So I have an open question for beachfront owners, their lawyers and their politically connected, powerful, politician friends:
To those of you who were against customary use and were not happy when the Walton County passed the original customary use ordinance. You went to court to stop it. You lost two cases when the Judge ruled against you. You also lost the Federal Lawsuit when the Judge ruled against you. You lobbied and pressed the Florida Legislature to pass a law to stop Walton County from maintaining it's CU ordinance and you won. CU is stopped for the time being.
So now it appears some or many of you don't want the process to play out as set forth in HB631. The process that will result in a vote on November 3rd to move forward with the court case.
So my question is this: If you supported the swift passing of a Legislative Bill, HB631 to force Walton County to court to prove CU than you must be in favor of the process playing out, right? You can't have it both ways. You can't be against the County Ordinance and also against the Legislated law that the County is proceeding with. You can't have it both ways. If you are so confident you are right than let the Judge decide. Right? You can't have it both ways.
Replies
86
Beach Fanatic
I speak for myself but why do you think property right advocates are not for FLORIDA STATUTE 163.035 (HB631)?
Most beachfront owners are for Constitutionally protected property rights and think those rights are superior to old English common law custom and will spend their own money as defendants to prove it in court.
Which two cases? Be specific or offer facts of the case. Which Federal lawsuit? Did you read the most recent Federal case? In summary, my layman understanding, the court said the case was not ripe because Walton had not acted to litigate customary use in the state court yet, although we all know the hearing and vote is a formality, no doubt the commissioners will, and was dismissed without prejudice. Which can be appealed or litigated again when it becomes ripe. But I could be wrong - just prove it - not say it.
Walton County also had lobbyist, at least one commissioner, and multiple paid opponents to the bill, more than the property owners, trying to stop the bill and it passed overwhelmingly by both houses - including local Rep Brad Drake. It’s all available online.
Why because Walton County is the only county where elected politicians declared a customary use ordinance WITHOUT due process. The legislature did not want other counties to follow suite, because the legislators knew Walton’s legal tactic would not likely standup in court. Read the bill sponsors' comments online.
Without FS 163.035 property owners were forced, to be Plaintiffs, to prove Constitutional property rights were superior to old English common law custom, with the burden of proof. Instead of the commissioners who made the claim on private property rights. Commissioners can tell owners HOW to use their property (within Constitutional limits) but only the courts can determine WHO can use private property - not elected politicians with a political agenda.
Many property owners believe old English common law custom violate the Constitution of the United States. Many of the Bill of Rights, that Americans fought a revolutionary war against the English, rejected old English common law - including the right protecting property unless just compensation for taking property rights is paid.
Otherwise bring it on in court. I’d put my money on the beach owners multiple attorneys over the commissioner’s attorneys regardless. Although Walton tax payers may be footing the whole bill.
No idea where you came up with your opinions or questions about beachfront owners. More fake facts and illogical reasoning.
Most beachfront owners are for Constitutionally protected property rights and think those rights are superior to old English common law custom and will spend their own money as defendants to prove it in court.
Which two cases? Be specific or offer facts of the case. Which Federal lawsuit? Did you read the most recent Federal case? In summary, my layman understanding, the court said the case was not ripe because Walton had not acted to litigate customary use in the state court yet, although we all know the hearing and vote is a formality, no doubt the commissioners will, and was dismissed without prejudice. Which can be appealed or litigated again when it becomes ripe. But I could be wrong - just prove it - not say it.
Walton County also had lobbyist, at least one commissioner, and multiple paid opponents to the bill, more than the property owners, trying to stop the bill and it passed overwhelmingly by both houses - including local Rep Brad Drake. It’s all available online.
Why because Walton County is the only county where elected politicians declared a customary use ordinance WITHOUT due process. The legislature did not want other counties to follow suite, because the legislators knew Walton’s legal tactic would not likely standup in court. Read the bill sponsors' comments online.
