotDeadYet]

It's not shown on the property appraiser's maps either.

It's not necessarily a separate parcel. It could be an easement with the Inn retaining the underlying ownership.

[Andy A]

I think you are on with the easement bit. There was suppose to be an easement at Blue Mountain Villas as well but it has never happened. Don't know what the story on that one is, either.

[Trey Merrill]

Thank you all very much for your information! Arkiehawg, it's a pleasure to make your acquaintance. I would love to find more information on the easement y'all are referring to. I may go digging through the Clerk of Courts records later to see if I can find anything. Does anyone know what to make of the Quit Claim Deed dated Feb 12 in which the beach in front of the Inn is deeded to "Blue Mountain Beach Master Owners' Assoc"?

Since I haven't properly introduced myself on the forum, my name is Trey and I am currently a helicopter pilot-I fly UH-1N Hueys-in the United States Air Force, and stationed in Washington DC. I am married with no kids (yet?) I grew up in Walton County and have a profound love for the beaches there. I worked Beach Concierge service at Sandestin Resort for six summers during High School/College! Blue Mountain Beach is, quite simply, a dream. It has always been my beach of choice along 30A and continues to hold a special place in my heart.

Everyone's information/advice gives me the impression that most along 30A are a "family" of sorts. This is surely something alluring about Walton County and I look forward to the day I can retire and sink my feet in the sand in SoWal again. I'll bring some extra beers for anyone that would like to join (cans of course, thanks Duchess!)

I'm a bit of a real estate junkie so I frequent MLS/the forums/waltonpa/clerk of court. My mother was an appraiser in Walton County during the real estate BOOM and I feel it runs in my blood. Interestingly, she may have appraised some of the very lots many of you own.

That's probably more than anyone cared to know about me... The biggest takeaway is I look forward to joining the 30A/SoWal family one day and meeting everyone. Once again, thanks for your insight and if you find anything else regarding this issue, please let me know and I will do the same!

Respectfully,
Trey

[NotDeadYet]

http://www.florida-annual-report.com...ATION-INC.html

Maclin was the original developer, I believe. So the Inn deeded the beach back to him?

Probably someone else on here knows more about the current situation than I do. Maclin's deals have been complicated.

[Trey Merrill]

http://www.florida-annual-report.com...ATION-INC.html

Maclin was the original developer, I believe. So the Inn deeded the beach back to him?

Probably someone else on here knows more about the current situation than I do. Maclin's deals have been complicated.

The deed I'm referring to can be seen in the SALES DATA on the following page (I hope the link works):

http://64.234.218.210/cgi-bin/walton...34710-00C-0050

[Trey Merrill]

Sorry if I de-railed the original intent of this post.

[Andy A]

You didn't derail anything.to the forum. I found your short bio very interesting particularly since I flew for both the Air Force and the Army. I hope you get to see your dream come true. Fortunately, I have and live on the greatest place on earth, IMO, Blue Mountain Beach. If everyone would learn to share the beach, as it should be, we would be just fine.

[Blue Mtn Mama]

Do we have a definitive answer here? This happened to us this past memorial day weekend. The beach in front of The Retreat was cleared by a security guard...for no reason! The beach was empty! It didn't appear that anyone from The Retreat even used the beach! I was and still am very angry this happened. As a property owner on Snapper St I will gladly take up the cause if someone can point me in the right direction of
the law and the "ownership" of the beach. This PUBLIC beach access is the closest one to where we live and I certainly won't tolerate being harassed all summer. Has the law been determined to be public beach on wet sand or high water mark? If its high water mark I'll measure it off at its peak this summer and call a sheriff to confirm the spot if I have to. Everyone was having a wonderful day then the whole security guard incident put a cloud over the mood of the entire beach. Terrible!

[ata]

blue mountain. isn't the public beach access on both sides of the public access very narrow? did he try to get you to move from the public area are people strayed onto the retret area?The high water mark is the avg amount the tide comes in over a 17 or 18 yr period which unless they hire a full time surveyor to commute daily its not legal. You can 1005stay in the wet sand are an up to min 10 feet above it and he can't do crap. as you can see from the oldness of this note its been going on for 6-8 yrs. it died own the last 2 yrs after destin lost the supreme ct decision for owners to not allow nourishment of san on there property which kin of says the beach I the countrys and not orivate. 2 yrs ago I sat were I wanted on a private beach and the life guars aske me to move dily but admitted there was nothing they could do.don't let anyone bully you

[mputnal3]

The issue is who pays the bills and what is the definition of beach. I understand but do not agree with why the property owners believe that he/she owns the beach. At some point the county will have to define beach and enforce as human behavior needs clear guidelines on how to behave. A much bigger debate is how to control the destructive nature of human beings. Human behavior is destructive to the environment whether they leave trash on the beach or build on top of a dune. In a bigger picture I believe we are struggling to find a proper balance of development and environmental intrusion.

