Beaches Of South Walton TDC agrees to support customary use of beaches

[BeachSiO2]

I thought this may be of interest from yesterday's TDC meeting.

http://www.waltonsun.com/news/tdc_25...grees_use.html

....."In the past, customary use had been for all types of things," said McGee. "Anything from having a bonfire to running cattle was defined as customary use. It's time for county commissioners to say, yes, the public has a right to customary use of our beaches and draft an ordinance protecting these rights."
McGee believes that tourism will be directly impacted if customary use isn't fully defined.
"What is at stake here is money brought into the county in tourism dollars," he said.....

[scooterbug44]

Hells yeah McGee!!! That's how to get things done!

And how can we vote this guy out?
"Board member, Don McQuade, questioned individual property rights, versus allowing public access to all beaches. "I don't agree with McGee's position," McQuade said. "If I purchased a $5 million home on the beach I wouldn't want just anyone having a picnic on my beach."

[Smiling JOe]

That should stir some puddin'.

[Miss Kitty]

Hells yeah McGee!!! That's how to get things done!

And how can we vote this guy out?
"Board member, Don McQuade, questioned individual property rights, versus allowing public access to all beaches. "I don't agree with McGee's position," McQuade said. "If I purchased a $5 million home on the beach I wouldn't want just anyone having a picnic on my beach."

The nerve! It's jsut anyone.

Mr. McSpecial has a superiority complex that is not very becoming.

[kathydwells]

"I wouldn't want just anyone having a picnic on my beach."

Oh FTLOC!!!!!

[Miss Kitty]

Oh FTLOG!!!!!

Correction...FTLOC! What a tool.

[kathydwells]

Correction...FTLOC! What a tool.

OOOPPPSSS, fixed.

[SWGB]

But you didn't Don, you didn't.

[John R]

Wwjd?

[DuneLaker]

There were people using our beaches before Jesus walked on water.

[Creeklover]

There were people using your property before then also but i bet if someone pitched a place on your lawn you would wont them off of it.

I belive that if they paid for the property then they have a RIGHT to not allow others on their property. If they are told they haft to let the public use their property free of charge then the county/state should purchase it. If not then the property owner should have a right to keep people off of his property that he pays taxes on. Now I would think that if the county would forgive the taxes on the "Beach" area that everyone wonts open to the public (which for some is ALOT of money) and provide the property owner a full release of liability then some might allow others on their property. In todays world it is all about Law suits and belive me if someone got hurt and found a lawer who said they could get them some money they would sue them.

Just beacuse the public has been using someones property free of charge does not allow them the rights to take it a public property with out paying the owner for it. (Just my opion i have no case law to back that up) But if this was the case lets all go find a home that is in forclosure and move in and claim ownership..

[SWGB]

Why don't we just get a constitutional amendment similar to Hawaii's? Shall we start the leg work?

[Here4Good]

The headline is not exactly correct - the article says:

All members, except Don McQuade, voted to support efforts of defining customary use.

They aren't supporting customary use, not yet anyway. They support defining it.

[sunspotbaby]

People should know when they buy a beachfront lot, they're buying the view, not the beach.

[Andy A]

Spring must be on the way. The use of the beach issue is raising its head once again. Obviously Creeklove was not here for last year's go around. SWGB has the right idea. If you get something going, let me know. I'm not too old to help but I don't feel like organizing it.

[BeachSiO2]

The headline is not exactly correct - the article says:

All members, except Don McQuade, voted to support efforts of defining customary use.

They aren't supporting customary use, not yet anyway. They support defining it.

For further clarification, the actual vote was two parts in one motion. The TDC recommended to the BCC to determine if their had been customary use of the beaches in Sowal, with examples of customary use listed that included walking, fishing, sunbathing, picnicing and others.

Then if it was determined that the customary use doctrine should be applied in Sowal, they requested that the BCC change the current Beach Activity Ordinance to acknowledge the principal of customary use of the shoreline.

[Smiling JOe]

There were people using your property before then also but i bet if someone pitched a place on your lawn you would wont them off of it.

I belive that if they paid for the property then they have a RIGHT to not allow others on their property. If they are told they haft to let the public use their property free of charge then the county/state should purchase it. If not then the property owner should have a right to keep people off of his property that he pays taxes on. Now I would think that if the county would forgive the taxes on the "Beach" area that everyone wonts open to the public (which for some is ALOT of money) and provide the property owner a full release of liability then some might allow others on their property. In todays world it is all about Law suits and belive me if someone got hurt and found a lawer who said they could get them some money they would sue them.

