Beach Property Rights - public/private

[hi n dry]

Bulletin from South Walton Community Council
www.southwaltoncc.org

Dear SWCC Member,

I apologize for this late notice. I received the agenda for the county commission meeting via email on Friday. It is a packed agenda which I will send by separate email. The meeting is Tuesday, November 13 at the courthouse in south Walton starting at 4 PM.

There is an item that will potentially impact the public’s use of the beach and I want to make you aware of it. The SWCC position is at the end of this email.

As you may recall from my past emails, the county attorney made a presentation to the commissioners in which he offered four options for the county to consider regarding the issue of gulf front property owners excluding the public from using the beach in front of their structure. The county commissioners directed the county attorney to research two of the options. They were (1) preparing an ordinance that recognized the ancient and historical right of the public to use all or a portion (e.g., the first 20 feet) of the beaches under the Tona-Rama Florida Supreme Court case known as the “customary use” doctrine and (2) consider an easement from private beach front property owners for public access and use of the beach. The county attorney was to make a subsequent presentation on these options. As of this date he has not made a follow-up report to the commissioners.

The issue has now been placed on the agenda by a private attorney representing certain gulf front property owners. The agenda item is identified as:

4:40 PM Matthew W. Burns, Attorney representing Gulf front property owners
1. Request the Commission adopt resolutions or ordinances reconfirming Walton County’s commitment to preserving private property rights and recognizing the private property rights which exist with regard to Gulf front properties in the county
2. Request the Commission reconsider instruction to the County Attorney to draft a proposed “county-wide customary use” ordinance

Anyone who is concerned about public use of the beach should try to attend this meeting. More information will undoubtedly be presented by the gulf front property owners at the meeting. If you cannot attend you can direct your comments or questions to the commissioners. Their email address are provided below.

SWCC Position

SWCC would like the county commissioners to make a determination of the historic and ancient use of the dry sand beach by the public. We were concerned about one suggested proposal to limit the public’s use to a specified distance, e.g., 20 feet, from the high water mark. The following is a letter sent by SWCC to the commissioners some time ago on this issue:

Dear Commissioners,

We want to express our concern with the two proposals currently being reviewed by the county attorney as a resolution of the issue of establishing public access over private beach.

With regard to the proposal to define the public’s right of access and use to a specified footage from the high water mark (e.g. 20’) we feel the adoption of such a limited public area in fact diminishes the public’s rights of access and use under both the Tona-Rama Florida Supreme court case and the Stevens U.S. Supreme Court case.

As indicated in the county attorney’s memorandum, the Tona Rama case recognized a right of customary use. The court stated: “The interest and rights of the public to the full use of the beaches should be protected.” The court concluded “(t)he general public may continue to use the dry sand area for their usual recreational activities...” (emphasis added)

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the holding of the Oregon Court in the Stevens case which concluded “when plaintiffs took title to their land they were on notice that exclusive use of the dry sand areas was not part of the ‘bundle of rights’ that they acquired.” (emphasis added)

Both cases, and others, recognize the ancient and historical right of the public to access and use the dry sand beach area. The courts did not limit the public’s customary use to a small strip of land measured from the high water mark. Why would the county want to narrow the area of the beach which has always been customarily used by the public?

There are logistical problems with trying to squeeze the public onto a strip of beach that is measured from the high water mark. First of all, the high water mark changes daily and in response to any storm. Who will measure the distance and how often? How will the public know where their “strip” is located? Typically, particularly in the large condos, the rows of private beach chairs and umbrellas are set up as the “first tier” from the high water mark for view. How much room will be left for the public?

Is this the best solution in light of the projected future population boom and the focus of the TDC to attract more tourists to the area?

The second proposal being considered is to get the beach front property owners to grant an easement to the public to allow the public to use all or a specified part of the beach. If the courts have so strongly upheld a right of customary use, why would the public need an easement? The easement would be granting a right that the public already has. It may also be construed as a rejection by the county of the public’s right of customary use. Would the easement be perpetual or would it be revocable by the property owner? Would the public have to pay for the easement right?

An approach that was not discussed is to get the state legislature involved. In 2005 State Senator Carey Baker proposed a bill that would recognize the right of customary use of Florida beaches. His office indicated it did not get out of committee as it was blocked by the committee chairman. While such a bill may run afoul of the Tona-Rama approach which requires a case-by-case determination, it would seem worthwhile to explore this avenue through the county’s state representative in Tallahassee. The Texas “Open Beach Act” has been in effect for years.