Without FS 163.035 property owners were forced, to be Plaintiffs, to prove Constitutional property rights were superior to old English common law custom, with the burden of proof. Instead of the commissioners who made the claim on private property rights. Commissioners can tell owners HOW to use their property (within Constitutional limits) but only the courts can determine WHO can use private property - not elected politicians with a political agenda.
Many property owners believe old English common law custom violate the Constitution of the United States. Many of the Bill of Rights, that Americans fought a revolutionary war against the English, rejected old English common law - including the right protecting property unless just compensation for taking property rights is paid.
Otherwise bring it on in court. I’d put my money on the beach owners multiple attorneys over the commissioner’s attorneys regardless. Although Walton tax payers may be footing the whole bill.
No idea where you came up with your opinions or questions about beachfront owners. More fake facts and illogical reasoning.
SoWal Guide
@FloridaBeachBum I believe Dave is referring to those beach front owners who are complaining bitterly about Walton County going through the legal process and also attacking people who support customary use and working to submit their affidavits. There was one BFO who recently threatened all of the 8000 who have submitted affidavits. A "property rights" beach front owner here in the forum recently said she hopes that HB631 is repealed. I think just a small group of people are angry about the overwhelming support for CU we're seeing in our community. Let us hope we can remain civil. The attacks on local leaders I've seen online are really unfortunate
It makes no sense to me either. We have a process. Just do it.
It makes no sense to me either. We have a process. Just do it.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Prior to HB631 there were two rulings in Walton County in two separate cases that upheld Customary Use. One was the "Alford" case and I don't know the name of the other one. The Blessey Case, the Federal Case filed a few months ago with the aim to have Customary Use ruled unconstitutional was just dismissed. Those are the cases I am referring to. So far it's 3 to zero in favor of Customary Use. I am wary of anyone touting "compromise" instead of letting the Judge decide after our BCC votes to proceed.
Beach Fanatic
FloridaBeachBum you see this as soley about private property rights and if that were the case, I'd be behind you. But its not. The area we are talking about (among other things) is a national resource. I also believe its quite significant that the Muscogee Nation of Florida supports CU.
HB631 created this path but I am sure other paths will be available.
You should fight for what you believe in and you should encourage anyone else to fight for what they believe in. Dissent is patriotic and is one of the many things that has made America great.
HB631 created this path but I am sure other paths will be available.
You should fight for what you believe in and you should encourage anyone else to fight for what they believe in. Dissent is patriotic and is one of the many things that has made America great.
SoWal Guide
Thank you for your thoughtful post @L.C. Bane. I agree with every word.
Beach Lover
Dave,
I think you'd find were you to take the time to inquire that most BFOs are absolutely in favor of this controversy being resolved fairly by the courts under the dictates of FL statutory and case law and the much longer-established guarantees and standards set forth in the Constitution. They would like this done without any further clown show missteps by the county costing more tax dollars private funds than necessary to resolve the controversy.
I also understand you have in your summary dismissal history of the federal suits to date ignored that in fact the only Constitutional issue decided to date by Judge Rogers was a loss for the county in that she unequivocally castigated the county for the manner in which it had conducted itself in discussing and passing the ordinance and further unequivocally overturned the sign portion of the Beach Activities Ordinance as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. An interesting read. I recommend it to all.
As stated by FBB above, the other issues in that suit were not decided due to citation of lack of ripeness and were remanded to state court for adjudication there. Whatever that state court decision might be, we may be sure the losing side will appeal.
While you may have read each of the decisions in question, I think it reasonable to believe that >95% of readers here have not. I am among the however small percentage who have.
Fact is that repeal of 631 will not do anything but make this a much longer and more expensive process for both sides unless there is an intervening amendment or three to the Constitution, which is not going to happen. With or without 631, only a judge may invoke CU. Neither side has to like it, but that is the law of this country.