Just beacuse the public has been using someones property free of charge does not allow them the rights to take it a public property with out paying the owner for it. (Just my opion i have no case law to back that up) But if this was the case lets all go find a home that is in forclosure and move in and claim ownership..

Need some case law? Try Trepanier et al v. County of Volusia

In summary:

This court declares that the defendant, COUNTY OF VOLUSIA, on behalf of the public, holds a superior claim to possession and use of the beach landward of the mean low water mark of the Atlantic Ocean to the place where there is marked change in material or physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation in accordance with the definition set forth in Fla. Stat. section 161.54(3) (2004).


Plaintiffs are permanently enjoined from impeding public access to the beach or from acting in any manner inconsistent with the free use of the beach by the public, including access by motor vehicle, subject to the regulatory power of the County of Volusia.

********************************

p30 from the linked Court Ruling:
"Finally, we agree with the trial court's analysis of the "takings" issue. If the law recognizes that the public has a customary right to drive and park on Appellants' property as an adjunct of its right to other recreational uses of that property, as recognized in Tona-Rama, then no takings claim can be made out.(22)

Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion."

Footnote 22:
"22 In his dissent in Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach, Justice Scalia suggests that a takings claim is not foreclosed if the private land owner can establish that the state's post-hoc announcement of a customary right is "pretextual." 114 S. Ct. at 1334. Justice Scalia appears to be of the view that the Hay court in Oregon so completely failed to adhere to the required elements of the common law of custom that it essentially concocted a made-up law of "custom" whose purpose was to secure public access to private property without compensation. Although the Tona-Rama court cited to Hay, the Florida court recognized the requirements to establish a customary right to use private
property, and with the possible exception of "ancient use" – an awkward concept in a new world society – the Tona-Rama court appears to have followed the common law rule. The Tona-Rama court relied on an extensive, fact-intensive record of the nature and extent of the public's customary use of a defined area of beach. Florida may, therefore, avoid the "pretext" problem if this issue arises again with the change in composition of the current United States Supreme Court."

[Bob Wells]

I have tried for years what my opinion on beach use is. On the one hand tax money is used to renourish when necessary. On the other hand there were some folks who did not want the beach behind/ front of their homes renourished. Then we have the government writing insurance/ FEMA grants for folks who own homes on the beach. I guess my mind is made up, if you have none of my sand on your beach, and your home is not rebuilt with my money then I will stay off your beach. Come to think of it I might have an interest in some beach front homes.

[Smiling JOe]

People should know when they buy a beachfront lot, they're buying the view, not the beach.

Now that is an interesting statement. If the deed reads mean high water mark as the boundary, they ARE buying the beach, but not necessarily with exclusive use. The reason I bring this up is because as I understand it, if a beach goer is injured on that "privately owned" property, the owner of the property may be paying damages if taken to court.

That is what is so crazy for me to understand. The property owners claiming rights to the beach, have been allowing the public to use the beach, without objection for years, though if the public is injured on that property, the owner may be liable. Also, the property owner is going to pay taxes based on the assessed taxable value, which is usually directly tied to the size of the parcel. I see at least two very big ways a Gulf front owner could benefit by quit claiming the lower beach elevation of the property, and it seems that they are essentially not losing anything, since the public has always been using that property anyway. I really don't understand their side, and would love to hear an objection to the above thought.

If the property owner IS sued for damages resulting from an accident on that beach property, I bet the property owner's attorney argues that the beach property is really the public's, due to case law, as the one I previously posted. That is the irony -- the private Gulf front property owners may be the biggest proponent of public beach, if they are sued for damages. Can you imagine a top notch professional football player, stepping into a deep hole on the beach, snapping his leg in two, never again able to play football? With an annual salary of $10 million, and 15 more years of playing time, that is going to be one hefty lawsuit of damages.

[idlewind]

The bottom line is that the public has used the beaches for decades and thus a reasonable person who is considering a purchase of beachfront property would see that the public in fact is using the beach for recreation purposes. Most of the owners used the property themselves prior to their purchase. SWGB has the right idea, amend the constitution to address the issue once and for all. If pregnant pigs deserve protection, those who have always enjoyed the beach do as well.

[Creeklover]

The bottom line is that the public has used the beaches for decades and thus a reasonable person who is considering a purchase of beachfront property would see that the public in fact is using the beach for recreation purposes. Most of the owners used the property themselves prior to their purchase. SWGB has the right idea, amend the constitution to address the issue once and for all. If pregnant pigs deserve protection, those who have always enjoyed the beach do as well.