In the absence of a state legislative action, we would like to see the county follow the directive in the Tona-Rama case and initiate the case-by-case analysis required to establish the public’s right of customary use for each particular beach area within its jurisdiction. The “beach area” would be a recognition of the dry sand beach historically and currently used by the public.

The proliferation of “private beach” signs on the beach has increased substantially, even in the current beach nourishment area. The overwhelming users of the beaches are tourist and locals. (Undoubtedly, at one time, many, if not all of those who have objected to people on their “private” beach were also visitors to the area and enjoyed the rights that they are now wanting to prohibit to others.) This issue must be resolved not only for the economic health of tourism but also for the people who live here and have always used the beach for recreation and spiritual renewal. We do recognize and appreciate that the overwhelming majority of beach front property owners whose deeds go to the high water mark have not in any way attempted to exclude the public from using the beach in front of their structures. Unfortunately, though, the few who have asserted exclusive rights of use have necessitated that this issue must now be addressed.

We believe the U.S. Supreme Court got it right. A beachfront property owner did not acquire the “exclusive” right to use the beach as a property right. The right of use is a shared right.

We appreciate the commitment of the Board to address this issue and hope that your decision will maintain the current use by the public and not diminish it.

Respectfully submitted,

The Board of Directors of the South Walton Community Council
Alan Newsome-President

Commissioner Contacts

Commissioner Ken Pridgen Commissioner Larry Jones
prikenneth@co.walton.fl.us jonlarry@co.walton.fl.us

Commissioner Cindy Meadows Commissioner Scott Brannon
meacindy@co.walton.fl.us brascott@co.walton.fl.us

Commissioner Sara Comander
comsara@co.walton.fl.us

[seacrestkristi]

Well, AMEN, Alan Newsome! Free Walton County Beaches!

[DuneAHH]

Well, AMEN, Alan Newsome! Free Walton County Beaches!

Ditto. Right-on!

[rapunzel]

Great. Let's all post a happy emoticon.

It doesn't matter a bit how much we support public use of the beach on this board, though. Not unless we back it up by showing up for this meeting and voicing our opinions.

So, roll call....who will be attending?

[seacrestkristi]

Unfortunately I am 500 miles away. So in the meantime, I think it does help to say how I feel on the board. Awareness and speaking up encourages others. Sorry i won't be there but i can still let the commissioner's know how i feel in writing. So can every one else in my situation.

[Andy A]

It is important that I take my wife to M.D. Anderson for tests regarding her renal cancer. I have already sent an e-mail to Commissioner Cindy Meadows voicing my strong agreement with the position expressed by SWCC in their letter. Anita will be looking out for us.

[Busta Hustle]

if the attendance at this meeting does not set an all time record i'll be totally disappointed...i hear there will be snacks and balloons and cute baby puppies and a beautiful topless waitstaff

[DuneAHH]

Great. Let's all post a happy emoticon.

It doesn't matter a bit how much we support public use of the beach on this board, though. Not unless we back it up by showing up for this meeting and voicing our opinions.

So, roll call....who will be attending?

I'll be there.

[Bobby J]

This might be the biggest issue ever facing the BCC and residents of Walton county. Lets just hope the BBC does the right thing. The common sense thing. Everyone make sure you make this meeting if you can. Those that oppose the issue will be organized and have a plan. If we do not show support, the BBC will lean toward private beaches.

[SWGB]

BBC? Is that Board of Baffon Commissioners?

Seriously though I will attend, the beaches must remain in the public domain or SoWal will fold.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

It truly is a sad state of affairs when the "majority" feel entitled to be able to deprive private property owners from their property for ANY justification (other than true imminent domain situations). The beach is not a road or a school ground or a powerline path or a sewage treatment plant location.

The problem is not the occasional trespassing skirmish hyperbolized by the local news. The real problems are the "promises" of "beach access" made by developers of huge projects when there is none.

Who REALLY stands to lose out here? Follow the money, as they say, and you'll have your answer.

It's NOT the vacationing family who is building a sand castle along with memories. It is the ($100,000,000+) Redfish Village developments. It is the County and commisioners who "think" they will benefit from the increased tax base at the expense of overcrowding on the beach. These people are the ones fighting for de-privatization of private property. They have solicited your help without your really knowing the true sides of the issue.