[Andy A]

Once again the owners at the Retreat show the stupidity and arrognance of those with an overabundance of money and little thought of the everyday working citizen! For those interested, contact your legislator, BCC Commissoner, and any legal access you may have to the Florida Supreme Court. It is time for Florida to recognize that the beaches belong to ALL and those that commenced the practice of putting beaches as "private property" in deeds did so with the sole purpose of selling beach property and, if the truth were known, probably didn't have the authority to do so in the first place. I'd be ashamed to admit I was a Retreat owner.

[Blue Mtn Mama]

During the last year and a half I've seen dredgers, cranes and heavy equipment restoring the beach and dunes in front of The Retreat. According to the US Supreme Ct decision upholding Florida in its case with the Destin homeowners suing over the restoration here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1151.pdf
It seems that if the county, state or federal govt funded any of that restoration that I saw take place recently then they absolutely have no right running beach goers away with security force - if they ever did have that right in the first place. In addition I would argue that the storm that eroded that part of the beach a year and a half ago significantly raised the high water mark that once prevailed thus creating a significant amount of dry sand "public" in it's current state. In addition, their HUGE "Private Beach" sign has been erected on public sand right off of the public access and should be removed immediately. Certainly there is an ordinance preventing people from putting major signage on the beach? It may as well be a billboard it's so large and it's the only sign of its kind I've seen on the beautiful beaches around here! I'll gladly call someone to remove it if pointed in the right direction - I just moved here full time so I don't know the govt entities yet. But I can tell you I'm hot about this and don't intend on dropping it!

[starfsh]

Andante condos in Seacrest have big signs on the beach stating the area in front of the condos is private. They also have hired someone to chase people off the beach there. I would love to know if this is actually legal or not.

[Andy A]

Blue Mtn Mama, somehow my recent post did not post. There is no ordinance prohibiting signage on the beach. We can control signage on our scenic highways but not our beach? How is this so. I have asked many times in various ways for such signage to be removed. It is still there so you can readily see how successful my efforts have been. Call all in county government with your complaint. I have.

[jodiFL]

OMG ..here we go...again.....Ill be back in a few hours with the links to the FL.statutes etc.. (they might be at the beginning of this ancient thread but I am not sure) The two MAIN things that come to mind are "mean high tide line" and "current topographical survey"......if you are harrassed by soemone that thinks they are the "owner" of the beach you are on, ask them to produce said survey. If they cant, tell them to call a lawyer because the sheriffs office in Walton County wont do much to back them up.

[BeachSiO2]

During the last year and a half I've seen dredgers, cranes and heavy equipment restoring the beach and dunes in front of The Retreat. According to the US Supreme Ct decision upholding Florida in its case with the Destin homeowners suing over the restoration here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1151.pdf
It seems that if the county, state or federal govt funded any of that restoration that I saw take place recently then they absolutely have no right running beach goers away with security force - if they ever did have that right in the first place. In addition I would argue that the storm that eroded that part of the beach a year and a half ago significantly raised the high water mark that once prevailed thus creating a significant amount of dry sand "public" in it's current state. In addition, their HUGE "Private Beach" sign has been erected on public sand right off of the public access and should be removed immediately. Certainly there is an ordinance preventing people from putting major signage on the beach? It may as well be a billboard it's so large and it's the only sign of its kind I've seen on the beautiful beaches around here! I'll gladly call someone to remove it if pointed in the right direction - I just moved here full time so I don't know the govt entities yet. But I can tell you I'm hot about this and don't intend on dropping it!

Not weighing in on the use of the beach, but there has not been any work at the retreat that was county,state or federally funded. There is a project being developed for 30-A beaches, but it is still being developed. That project will include the retreat area.

[miznotebook]

I spoke with Sheriff Adkinson today and he said it is not acceptable behavior for beachgoers to be harrassed. He suggested that anyone encountering this call his office and he will send someone to mediate between the beachgoer(s) and the property owner so that a common-sense solution can be reached. The sheriff's office number is 892-8186.

[jodiFL]

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...0177/0177.html
177.28 Legal significance of the mean high-water line.—(1) Mean high-water line along the shores of land immediately bordering on navigable waters is recognized and declared to be the boundary between the foreshore owned by the state in its sovereign capacity and upland subject to private ownership. However, no provision of this part shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of state ownership of sovereignty submerged lands, nor shall any provision of this part be deemed to impair the title to privately owned submerged lands validly alienated by the State of Florida or its legal predecessors.
...and this part is where the current topographical survey and surveyor in good standing come into play...
177.26 Declaration of policy.—The Legislature recognizes the desirability of confirmation of the mean high-water line, as recognized in the State Constitution and defined in s. 177.27(15) as the boundary between state sovereignty land and uplands subject to private ownership, as well as the necessity for uniform standards and procedures with respect to the establishment of local tidal datums and the determination of the mean high-water and mean low-water lines, and therefore directs that uniform standards and procedures be developed.

and if you want even more reading material/ammunition this link goes into even more...