If the property is taken from the owner and not paid for it then i see more law suites and more wasted money. Why don't we just take that money and buy more beach property for the public.

I think in SOWAL that there is plenty of pubilc property owned by the TDC, BCC or State for the public to enjoy. Why does someone need to go and pitch their beach equipment behind somesones home where the homeowner ownes the beach property. When they can stay on the public beach.

That property owner pays taxes and does not receive a credit for the public use of it so he should have a right to not allow anyone on his propertyif he does not wont them there.

Yes i was here last year and read and heard about the people who WCSO arrested for tresspassing on a privet beach when the people who set up camp was informed to move and did not. I am glad to see that WCSO did their job. Just like the noise complaints now.

If you do not like what the law says then get it changed..


Maybe we could try and get something like the state did with Mr. Davis in the Freeport area and buy a easement over the beach property where the public has access to the property and it can not be developed it made Mr. Davis alot of money to allow this green way over his property so maybe they could do something for the beach the same way?????

[SWGB]

If the property is taken from the owner and not paid for it then i see more law suites and more wasted money. Why don't we just take that money and buy more beach property for the public.

I think in SOWAL that there is plenty of pubilc property owned by the TDC, BCC or State for the public to enjoy. Why does someone need to go and pitch their beach equipment behind somesones home where the homeowner ownes the beach property. When they can stay on the public beach.

That property owner pays taxes and does not receive a credit for the public use of it so he should have a right to not allow anyone on his propertyif he does not wont them there.

Yes i was here last year and read and heard about the people who WCSO arrested for tresspassing on a privet beach when the people who set up camp was informed to move and did not. I am glad to see that WCSO did their job. Just like the noise complaints now.

If you do not like what the law says then get it changed..


Maybe we could try and get something like the state did with Mr. Davis in the Freeport area and buy a easement over the beach property where the public has access to the property and it can not be developed it made Mr. Davis alot of money to allow this green way over his property so maybe they could do something for the beach the same way?????

I'm actually looking into this. The amendment can include a clause that states the land was always public land. This only creates headaches for surveryors, real estate agents, and title companies.

If those people who are truly all about private beaches don't like it, they can sell their property and move to a state that allows private beaches. I'm not exactly thrilled that people with that mindset live in our community.

[Smiling JOe]

Creeklover,

I read your thoughts on following the law, but did you actually read the Court's opinion which I presented above?

[wrobert]

If those people who are truly all about private beaches don't like it, they can sell their property and move to a state that allows private beaches. I'm not exactly thrilled that people with that mindset live in our community.

AH HA! Finally you admit to being a NIMBY elitist. I knew it. Giving enough time you liberals will always tip your hand.

[NotDeadYet]

From August 13, 2002 BCC minutes, available on the internet:

"Commissioner Pauls brought up the issue of the public’s right to traverse the beach due to a recent incident between a member of the public and a beachfront homeowner. He stated that after review of the legal documentation provided, his conclusion would be that the public has a right to use and traverse the beach, including the white sandy area of the beach. However, there is still uncertainty as to what that area is. He stated that he has spoken with Deputy Gray from the Sheriff’s Department who agrees that there is a problem. He suggested scheduling public workshops to discuss this issue further supporting the public’s right to use and traverse the beach.
Mr. Wilde stated that there a more deeds that show ownership to the mean high water line than first thought. He explained that Judge Green has declined to accept a criminal trespass citation and immediately wrote an opinion suggesting the property owner have the mean high water line surveyed. Mr. Wilde stated that several people have assured him that the mean high water line is in the water, but they are unsure how far into the water. He stated that the most important issue is the safety and welfare of the citizens and visitors to Walton County. A policy needs to be developed for the Code Enforcement Officers and the Sheriff’s Department to follow. (Tape 3)
Mr. Mark Austin stated that the Board needs to stand on the side of the people in order to protect funding that comes from the property owners. If the beach is taken away from the public then visitors will no longer visit the beach areas or spend their money in Walton County. He stated that one issue needing to be addressed is "Florida’s Sovereign Land", that part of the beach that is hit by water at any time; this is public land.
Commissioner Walker stated that this is a decision that needs to be addressed by the courts. Commissioner Pauls stated that a policy is needed that can be followed. Attorney Vorbeck stated that an ordinance needs to be adopted stating basically what the Tony Rama case stands for and recognizing the fact that this issue will go to court.
Commissioner Ryan stated that an ordinance needs to be drafted to allow the public free use of the beach. He also suggested contacting other counties who have had to deal with this issue. Attorney Vorbeck requested the Board acknowledge that they are willing to spend the money it will take to go to court once an ordinance is drafted. Commissioner Walker stated that the Board of County Commissioners has always stipulated that the white sand areas of the beaches are public. Commissioner Ryan agreed.
Mr. Bill Higgins, property owner of beachfront property, stated that his deed shows that he owns his property to the mean high water line. Mr. Higgins stated that he favors the public’s use of the beach. He stated that an ordinance needs to be adopted to deal with inappropriate behavior, trash, and structures left on the beach.
Mr. Ed Goodwin, resident and property owner, previously provided a copy of an opinion that was issued regarding an Okaloosa County case. Mr. Vorbeck stated that the case being referred to is a Supreme Court Case, the City of Daytona Beach vs. Tony Rama.
The Board gave their consent for Attorney Vorbeck to prepare a beach ordinance to determine the public’s right to use the beach. A public hearing will be held regarding the use of the beach."