If Walton County is allowed to continue to approve non-appropriate developments, we're only a step away from becoming a Destin or Panama City. "I love your area because it is not crowded like Destin and Panama City" is something I've heard over and over. I and many others feel the same.

With undeveloped beachfront property practically extinct, how else will developers command the prices they seek in our area? The developer's solution?...simply build off the beach where the land is cheaper and "truck-em" in. Ooops, they can't do that just anywhere since there are stretches of private beach (unless they get the county and state to throw away private property rights).

60 years or so ago, you would be hard pressed to find a soul on the beach in our area. Yet private property lines extended to the water even back then. The true beach pioneers were the ones who came when everyone else thought this area was a wasteland. They PURCHASED beachfront property, built their block homes and enjoyed the area for what it WAS: quiet and private. Others of us who felt the same purchased the property from them...and so on.

Today everybody wants to be on the beach. We have grocery stores, air conditioning, running water, sewage, roads and more than enough restaurants.

And of course we have a beautiful beach which is why people bought private property in this "wasteland" long ago in the first place. Now EVERYBODY wants to be in this area...most of all, the developers. Somehow, many people have translated this into a personal entitlement.


As a kid, I remember playing at the creek in our neighborhood. I was never run off the many years that I did play there. Yet I can not imagine ever going to the owner of the adjacent private property today and saying the public is entitled to their private property simply because I and many other kids before me and after me played at that creek and we were never run off.

Not much of a real difference here except for the following: money.

Counter-intuitively speaking, the de-privatization of the beach will benefit the developers more than the "public". The charm and serenity of our area will be greatly compromised (even more so) if this is allowed to happen.

[John R]

On the other hand, if the entire length of the beach was accessible by the everyone, then we (users and purported owners) could get back to the status quo, before all the nastiness began. And, the off-beach developers would have nothing to sell with regards to the sand.

[Pirate]

It truly is a sad state of affairs when the "majority" feel entitled to be able to deprive private property owners from their property for ANY justification (other than true imminent domain situations). The beach is not a road or a school ground or a powerline path or a sewage treatment plant location.

The problem is not the occasional trespassing skirmish hyperbolized by the local news. The real problems are the "promises" of "beach access" made by developers of huge projects when there is none.

Who REALLY stands to lose out here? Follow the money, as they say, and you'll have your answer.

It's NOT the vacationing family who is building a sand castle along with memories. It is the ($100,000,000+) Redfish Village developments. It is the County and commisioners who "think" they will benefit from the increased tax base at the expense of overcrowding on the beach. These people are the ones fighting for de-privatization of private property. They have solicited your help without your really knowing the true sides of the issue.

If Walton County is allowed to continue to approve non-appropriate developments, we're only a step away from becoming a Destin or Panama City. "I love your area because it is not crowded like Destin and Panama City" is something I've heard over and over. I and many others feel the same.

With undeveloped beachfront property practically extinct, how else will developers command the prices they seek in our area? The developer's solution?...simply build off the beach where the land is cheaper and "truck-em" in. Ooops, they can't do that just anywhere since there are stretches of private beach (unless they get the county and state to throw away private property rights).

60 years or so ago, you would be hard pressed to find a soul on the beach in our area. Yet private property lines extended to the water even back then. The true beach pioneers were the ones who came when everyone else thought this area was a wasteland. They PURCHASED beachfront property, built their block homes and enjoyed the area for what it WAS: quiet and private. Others of us who felt the same purchased the property from them...and so on.

Today everybody wants to be on the beach. We have grocery stores, air conditioning, running water, sewage, roads and more than enough restaurants.

And of course we have a beautiful beach which is why people bought private property in this "wasteland" long ago in the first place. Now EVERYBODY wants to be in this area...most of all, the developers. Somehow, many people have translated this into a personal entitlement.


As a kid, I remember playing at the creek in our neighborhood. I was never run off the many years that I did play there. Yet I can not imagine ever going to the owner of the adjacent private property today and saying the public is entitled to their private property simply because I and many other kids before me and after me played at that creek and we were never run off.

Not much of a real difference here except for the following: money.

Counter-intuitively speaking, the de-privatization of the beach will benefit the developers more than the "public". The charm and serenity of our area will be greatly compromised (even more so) if this is allowed to happen.

I think you may need to drop your lawyer for a cardiologist in the near future. Try to enjoy it, even if people block your view.

[Smiling JOe]

I acknowledge the huge parking, transportation and beach access problems being created by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners approving developments without forethought of addressing these problems.