[jodiFL]

161.053 Coastal construction and excavation; regulation on county basis.—(1)(a) The Legislature finds and declares that the beaches in this state and the coastal barrier dunes adjacent to such beaches, by their nature, are subject to frequent and severe fluctuations and represent one of the most valuable natural resources of Florida and that it is in the public interest to preserve and protect them from imprudent construction which can jeopardize the stability of the beach-dune system, accelerate erosion, provide inadequate protection to upland structures, endanger adjacent properties, or interfere with public beach access.

[jodiFL]

blue mountain. isn't the public beach access on both sides of the public access very narrow? did he try to get you to move from the public area are people strayed onto the retret area?The high water mark is the avg amount the tide comes in over a 17 or 18 yr period which unless they hire a full time surveyor to commute daily its not legal. You can 1005stay in the wet sand are an up to min 10 feet above it and he can't do crap. as you can see from the oldness of this note its been going on for 6-8 yrs. it died own the last 2 yrs after destin lost the supreme ct decision for owners to not allow nourishment of san on there property which kin of says the beach I the countrys and not orivate. 2 yrs ago I sat were I wanted on a private beach and the life guars aske me to move dily but admitted there was nothing they could do.don't let anyone bully you

Topo surveys are usually good for a year I think, but cost a TON... Most people only have one done at the beginning of construction to make sure they dont go over the CCL then never get another one done. But that is the only way to get the current MHWL so they really cant do anything unless they are ready to produce one. And it is their responsibility to have it not the person they want to say is "trespassing"

[NotDeadYet]

Not weighing in on the use of beaches, but there has not been any work at the retreat that was county,state or federally funded. There is a project being developed for 30-A beaches, but it is still being developed. That project will include the retreat area.

Not even weighing in on the use of beaches after they are restored? Isn't it a little disingenuous to consult on a project that will be financed with tax dollars (the public's money) and refuse to weigh in on whether or not you think the public then ought to get some use out of their money?

[Andy A]

He is one person running basically a federal project. What he thinks is his business and he doesn't need to express it here or anywhere else if he so desires. The project he is heading will do a great service to Walton County. If you don't think so, you are welcome to come look at our beach, what there is left of it.

[NotDeadYet]

He is one person running basically a federal project. What he thinks is his business and he doesn't need to express it here or anywhere else if he so desires. The project he is heading will do a great service to Walton County. If you don't think so, you are welcome to come look at our beach, what there is left of it.

You missed my point. I'm not complaining about the project or the need for it. After the beach in Miramar along Old 98 was renourished, at least one condo across the street placed private beach signs on the renourished beach. Both the county and the DEP told me they couldn't do anything about it. Surely you don't think the federal government should spend all that money solely for the benefit of gulf front owners? Why would I want my tax dollars to be spent restoring a beach that I would not be able to use?
Brad can keep his opinion to himself if he likes. But I am entitled to express my own opinion that doing so is disingenuous. And you are free to disagree.

[Blue Mtn Mama]

It is not only your opinion but the opinion of the US Supreme Court that once the beach is renourished with public funds it and all of its dry sands (not just mean high tide line) are public. I posted a link to the ruling above. About the signage - we don't see signs advertising hot wings on the beach... The only signage I see are terrible private beach signage that could impede turtle nesting. I want it removed.

[BeachSiO2]

Whoa, whoa, whoa... My point was that I wasn't going to weigh in on the discussion of public access on privately-owned property on this non-nourished beach at the Retreat as I went back in forth with BMB Vagrant years ago and it was exhausting. I am completely on board with nourished beaches being publicly-accessible. Sorry for the confusion...

[BeachSiO2]

It is not only your opinion but the opinion of the US Supreme Court that once the beach is renourished with public funds it and all of its dry sands (not just mean high tide line) are public. I posted a link to the ruling above. About the signage - we don't see signs advertising hot wings on the beach... The only signage I see are terrible private beach signage that could impede turtle nesting. I want it removed.

Actually, that's not what the case was about. The case was about whether a judicial takings occurred when the Florida State Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State, County, and Destin regarding the legal establishment of an Erosion Control Line. Per Florida law, all sands placed seaward of an erosion control line are state owned and thus open to public use. All sands placed landward of the erosion control line remain in ownership of the upland owner and are subject to any covenants or easements as per the property's deeds.