As it happens, I was at this meeting, and I remember it a little bit differently than what is stated in these BCC minutes, which do not reflect the lively discussion that took place, nor the consensus that seemed to be reached following the discussion. As I remember it, the BCC was in agreement that language supporting customary use of the beach by the public would be placed in the preamble of the Beach Ordinance and defended by the county, all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Until the private beach rights people got wind of it, anyway, it sure seemed like that BCC, which is of course different from this BCC, was in agreement that the public's use of the county's beaches was essential for tourism.
While I certainly do support Tom's efforts, I also wonder why the result will be any different this time around.

[SWGB]

AH HA! Finally you admit to being a NIMBY elitist. I knew it. Giving enough time you liberals will always tip your hand.

How is this NIMBY elitism?

[Creeklover]

I still belive if you take some one's property rights from them that you should pay for it.. Maybe if the county started just buying all of the property in the county that came to them with Development order then we would come out cheeper than all the Law Suites we are having. just think of how much Camping on the Gulf will cost or Jolly Bay?????

I still belive we have enough beach land in the public holdings to hold ALL of the visitors to SOWAL that we should leave the homeowners alone with their beach property they paid for. If you for some strange reason only wont to set on that section of beach then you should approch the home owner and buy it.

[Smiling JOe]

Creeklover, there is a major difference between YOU thinking that one thing should be done, and the COURTS, thinking that it shouldn't be done.

[BeachSiO2]

Here is a Destin Log article updating the situation. I could not find it on the Walton Sun or Herald site:

In Walton, it's public beach vs. private property | walton, public, div - News - TheDestinLog.com

The mere mention of "customary use" on Walton County's beaches — which pits the rights of the public against private property owners - ruffled some feathers at Tuesday's County Commission meeting.

"It's absolutely socialism," Blue Mountain Beach resident Emmett Hildreth said of a proposal to update the existing beach activities ordinance and comprehensive plan to include the customary use doctrine. "It's taking private property rights and redistribution of wealth and that's nationalization on a county level."

County commissioners have agreed to investigate a proposal by the Tourist Development Council to include the customary use doctrine in the ordinance. The doctrine determines exactly how the public may use the county's 26 miles of beaches, into the ordinance.

"We're asking the commissioners to ascertain if the doctrine of customary use can apply, and if the evidence that's presented to them supports the doctrine. Then we're further asking that they change the ordinance and comprehensive plan to recognize the doctrine of customary use," TDC Director Sonny Mares said after the meeting.

He said the existing law does not clarify exactly what activities the public may enjoy on the beaches or clarify that the public and businesses can freely use the 60 beach accesses.

Mares said the question is whether the doctrine of customary use supports the public's right to use the dry sand portion of the beach for activities such as swimming, fishing, walking and sunbathing.

Property owners are now putting up signs warning people away from their homes and even hiring private security guards, he said.

Those actions "certainly go contrary to this being a tourist destination and does great harm to the tourist industry in Walton County," which is a $1 billion industry, provides about $20 million to the school district and supports 1,200 jobs.

"Tourism has been one of the largest stimuluses for construction, and this is certainly not the time to be downgrading the importance of tourism and thus losing the benefits of the tax revenue to the county," Mares said.