However, regarding private property rights, the State Supreme Court believes that property rights of sandy beach is limited, compared to other property.

[seacrestkristi]

The difference is the man was NICE enough to let you children play. He knew how to share. He didn't run call the police and have you all arrested. He didn't harass your family in the creek like the lady did who didn't want the fishermen even looking at her house. To me there is also a big difference in a creek and the Gulf of Mexico. The pioneers purchased Gulf front not the Gulf itself. I bet they never kicked anyone off the beach either. They had greater respect for God's gift to EVERYONE. They sure didn't put up ugly, polluting, private property signs all over the beach.

What are you so afraid of? Someone sitting on the beach behind your place? If the beaches are public but there's no public access at every beach then WTH are you so worried about, BMBV? Population is increasing in the world. Sowal is not immune to that. There's goning to be more people on the beach whether you call it private or public, period. We're going to have to educate tourists and new homeowners about keeping the beaches clean and pristine and free of obstructions for the nesting turtles.

[JustaLocal]

I will be there.

[Bear]

Ok I may have read this wrong,but are you saying that you don't want people on the beach behind your property.That there are trespassing on your property by hanging out on the beach. Like I said I may have understood your post,if so disregard my rant. So I am to believe that you think that only the very wealthy have the right to enjoy the beach If don't want people in your back yard dont live on the beach. You are one of the successfully few that has the means to live in a lifestyle like this, and Im sure you worked hard for all you have and that it is well deserved.That being said.You are wrong here I dont care what the law is the beach is not yours to own. The beaches and the ocean are for all to enjoy.Your just like the huge cattle tycoons of the old west that fenced off all the free range and shut out the small ranchers .If I was 10years younger I would start using your front yard for my beach parking .

[John R]

...If I was 10years younger I would start using your front yard for my beach parking.

LMFAO. where's the ::sticking it to the man:: smilie when you need one?

What's 10 years got to do with it? PM me when you're headed over to park and I'll bring my camera and join you.

BMBV, you know I enjoy your threads.

[30A Skunkape]

BMBV, couldn't you at least have some fun with this and plant a few of these bad boys in the renourished beach?

[rapunzel]

The problem is not the occasional trespassing skirmish hyperbolized by the local news. The real problems are the "promises" of "beach access" made by developers of huge projects when there is none.

Who REALLY stands to lose out here? Follow the money, as they say, and you'll have your answer.

It's NOT the vacationing family who is building a sand castle along with memories. It is the ($100,000,000+) Redfish Village developments. It is the County and commisioners who "think" they will benefit from the increased tax base at the expense of overcrowding on the beach. These people are the ones fighting for de-privatization of private property. They have solicited your help without your really knowing the true sides of the issue.

So, let me see if I have this straight, BMBV -- what I understand you to say is that you are asserting your property rights in order to fight overdevelopment. Doesn't protecting your unfettered property rights in fact just reinforce the developers' argument that they should be allowed to develop as many units per acre as they want because of their property rights?

Do you feel that the the only way to stop the raping and pillaging of SoWal by developers is to make the beaches inaccessible to any but the first tier owners and therefore make the area unattractive to tourists and those who might want to build a second home?

Asserting property rights to prevent others from asserting property rights -- that's an interesting approach to fighting the man, BMBV. Do you not fear that when enjoyable beach access is only available to the elite few that could buy from the first wave of gulf front pioneers, perhaps the people who supported restricting the building heights in SoWal in order to preserve the beach community, old Panhandle feel in this one place may decide that it didn't work? If there's no popular support for the restrictions, and the developers and people who work in construction are starving in the streets, maybe the big 20+ story casino style condos won't be so repugnant to the rest of us second and third tier people. A crowded beach is better than no beach at all.

If the spirit of New Urbanism dies out in SoWal, if all anyone is concerned about is their own property rights, and fighting back the marauding hordes with security patrols and tacky signs, then this little experiment in a livable beach community will have failed. We may as well be like Destin and Panama City.

If you want an uncrowded beach, I think becoming politically active and fighting the unfettered development, holding county commissioners like Scott Brannon accountable for their bad decisions, and perhaps even attempting to divert funds from tourist development might work better for you in the long run.

[scooterbug44]

I grew up on a large lake w/ quite similar private vs. public issues, but because it was clearly stated and understood, there weren't the same conflicts. It was understood that the lakes were a wonderful natural resource for all to share and enjoy and were a large part of the area's appeal.