I found an earlier invocation of the blessings of civil disobedience to imbue "This Sand Ain't Your Sand, I Don't Care What The Law Says" with a protective patina of nobility as ludicrous and insulting to people who have suffered the consequences of civil disobedience in service of a noble goal as leaders of the Civil Rights movement were long ago.
They risked their lives to defend their Constitutional rights which were being wrongly, abusively, and sometimes murderously denied them by local governments and citizens who chose to ignore the Constitutional rights of black people.
CU proponents trespassing on private property are seeking to deny BFOs their Constitutional rights. What galls many is the simple greed openly expressed by so many on the CU side of the fence and their concomitant hypocrisy, accusing BFOs of being greedy and afraid of the law. Utter garbage!
Proponents of CU risk public funds in the tens of millions. probably many tens of millions. Opponents risk their share of not only those dollars but their own private funds. Show me some nobility in the actions of proponents with a straight face, please, Teresa.
Until such time as you and others made an issue of this, there was no big issue bitterly dividing us on this matter. The biggest problem on the beach itself came from the county refusal to rein in beach vendors, with the result that they enacted a right of those vendors to preemptively exclude the public from 50% of public beach in the county. And that was a tourist-friendly, resident-friendly move? Reversing that should be a high priority no-brainer.
We can expect another decade of discord and extraordinary legal expenses paid with tax dollars that could be better used. Why? Follow the money!
I think you'd find were you to take the time to inquire that most BFOs are absolutely in favor of this controversy being resolved fairly by the courts under the dictates of FL statutory and case law and the much longer-established guarantees and standards set forth in the Constitution. They would like this done without any further clown show missteps by the county costing more tax dollars private funds than necessary to resolve the controversy.
I also understand you have in your summary dismissal history of the federal suits to date ignored that in fact the only Constitutional issue decided to date by Judge Rogers was a loss for the county in that she unequivocally castigated the county for the manner in which it had conducted itself in discussing and passing the ordinance and further unequivocally overturned the sign portion of the Beach Activities Ordinance as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. An interesting read. I recommend it to all.
As stated by FBB above, the other issues in that suit were not decided due to citation of lack of ripeness and were remanded to state court for adjudication there. Whatever that state court decision might be, we may be sure the losing side will appeal.
While you may have read each of the decisions in question, I think it reasonable to believe that >95% of readers here have not. I am among the however small percentage who have.
Fact is that repeal of 631 will not do anything but make this a much longer and more expensive process for both sides unless there is an intervening amendment or three to the Constitution, which is not going to happen. With or without 631, only a judge may invoke CU. Neither side has to like it, but that is the law of this country.
I found an earlier invocation of the blessings of civil disobedience to imbue "This Sand Ain't Your Sand, I Don't Care What The Law Says" with a protective patina of nobility as ludicrous and insulting to people who have suffered the consequences of civil disobedience in service of a noble goal as leaders of the Civil Rights movement were long ago.
They risked their lives to defend their Constitutional rights which were being wrongly, abusively, and sometimes murderously denied them by local governments and citizens who chose to ignore the Constitutional rights of black people.
CU proponents trespassing on private property are seeking to deny BFOs their Constitutional rights. What galls many is the simple greed openly expressed by so many on the CU side of the fence and their concomitant hypocrisy, accusing BFOs of being greedy and afraid of the law. Utter garbage!
Proponents of CU risk public funds in the tens of millions. probably many tens of millions. Opponents risk their share of not only those dollars but their own private funds. Show me some nobility in the actions of proponents with a straight face, please, Teresa.
Until such time as you and others made an issue of this, there was no big issue bitterly dividing us on this matter. The biggest problem on the beach itself came from the county refusal to rein in beach vendors, with the result that they enacted a right of those vendors to preemptively exclude the public from 50% of public beach in the county. And that was a tourist-friendly, resident-friendly move? Reversing that should be a high priority no-brainer.
We can expect another decade of discord and extraordinary legal expenses paid with tax dollars that could be better used. Why? Follow the money!