Commissioner Larry Jones said controversy has been sparked recently over whether property owners have the right to exclude people from certain areas of the beach and it is "probably time that it be addressed."

Commissioners took no action Tuesday; they agreed only to study the issue.

The next step will be for those who support the customary use doctrine to investigate whether there is enough evidence to support its inclusion in the beach activities ordinance.

Jones said if that evidence does exist, another meeting will be scheduled for residents to give their input.

"In a public forum, you'll have people speak against what is being presented," he said after the meeting. "It is now the onus of proof to the commission that there would be reason to move forward to strengthen the ordinance to clarify what areas of the beach the public can use. I think it's going to be a fairly lengthy process."

[sunspotbaby]

It's on the front page of the Sun today.


"This is evil socialism! "

[Beach Runner]

People should know when they buy a beachfront lot, they're buying the view, not the beach.

Now that is an interesting statement. If the deed reads mean high water mark as the boundary, they ARE buying the beach, but not necessarily with exclusive use. The reason I bring this up is because as I understand it, if a beach goer is injured on that "privately owned" property, the owner of the property may be paying damages if taken to court.

That is what is so crazy for me to understand. The property owners claiming rights to the beach, have been allowing the public to use the beach, without objection for years, though if the public is injured on that property, the owner may be liable. Also, the property owner is going to pay taxes based on the assessed taxable value, which is usually directly tied to the size of the parcel. I see at least two very big ways a Gulf front owner could benefit by quit claiming the lower beach elevation of the property, and it seems that they are essentially not losing anything, since the public has always been using that property anyway. I really don't understand their side, and would love to hear an objection to the above thought.

If the property owner IS sued for damages resulting from an accident on that beach property, I bet the property owner's attorney argues that the beach property is really the public's, due to case law, as the one I previously posted. That is the irony -- the private Gulf front property owners may be the biggest proponent of public beach, if they are sued for damages. Can you imagine a top notch professional football player, stepping into a deep hole on the beach, snapping his leg in two, never again able to play football? With an annual salary of $10 million, and 15 more years of playing time, that is going to be one hefty lawsuit of damages.

If you go online and look at plats, you can see that some parcels go to the mean high-water line, and some do not. Like SJ says, the owners of the former pay taxes on that property. In trying to look at it from the point of view of these owners, how can they not have the viewpoint that they own that property? They are buying the beach because that is included in the acreage that they purchased and pay taxes on.

To address the issue of customary use, things have really changed since we first started coming to the area. There weren't the high-density developments north of County Highway 30A that there are now. Back then I wouldn't think that beachfront owners would have minded small numbers of people flowing over into their property from the public accesses. Fast forward to 2008. Now with the proliferation of these high-density developments, there are larger numbers of people from these developments using the public (and private if there's no gate) accesses and thus larger numbers of people flowing over into private property for which, as SJ pointed out, the owner faces liability issues.

In my opinion "customary" is relative. The customs from the past don't relate at all to the situation now because things are different due to higher volumes of people visiting the area and not staying at condos/homes with private beach walkovers.

Someone in Saturday's Walton Sun was complaining that the Planning Commission should approve more projects because the economy is so bad and that people in the development/construction industries need jobs. Isn't that how this whole problem of beach use started? That is, because Planning and then the BCC didn't appear to totally think through the repercussions of approving these high-density developments and approved developments that should never have been approved, these growth issues have occurred?

I'm just trying to look at things from the point of view of a beachfront owner which I am not. It sucks to pay for property and have a boatload of people with all of their beach junk in your front yard (those homes face the beach). Yet it also sucks that people come to "the beach" to vacation and can't use the beach as they once did.

I probably shouldn't post this. Too inflammatory of an issue. There are probably more people who disagree with me than agree. Please don't slam me.

[sunspotbaby]

The beach is not their yard. The beach is whatever Mother Nature wants it to be. What if tomorrow we woke up and it was 3 miles to the water? Would that be theirs too?

Oh, and There would be construction on it before you know it, and then the owners don't have beachfront property anymore.

Property lines shouldn't be determined by high tide. The reason they don't have a yard is because they built as close to the water as they could possibly get a permit for.

Don't go building houses on the sand.

I had my trailer set up in the middle of my lot.

[Beach Runner]

The beach is not their yard. The beach is whatever Mother Nature wants it to be. What if tomorrow we woke up and it was 3 miles to the water? Would that be theirs too?

Oh, and There would be construction on it before you know it, and then the owners don't have beachfront property anymore.