Lakefront homeowners paid $$$ to live on the lake, but the lake and its shoreline were legally & explicitly stated free for everyone to use. A number of public parks, some with piers, swimming areas w/ lifeguards, or boat launches gave everyone equal access to the lake. The lake obviously got more crowded during the summer and on the weekends and has become more crowded over the years as large condos have replaced the original cottages, but that is a fact of life and development.

You were only considered to be trespassing if you actually went into someone's yard (the shoreline area was NOT "your yard") or were on their privately installed & maintained pier (due to liability issues). As long as you were not doing anything illegal you could be within inches of someone's pier or yard.

The lake itself was patrolled by the Sheriff's department, while the different police & emergency departments dealt with any problems on shore. Both lakefront & non-lakefront tax dollars were used to maintain the parks & accesses and pay for maintenance services like weed cutting.

Obviously, due to human nature/lack of courtesy you would get noisy cigarette boats & jet skis, loud radios, drunken boaters, trash thrown in the lake, people parking your mailbox in when they went to the nearby park, etc. and I have accidentally flashed quite a few fisherman over the years because I forgot to close my curtains, but overall the system worked very well.

[Santiago]

It truly is a sad state of affairs when the "majority" feel entitled to be able to deprive private property owners from their property for ANY justification (other than true imminent domain situations). The beach is not a road or a school ground or a powerline path or a sewage treatment plant location.

The problem is not the occasional trespassing skirmish hyperbolized by the local news. The real problems are the "promises" of "beach access" made by developers of huge projects when there is none.

Who REALLY stands to lose out here? Follow the money, as they say, and you'll have your answer.

It's NOT the vacationing family who is building a sand castle along with memories. It is the ($100,000,000+) Redfish Village developments. It is the County and commisioners who "think" they will benefit from the increased tax base at the expense of overcrowding on the beach. These people are the ones fighting for de-privatization of private property. They have solicited your help without your really knowing the true sides of the issue.

If Walton County is allowed to continue to approve non-appropriate developments, we're only a step away from becoming a Destin or Panama City. "I love your area because it is not crowded like Destin and Panama City" is something I've heard over and over. I and many others feel the same.

With undeveloped beachfront property practically extinct, how else will developers command the prices they seek in our area? The developer's solution?...simply build off the beach where the land is cheaper and "truck-em" in. Ooops, they can't do that just anywhere since there are stretches of private beach (unless they get the county and state to throw away private property rights).

60 years or so ago, you would be hard pressed to find a soul on the beach in our area. Yet private property lines extended to the water even back then. The true beach pioneers were the ones who came when everyone else thought this area was a wasteland. They PURCHASED beachfront property, built their block homes and enjoyed the area for what it WAS: quiet and private. Others of us who felt the same purchased the property from them...and so on.

Today everybody wants to be on the beach. We have grocery stores, air conditioning, running water, sewage, roads and more than enough restaurants.

And of course we have a beautiful beach which is why people bought private property in this "wasteland" long ago in the first place. Now EVERYBODY wants to be in this area...most of all, the developers. Somehow, many people have translated this into a personal entitlement.


As a kid, I remember playing at the creek in our neighborhood. I was never run off the many years that I did play there. Yet I can not imagine ever going to the owner of the adjacent private property today and saying the public is entitled to their private property simply because I and many other kids before me and after me played at that creek and we were never run off.

Not much of a real difference here except for the following: money.

Counter-intuitively speaking, the de-privatization of the beach will benefit the developers more than the "public". The charm and serenity of our area will be greatly compromised (even more so) if this is allowed to happen.

It's nice to see you still have a hard on for Redfish Village. Get a life.

[rancid]

Interesting discussion to a complicated issue. While I usually side with the proletariat , BMBV makes some good points about developers over building and funneling hordes of people onto the beach from distant developments.
30 A is an exclusive area ,as much as some might try to downplay it, which does not want to be PC or Destin. If it is to stay that way , someone will need to assert some leadership on over development-- I think that is all BMBV is getting at. Then again , from the tone of some of the posts, there appears to be some history here that I may be unaware of.

[seacrestkristi]

Aren't the folks from distant developments going to go to the beach anyhow? What do you mean, the developers will funnell them? That's if they're claiming to be private, isn't it? If it's all public they/we can go where ever we feel the desire that day, no?

Not that it won't probably be the same one we always go to unless someone claims it private that is.