Beach Lover
Dave,
I think you'd find were you to take the time to inquire that most BFOs are absolutely in favor of this controversy being resolved fairly by the courts under the dictates of FL statutory and case law and the much longer-established guarantees and standards set forth in the Constitution. They would like this done without any further clown show missteps by the county costing more tax dollars private funds than necessary to resolve the controversy.
I also understand you have in your summary dismissal history of the federal suits to date ignored that in fact the only Constitutional issue decided to date by Judge Rogers was a loss for the county in that she unequivocally castigated the county for the manner in which it had conducted itself in discussing and passing the ordinance and further unequivocally overturned the sign portion of the Beach Activities Ordinance as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. An interesting read. I recommend it to all.
As stated by FBB above, the other issues in that suit were not decided due to citation of lack of ripeness and were remanded to state court for adjudication there. Whatever that state court decision might be, we may be sure the losing side will appeal.
While you may have read each of the decisions in question, I think it reasonable to believe that >95% of readers here have not. I am among the however small percentage who have.
Fact is that repeal of 631 will not do anything but make this a much longer and more expensive process for both sides unless there is an intervening amendment or three to the Constitution, which is not going to happen. With or without 631, only a judge may invoke CU. Neither side has to like it, but that is the law of this country.
I found an earlier invocation of the blessings of civil disobedience to imbue "This Sand Ain't Your Sand, I Don't Care What The Law Says" with a protective patina of nobility as ludicrous and insulting to people who have suffered the consequences of civil disobedience in service of a noble goal as leaders of the Civil Rights movement were long ago.
They risked their lives to defend their Constitutional rights which were being wrongly, abusively, and sometimes murderously denied them by local governments and citizens who chose to ignore the Constitutional rights of black people.
CU proponents trespassing on private property are seeking to deny BFOs their Constitutional rights. What galls many is the simple greed openly expressed by so many on the CU side of the fence and their concomitant hypocrisy, accusing BFOs of being greedy and afraid of the law. Utter garbage!
Proponents of CU risk public funds in the tens of millions. probably many tens of millions. Opponents risk their share of not only those dollars but their own private funds. Show me some nobility in the actions of proponents with a straight face, please, Teresa.
Until such time as you and others made an issue of this, there was no big issue bitterly dividing us on this matter. The biggest problem on the beach itself came from the county refusal to rein in beach vendors, with the result that they enacted a right of those vendors to preemptively exclude the public from 50% of public beach in the county. And that was a tourist-friendly, resident-friendly move? Reversing that should be a high priority no-brainer.
We can expect another decade of discord and extraordinary legal expenses paid with tax dollars that could be better used. Why? Follow the money!
According to 19th century legend, the Truth and Lie meet one day. The Lie says to the Truth, "It's a marvelous day today!", the Truth looks up to the sky and sighs, for the day was really beautiful.
They spend a lot of time together, ultimately arriving beside a well. The Lie tells the Truth: "The water is very nice, let's take a swim together!" The Truth once again suspicious, tests the water, and indeed it is very nice. They undress and start swimming.
Suddenly the Lie comes out of the water, puts on the Truth's clothes, and runs away. The furious Truth comes out of the water and runs everywhere to find the Lie and to get her clothes back. The town people, seeing the Truth naked, turns their gaze away with contempt and rage.
The poor Truth returns to the well and disappears forever, hiding in it's shame. Since then the Lie travels around everywhere, wearing the clothes of the Truth, satisfying everyone's needs. The town people have no desire to see the naked Truth.
Shannon
Edited
SoWal Insider
Oh, I get it. You own the truth. What a Trumpanzee!! And an allegory with "town people" is just precious. You, of course, not being one of the "town people", must be living in the castle on the hill. You need to get over your superiority complex.
Beach Fanatic
According to 19th century legend, the Truth and Lie meet one day. The Lie says to the Truth, "It's a marvelous day today!", the Truth looks up to the sky and sighs, for the day was really beautiful.
