Lucas Reynolds, I am absolutely for private property rights. I certainly do not see my position as radical and would like for cooler heads to prevail and come to a compromise on the issue. An ugly legal fight is something no one wants and will help no one. But make no mistake. If pushed, I think the case can be proven that the public has used the white sand portion of the beach below the toe of the dunes since man first came to these shores. That use has continued to the present. The economy of this county and region is tourist based and has been for several years. That economic model requires that the beach be open to the visitors we bring in and we have been guided by this model for many years. NO ONE objected or tried to change this operating procedure until very recently. That sounds like customary use to me and changing the model has the potential of harming thousands of our citizens and their ability to make a living. That is intolerable and the county must fight to protect those citizens and their economic well-being. The property owners who have tried to block the beach are the individuals who precipitated this and they will be responsible for the legal bills that are incurred.'
Sorry it’s hard to keep it short and cover all the points you make.
Danny, you could make a good politician. You state you are absolutely for property rights but you are not for littoral property rights if you are for taking property rights owners have had and have today and you have avoided answering any of the hard questions previously asked. To claim or take property rights owners have today that is not yours is radical. You claim no one, including yourself, want a “ugly legal fight” yet you make absolute statements. “Make no mistake. If pushed ...” and offer no realistic solution except for 1,000 owners to give property rights to Walton, litigation, and opinions. Littoral property owners are the ones who have had and have property rights of enjoyment and exclusion today and you, Dave R, and commissioners want to use Government powers to take rights private citizens have today and give it to the public; without compensation I might add.
I and many reject your opinion about the economy. It’s like Dave R’s opinion on the Walton primaries for Cindy Meadows; not well understood and an opinion like any other. YOUR “economic model requires that the beach be open” is your opinion, short sighted, and just as valid as mine or any other “economic model” ... in my opinion. Regardless economic considerations are not superior to Constitutional protection of who has rights and use of private property. Why should property owners bear the burden of inept commoners failure to control growth and respect property rights?
“No one objected or tried to change this operating procedure ... “; that operating procedure is the rule of law. And the law is the same today as it has been since FL became a state. Because an owner or owners, by their grace (courteous goodwill), have not or did not enforce their property rights does not mean they give up their property rights; unless you want to litigate for a prescriptive easement on each parcel.
Again, you should look to the inept commissioners “harming thousands of our citizens and their ability to make a living”; not property owners. I suppose you are for commissioners continuing to give beach vendors free continuous-use of public beaches because it would harm their business and the economy, even at the expense of the public use of the beach too?
“That is intolerable and the county must fight to protect those citizens and their economic well-being.” The county government is EQUALLY responsible to protect ALL citizens and their Constitutional rights. What is intolerable is Government and people who want to take private property rights based on emotion, opinions, what feels good, and not on facts and the law.
Wow, your bias is showing. “The property owners who have tried to block the beach are the individuals who precipitated this and they will be responsible for the legal bills that are incurred.” Do you mean the property owners who are protecting their property rights and some who wish to protect their property from abuse of some of the public in accordance with Florida statutes and Walton Sheriff procedures? Don’t you mean the commissioners and people against property rights ... litigating against property owners, not the other way around, “will be responsible for the legal bills.” I thought you were absolutely for property rights?
Here’s the hard questions again. Will you ignore them again? Do you know what ALL the historical limits of common-law custom are? There are many. Time is but one limit. How much do you think the final bill to Walton tax payers, north and south of the bay, will be? Millions or multi-Million$? What if property owners prevail? Then what? You “think” the Commissioners have a good case; would you personally be willing to refund the taxpayer their money to litigate if owners prevail? It’s easy to have an opinion to litigate when it’s not your own tens of thousands or millions of dollars. Provided the facts of custom and costs, want to have a referendum of north and south Walton voters if they would be willing to spend multi-millions to litigate against property rights? It’s commissioners and supporters burden of proof to claim custom and commissioners and tax payers “will be responsible for the legal bills that are incurred.” Not property owner protecting their rights. Commissioners could well be responsible for the millions in property owners legal fees too should owners prevail.
Danny, I understand reason and facts will not unfreeze your opinion against Constitutionally protected property rights but maybe you and others will try to understand the facts about common-law custom and what it is and isn’t. All many ask is for are the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts and not opinions. On custom, property rights, and costs. You and Dave R are great on opinions, emotional calls against property rights because you can’t have what you want (and feel others deserve even though you didn't earn the right), and that your opinion is the economic sky is falling because owners protect their rights, because commissioners are inept managing growth. Good discussions. But don’t say you are absolutely for property rights ... just not littoral property rights.