[seacrestkristi]

Are they golden funnels?

[rancid]

Aren't the folks from distant developments going to go to the beach anyhow? What do you mean, the developers will funnell them? That's if they're claiming to be private, isn't it? If it's all public they/we can go where ever we feel the desire that day, no?

Not that it won't probably be the same one we always go to unless someone claims it private that is.

True that people would be able to go to any part of the beach because it is all public. If no one tries to limit the number of developments in the area then it will end up like PC and Destin. If you are fine with that then you are correct to not want to limit any usage of the beach.
I am not for beach privatization but I do see where BMBV is coming from in an attempt to limit over development.

[seacrestkristi]

Maybe we should start a special thread just for overdevelopment then. It is certainly a worthy topic! This is about people getting kicked off the beach and private signs on the beach, etc., I believe.Actually look at the title. I won't even repeat it, it's so ridunkulous!

[John R]

Maybe we should start a special thread just for overdevelopment then. It is certainly a worthy topic! This is about people getting kicked off the beach and private signs on the beach, etc., I believe.Actually look at the title. I won't even repeat it, it's so ridunkulous!

there have been plenty of those. it might be more fun to resurrect an old one than start a new one.

[rancid]

Maybe we should start a special thread just for overdevelopment then. It is certainly a worthy topic! This is about people getting kicked off the beach and private signs on the beach, etc., I believe.Actually look at the title. I won't even repeat it, it's so ridunkulous!

Here is the part of the initial thread I was referring to---

It truly is a sad state of affairs when the "majority" feel entitled to be able to deprive private property owners from their property for ANY justification (other than true imminent domain situations). The beach is not a road or a school ground or a powerline path or a sewage treatment plant location.

The problem is not the occasional trespassing skirmish hyperbolized by the local news. The real problems are the "promises" of "beach access" made by developers of huge projects when there is none

My mistake but I thought over development and beach access were being linked somehow.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

True that people would be able to go to any part of the beach because it is all public. If no one tries to limit the number of developments in the area then it will end up like PC and Destin. If you are fine with that then you are correct to not want to limit any usage of the beach.
I am not for beach privatization but I do see where BMBV is coming from in an attempt to limit over development.

Thanks for the "reasonable" post.

I have used the word "villafy" a lot on other threads. It also applies here. It is easier for the majority of posters on this thread to point a finger at and attack "me/us" than it is to really try understand what is really happening.

Heard through the grapevine that Seaside and Rosemary Beach will be at the BCC meeting tomorrow. I wonder what position they'll take?

If anyone reading this wants to go to the beach, there is plenty of public beach for that purpose. It just might not be 1 block away...heck of a reason to want to throw sacred private property rights right out the window because a private beach is closer than a public beach.

I've said it over and over, I have never run anyone off our beach....yet.

[John R]

I'm still trying to figure this out. If there is no private beach, then new on-beach or off-beach developers will all be on the same playing field. The ever expanding population will be free to go anywhere. If some developer does manage to buy three, four, or more adjoining lots, they will only be able to go to the maximum height and have a public beach, unless Scott sells off the height ordinance. Redfish village would lose their private beach also, which is what you've been writing about since the getgo.

If the county does swing in the direction of private beaches(for whatever rea$on$, i$ beyond under$tanding), then we'll have the same thing we have now; signs, barriers, arrests, lawsuits, expense of private security, off-beach developers building on purchased lots and infuriating the neighbors, etc., which is what you've been writing about since the getgo.

I've said it over and over, I have never run anyone off our beach....yet.

Thank you for that...for now. Keeping our tourist guests on the wet sand is one sure way to kill the tourist portion of our economy, as is press coverage of arrests of same.

I'm still trying to figure out the reasoning for private beaches. ::scratches head::

[JustaLocal]

I believe in private beachfront property, but not in private beaches. No matter what rules are made or changed, the public has a constitutional right to enjoy the Gulf and it's tidal lands.

[tuck]

kill the rights to use the beach and you kill the business owners.
Kill the business owners and you kill the tax base.
Kill the tax base and you kill the entire County.
Kill all this and then you beachfront owners will have to kill your own food because all these restaurants that you eat at won't be here.
Kill this thread after the BCC kills this topic.

[Smiling JOe]

John r, Redfish Village doesn't claim to own private beach, just a private access to the beach. In order to help convince the BCC to approve it, their attorney agreed to dedicate the beach in front of that property to the public.