They spend a lot of time together, ultimately arriving beside a well. The Lie tells the Truth: "The water is very nice, let's take a swim together!" The Truth once again suspicious, tests the water, and indeed it is very nice. They undress and start swimming.
Suddenly the Lie comes out of the water, puts on the Truth's clothes, and runs away. The furious Truth comes out of the water and runs everywhere to find the Lie and to get her clothes back. The town people, seeing the Truth naked, turns their gaze away with contempt and rage.
The poor Truth returns to the well and disappears forever, hiding in it's shame. Since then the Lie travels around everywhere, wearing the clothes of the Truth, satisfying everyone's needs. The town people have no desire to see the naked Truth.
Shannon
Beach Fanatic
There are a number of assumptions in your question and incomplete information on the lawsuits. Not sure where the idea comes in that the vast majority don't want to proceed with due process.
SoWal Insider
There are a number of assumptions in your question and incomplete information on the lawsuits. Not sure where the idea comes in that the vast majority don't want to proceed with due process.
I thought Dave's analysis was fairly succinct and complete. The assumption you speak of comes from the assaults of intimidation and misinformation that are being spread in social media by BFO's. This site is inundated with some very bombastic statements in particular. "You can't handle the truth!" comes to mind. As well as that old favorite "room temperature intellect", referring to "town people" who want to express their opinion about the custom use of the beach.
Beach Fanatic
I thought Dave's analysis was fairly succinct and complete. The assumption you speak of comes from the assaults of intimidation and misinformation that are being spread in social media by BFO's. This site is inundated with some very bombastic statements in particular. "You can't handle the truth!" comes to mind. As well as that old favorite "room temperature intellect", referring to "town people" who want to express their opinion about the custom use of the beach.
Unfortunately, intimidation and misinformation has occurred on both sides. I have tried diligently not to be any part of that, but have certainly observed it with dismay. On the lawsuits, I'm guessing one was the Alford case, which to my knowledge was an acknowledgement of Home Rule authority, but not a statement one way or another on CU. The Blessey case, was dismissed without prejudice because it wasn't "ripe" yet (CU is not in place so the claim isn't ripe), so it may be refiled at a later date. I don't know of a 3rd case. Part of the problem and what I refer to as assumptions is that, just because one or even a few GFO say or do something, is not a reflection of all GFOs. That generalization has created a lot of unnecessary conflict in my opinion. BTW, I am not an attorney so my comments on the lawsuits are my layman understanding of what I've heard explained by attorneys.
Edited
Beach Fanatic
....You went to court to stop it. You lost two cases when the Judge ruled against you. You also lost the Federal Lawsuit when the Judge ruled against you. You lobbied and pressed the Florida Legislature to pass a law to stop Walton County from maintaining it's CU ordinance and you won. CU is stopped for the time being.OMG! I didn’t know. It’s all over. Take my property NOW before I lose anything else, please!
Beach FanaticAuthor
I thought Dave's analysis was fairly succinct and complete. The assumption you speak of comes from the assaults of intimidation and misinformation that are being spread in social media by BFO's. This site is inundated with some very bombastic statements in particular. "You can't handle the truth!" comes to mind. As well as that old favorite "room temperature intellect", referring to "town people" who want to express their opinion about the custom use of the beach.
Actually, the derogatory term most used to describe our passionate community made up of of those supporting Customary Use is "Mob"
SoWal Insider
Unfortunately, intimidation and misinformation has occurred on both sides. I have tried diligently not to be any part of that, but have certainly observed it with dismay. On the lawsuits, I'm guessing one was the Alford case, which to my knowledge was an acknowledgement of Home Rule authority, but not a statement one way or another on CU. The Blessey case, was dismissed without prejudice because it wasn't "ripe" yet (CU is not in place so the claim isn't ripe), so it may be refiled at a later date. I don't know of a 3rd case. Part of the problem and what I refer to as assumptions is that, just because one or even a few GFO say or do something, is not a reflection of all GFOs. That generalization has created a lot of unnecessary conflict in my opinion. BTW, I am not an attorney so my comments on the lawsuits are my layman understanding of what I've heard explained by attorneys.That is a fair assessment and my knowledge of all case histories is limited, also. I don’t have an attorney to explain all facets of this to me, but it’s fairly clear to this layman that these beaches were customarily used for hundreds of years, peacefully, and the BFO’s who launched their lawsuits were well aware of it.
Beach Lover
Actually, the derogatory term most used to describe our passionate community made up of of those supporting Customary Use is "Mob"
And there is ample documented evidence to support that well deserved title.
Shannon
SoWal Insider
And there is ample documented evidence to support that well deserved title.
Shannon
I really don’t know what you think you are accomplishing by coming onto this site with that attitude, but it sure looks like it’s backfiring.
Beach Lover
Oh, I get it. You own the truth. What a Trumpanzee!! And an allegory with "town people" is just precious. You, of course, not being one of the "town people", must be living in the castle on the hill. You need to get over your superiority complex.
While I would be honored to take credit for this 19th century tale, it is most famously shown in the painting by Jean-Leon Gerome "Truth coming out of her well".
I didn't write this nor was it about me. I don't profess to own the truth. I only have self awareness of the meaning of the fable.
Shannon
SoWal Insider
While I would be honored to take credit for this 19th century tale, it is most famously shown in the painting by Jean-Leon Gerome "Truth coming out of her well".
I didn't write this nor was it about me. I don't profess to own the truth. I only have self awareness of the meaning of the fable.
Shannon
Instead of 19th century fables about naked truth why don’t you produce the well documented evidence that the people who are declaring their commitment to continuing customary use of these beaches deserve to be called a mob.
Beach Lover
Instead of 19th century fables about naked truth why don’t you produce the well documented evidence that the people who are declaring their commitment to continuing customary use of these beaches deserve to be called a mob.
Now that is a fair request. Where do you want me to post some of the examples? I won't be able to post them all there are too many.
Nevermind ... I found a way. Here a random few of hundreds.
Shannon
View media item 14569View media item 14566View media item 14565View media item 14564View media item 14563View media item 14562View media item 14561View media item 14560View media item 14559View media item 14558View media item 14557View media item 14568View media item 14567
Edited
SoWal Insider
Well, I saw maybe 6 or 7 bad apples, along with several calls to be civil and polite. 6 out of 8,000 is about .075%.
And let me make this truly clear: you brought this upon yourself. You knew there was customary use when you bought your property. When abuses started happening, rather than getting the WCSO , the TDC, and the BCC to help solve your problem, you miss-handled it yourself. What I see in your screen shots is people re-acting badly with hatred after they had been treated with hatred. These people probably deserve your hatred. People like Dave and Dan and myself do not deserve the scorn heaped upon them for standing up for what is right.
And let me make this truly clear: you brought this upon yourself. You knew there was customary use when you bought your property. When abuses started happening, rather than getting the WCSO , the TDC, and the BCC to help solve your problem, you miss-handled it yourself. What I see in your screen shots is people re-acting badly with hatred after they had been treated with hatred. These people probably deserve your hatred. People like Dave and Dan and myself do not deserve the scorn heaped upon them for standing up for what is right.
Beach Lover
Well, I saw maybe 6 or 7 bad apples, along with several calls to be civil and polite. 6 out of 8,000 is about .075%.
And let me make this truly clear: you brought this upon yourself. You knew there was customary use when you bought your property. When abuses started happening, rather than getting the WCSO , the TDC, and the BCC to help solve your problem, you miss-handled it yourself. What I see in your screen shots is people re-acting badly with hatred after they had been treated with hatred. These people probably deserve your hatred. People like Dave and Dan and myself do not deserve the scorn heaped upon them for standing up for what is right.