[John R]

John r, Redfish Village doesn't claim to own private beach, just a private access to the beach. In order to help convince the BCC to approve it, their attorney agreed to dedicate the beach in front of that property to the public.

Thanks for clarifying. I remember now. I did say i was confused. Too much tikky takky back and forth I suppose.

[BeachBliss]

OK, this is my first time on this message board-I'm tired of sitting back and letting other people make comments that will affect MY PROPERTY!! Yes, I said MY PROPERTY!! All of you who want to make the beaches of 30-A public seem to forget something. The private beach owners have a legal document issued by the State of Florida stating that "we own to the Gulf of Mexico". That means that we own the beach. The beach is our front yard.
Just as your deed to your property says you own your front yard-we own ours-the State of Florida says we do.

Now, get up from your computer and go look at your front yard. Imagine the county knocks on your door and says "Hey, we like your front yard. We want to let the public come and use your front yard. They will be there all day, drink beer, smoke cigarettes, litter your yard and not pick it up, yell obscenities, then leave the mess for you to clean up. And guess what, they will turn around and do it the next day. Oh yeah, we are not going to compensate you for this! Even though you paid for that property and are paying the highest taxes in the county-we want your front yard for free-just give it up!!"

I'm not some rich lady who's daddy left me with a ton of money. I'm 1 of 6 kids and the most my dad made was $20,000/yr. We were rich in a lot of ways-money wasn't one of them. My husband comes from the same background. We both put ourselves 100% through college and worked hard because our parents said if you work hard, your dreams will come true.

Our dream came true when we bought In Blue Mountain Beach. And now the county wants to take something that is legally mine (the State of Florida says it's mine) away. And if it was your property-you would feel the same way.

[BeachBliss]

OK, this is my first time on this message board-I'm tired of sitting back and letting other people make comments that will affect MY PROPERTY!! Yes, I said MY PROPERTY!! All of you who want to make the beaches of 30-A public seem to forget something. The private beach owners have a legal document issued by the State of Florida stating that "we own to the Gulf of Mexico". That means that we own the beach. The beach is our front yard.
Just as your deed to your property says you own your front yard-we own ours-the State of Florida says we do.

Now, get up from your computer and go look at your front yard. Imagine the county knocks on your door and says "Hey, we like your front yard. We want to let the public come and use your front yard. They will be there all day, drink beer, smoke cigarettes, litter your yard and not pick it up, yell obscenities, then leave the mess for you to clean up. And guess what, they will turn around and do it the next day. Oh yeah, we are not going to compensate you for this! Even though you paid for that property and are paying the highest taxes in the county-we want your front yard for free-just give it up!!"

I'm not some rich lady who's daddy left me with a ton of money. I'm 1 of 6 kids and the most my dad made was $20,000/yr. We were rich in a lot of ways-money wasn't one of them. My husband comes from the same background. We both put ourselves 100% through college and worked hard because our parents said if you work hard, your dreams will come true.

Our dream came true when we bought In Blue Mountain Beach. And now the county wants to take something that is legally mine (the State of Florida says it's mine) away. And if was your property-you would feel the same way.

[Rita]

..............Just as your deed to your property says you own your front yard-we own ours-the State of Florida says we do.
.................

People walk on the sidewalk through MY front yard. If they create a nuisance while walking or standing there or whatever, then I would consider it a problem and consider taking action against them as a nuisance.

I look at the beach in a similar way.

.

[Smiling JOe]

Actually, the FL state supreme court says the opposite, that the beach is public. I understand your frustration, but let me remind you that the State nor County can pay you for the sandy beach under Eminent Domaine b/c E.D. cannot be use to aquire property which will be used for recreational purposes.

One other point is that many questionable deeds don't desribe the property line as the Gulf, but rather, the MHWM, "meandering the approximate MHWM," and in order to show the boundery line along the Gulf, every "private beach owner" would need to have regular surveys drawn to show that exact line, which moves. Without it, no owner would have proof of trespass.

However, all of that is a mute point since the public has prescriptive rights to the beach.

[JustaLocal]

If I didn't want anyone in my front yard I would put up a fence.

[SoWal Sage]

OK, this is my first time on this message board-I'm tired of sitting back and letting other people make comments that will affect MY PROPERTY!! Yes, I said MY PROPERTY!! All of you who want to make the beaches of 30-A public seem to forget something. The private beach owners have a legal document issued by the State of Florida stating that "we own to the Gulf of Mexico". That means that we own the beach. The beach is our front yard.
Just as your deed to your property says you own your front yard-we own ours-the State of Florida says we do.