Blaming me for what you just saw with your own two eyes speaks volumes. What were you saying about Uhlfelder?
Shannon
View media item 14571
Beach Lover
LVT, as a statistician, you’d come up a brick short of a hod based on that analysis. And unless the Lince’s purchased their home during the one year when CU was unilaterally and improperly imposed by the 4 Blind Mice, they did not purchase it as you aver. And if they did, I can only hope they can recover damages from any realtor who failed to disclose.
Getting help from the BCC, TDC or WCSO? Did you by chance write for Abbot and Costello in a previous life? Why not ask a Great White to toss you a life ring as you paddle like crazy for shore?
And as for you, Dave and others standing up for what is right, the laws and Constitutions of state and nation are what is right, your conviction to the contrary about your presumptive moral superiority. Like it or not, the law trumps your or my morality.
If I’d ever need convincing that citizens need protection from government, not to mention mob rule, this CU crusade would have erased any doubt. I don’t own beach property, but I do believe that government takings from private citizens should be extremely limited as to public purpose. I further believe that our private property rights have been and remain generally under attack by moneyed interests nationwide, especially since Kelo. I can only hope that Kelo is overturned sooner than later.
Until that time, as devoutly as I hold my beliefs, and you may be sure they are as devoutly held as yours, I will abide by the law, however much I may disagree with it. Anarchy is not a desirable state. I would hope that the thuggery and trespass would vanish and peace and harmony return and prevail. I’m going to continue breathing in and out in the meantime.
Getting help from the BCC, TDC or WCSO? Did you by chance write for Abbot and Costello in a previous life? Why not ask a Great White to toss you a life ring as you paddle like crazy for shore?
And as for you, Dave and others standing up for what is right, the laws and Constitutions of state and nation are what is right, your conviction to the contrary about your presumptive moral superiority. Like it or not, the law trumps your or my morality.
If I’d ever need convincing that citizens need protection from government, not to mention mob rule, this CU crusade would have erased any doubt. I don’t own beach property, but I do believe that government takings from private citizens should be extremely limited as to public purpose. I further believe that our private property rights have been and remain generally under attack by moneyed interests nationwide, especially since Kelo. I can only hope that Kelo is overturned sooner than later.
Until that time, as devoutly as I hold my beliefs, and you may be sure they are as devoutly held as yours, I will abide by the law, however much I may disagree with it. Anarchy is not a desirable state. I would hope that the thuggery and trespass would vanish and peace and harmony return and prevail. I’m going to continue breathing in and out in the meantime.
Beach Fanatic
Well, I saw maybe 6 or 7 bad apples, along with several calls to be civil and polite. 6 out of 8,000 is about .075%.Wow. Incredible. You and Dave R and others only encourage this behavior and blame the victims!?
And let me make this truly clear: you brought this upon yourself. You knew there was customary use when you bought your property. When abuses started happening, rather than getting the WCSO , the TDC, and the BCC to help solve your problem, you miss-handled it yourself. What I see in your screen shots is people re-acting badly with hatred after they had been treated with hatred. These people probably deserve your hatred. People like Dave and Dan and myself do not deserve the scorn heaped upon them for standing up for what is right.
There is and was no customary use in Walton County - even Walton County's beach activity ordinance prior to April 2017 stated so no matter what you or 8,000 or 8 million people say until proven in court FIRST. Until then respect property rights like you want your property rights respected.
SoWal Insider
If you try to steal a universal human right that has existed for centuries, you should expect near universal condemnation. You are going to get reactions from everybody, some more prone to confrontation than others. What did you expect? You are ruining a whole lot of people’s property values, but more importantly, their enjoyment of beach life, both locals and visitors. If you are trying to tell me that Lince and Huckabee did not see ordinary people customarily using the beach when they first looked at the property they bought, you are quite delusional.
Edited
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.