Now, get up from your computer and go look at your front yard. Imagine the county knocks on your door and says "Hey, we like your front yard. We want to let the public come and use your front yard. They will be there all day, drink beer, smoke cigarettes, litter your yard and not pick it up, yell obscenities, then leave the mess for you to clean up. And guess what, they will turn around and do it the next day. Oh yeah, we are not going to compensate you for this! Even though you paid for that property and are paying the highest taxes in the county-we want your front yard for free-just give it up!!"

I'm not some rich lady who's daddy left me with a ton of money. I'm 1 of 6 kids and the most my dad made was $20,000/yr. We were rich in a lot of ways-money wasn't one of them. My husband comes from the same background. We both put ourselves 100% through college and worked hard because our parents said if you work hard, your dreams will come true.

Our dream came true when we bought In Blue Mountain Beach. And now the county wants to take something that is legally mine (the State of Florida says it's mine) away. And if was your property-you would feel the same way.

Just out of curiosity, how often do you actually live in your beach-front home? Are you one of the people that cries & complains when their front yard is destroyed by nature ... do you then expect all of us taxpayer's to fix your front yard when it is broken? Did you consider the destruction caused by raping the dune and building on it thus destroying the land & dunes that have kept this place beautiful for so many lifetimes? Why do you assume that everyone at YOUR beach is drinking, smoking and littering? There are so many good folks in SoWal that take time out of their special day to clean up & care for the beach and expect nothing in return except to be able to enjoy the gift that mother nature created for all of us. And should the county pay us because sometimes thoughtless people driving by throw beer bottles and trash in our yard and we have to pick it up?

[seacrestkristi]

How can the county take something away that YOU AND GOD KNOW never belonged to you in the first place ???

[Smiling JOe]

Great point! What use is property which cannot continually be "hostilly defended?" Sure, people may have a piece of paper stating that they own something, but that piece of paper is about as solid as the sand upon which their foundation was constructed. Property rights do have restrictions for the owner. ex- zoning, building restrictions, sign restrictions, taxes, easements, historical rights, etc.

For those of you thinking that you have exclusive rights to your property, try not paying your property taxes, then report back to us.

[scooterbug44]

Not to burst your bubble of entitlement, but just because something is your "property" doesn't mean it is your fiefdom where you reign supreme! Even IF your plat actually shows the proper boundaries, there are still easements for roads, utilities, sidewalks, bikepaths etc. We're not storming your yard and stealing your kitchen sink & favorite bathrobe, we're trying to protect the economic lifeblood of this area as the economy continues to falter.

The obnoxious behavior you describe does not just occur on the beach in front of your home - you can't drive down 30-A or 98 without some slob chucking lit cigarettes or trash out the window or hearing offensive language or loud music.

[scooterbug44]

And should the county pay us because sometimes thoughtless people driving by throw beer bottles and trash in our yard and we have to pick it up?

Judging by the empties, my yard drinks more beer than I do and has a serious smoking, orange soda, & coffee habit . Why people think trash only lands on their beach is beyond me.

[seacrestkristi]

Well, thank you both, excellent thoughts, and good morning ya'll!

[jodiFL]

The private beach owners have a legal document issued by the State of Florida stating that "we own to the Gulf of Mexico". That means that we own the beach. The beach is our front yard.

I want to SEE that document. Until I actually see that document I wont believe it. I will be at this meeting and if you want to bring that document and protest the public/counties stand on this matter I am sure there will be more than a few people there that will be happy to examine it. I would also like to see the latest survey and the maps used by the surveyor to make sure they were the latest maps available.

[seacrestkristi]

I think I'm seeing double this morning or De Ja Vu Doo or something
How can the county take something away that YOU AND GOD KNOW never belonged to you in the first place ???
__________________

[John R]

like waiting in line for tickets to a dead show. better get over there quick. i'm heading over to pay an inspection fee, I'll report back. maybe i'll meet bmbv while i'm there.

[SoWal Sage]

Judging by the empties, my yard drinks more beer than I do and has a serious smoking, orange soda, & coffee habit . Why people think trash only lands on their beach is beyond me.

Yes, it is a mystery ... and the beachfront folks have the luxury of having the county pick up their trash and keep their 'front yard' clean ... who cleans up our yard?