Property lines shouldn't be determined by high tide. The reason they don't have a yard is because they built as close to the water as they could possibly get a permit for.

Don't go building houses on the sand.

I had my trailer set up in the middle of my lot.

I am not a lawyer, so I can't answer the question in the first paragraph. However, it's more likely that they will lose acreage, as evidenced by what happened in the 2005 hurricane season when some properties fell into the water or were condemned.

Actually where one builds is dependent upon the CCL (Coastal Construction Line). Fairly recently the CCL was moved farther north. People who own beachfront lots can't build on property they've paid for that's south of the CCL. I know of a property which was sold, and the new owner found out that it was virtually unbuildable due to easements, the movement of the CCL, and height restrictions, even if they moved the footprint of a house as far north as practical. The last I heard, the lot is back on the market.

Bottom line: thanks to the new CCL, you can't build a new house on the "beach."

[BeachSiO2]

Actually where one builds is dependent upon the CCL (Coastal Construction Line). Fairly recently the CCL was moved farther north. People who own beachfront lots can't build on property they've paid for that's south of the CCL. I know of a property which was sold, and the new owner found out that it was virtually unbuildable due to easements, the movement of the CCL, and height restrictions, even if they moved the footprint of a house as far north as practical. The last I heard, the lot is back on the market.

Bottom line: thanks to the new CCL, you can't build a new house on the "beach."

You've been given some bad information regarding the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) for Walton County as it is the third oldest in the state and is in the same location it has been in since April 1982.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/p...f/reestabh.pdf

Currently in the Panhandle, Franklin and Gulf are undergoing relocation landward of the old location.

[NotDeadYet]

People who own beachfront lots can't build on property they've paid for that's south of the CCL.

Not true. The CCCL is a line of jusrisdiction, not prohibition. It means if you build south of the CCCL, you need a DEP permit, and you have to build to a different construction standard. It's more expensive, usually, but you can build. You might have to resituate the house on the lot and you might not get to build as big a house as you want, but you can build. Sounds like the people you know have multiple issues that might have reduced the buildable footprint to something impracticle for their needs or wants. Or they might have bought something that was originally a bigger lot and someone split it, maybe even a questionable split, and now it doesn't just doesn't work.

[Beach Runner]

I know that that there are homes near ours that couldn't be built where they are now due to the change in the CCCL (sorry for the mistake in the acronym ). I suppose that one could request a variance. I can produce a Google Earth visual of the existing homes and the current CCCL if anyone is doubting my credibility on this. Trust me, we've spent uncountable hours on this issue. Just a little fuzzy because it's been a year since we were actively involved on a related issue.

No splits BTW.

EDIT: BTW I won't post the Google Earth visuals because it would be an invasion of privacy.

[scooterbug44]

The whole idea of "it's my private beach because it's on my plat" is just dumb. Every piece of property in the world has restrictions and easements - even the MOON has regulations about what you can and cannot do on it.

Just because you own a piece of property and pay taxes on it does not mean others do not also have various rights to use it or alter it. Your "private property" may include public sidewalks that you must maintain, drainage or utility easements, fire hydrants that dictate where you can and cannot park, a bike path, a mailbox whose size, shape and location is determined by others, your trees may be cut down or trimmed by power companies, the list goes on and on.

I grew up on a lake and the area of our yard near the water's edge was public property. Not just the area where the waves hit (like wet sand), but an area of dry land as well (like the beach from the water to the dunes). Someone could stand on the shore and fish for hours, walk through the area to get to the water or to continue walking across other yards (all the way around the lake if they wanted), swim, throw for their dog, whatever.

Shorelines and beaches are public areas and there should be no limitations on people using them as long as they follow the laws and regulations (litter, dogs, glass, etc.) How people GET to those shorelines and beaches is the problem. Greedy developers funneling large amounts of people through one small access has created problems, but that doesn't mean we should drastically change the way we all use the beaches. More and more people are going to come to our beaches, so we need to plan for how to reasonably accommodate those numbers. Providing more parks with more parking spaces, bathrooms, garbage disposal etc. is a reasonable solution - having your own security force arresting little kids building for sand castles is not.

[AAbsolute]

The whole idea of "it's my private beach because it's on my plat" is just dumb. Every piece of property in the world has restrictions and easements - even the MOON has regulations about what you can and cannot do on it.

Just because you own a piece of property and pay taxes on it does not mean others do not also have various rights to use it or alter it. Your "private property" may include public sidewalks that you must maintain, drainage or utility easements, fire hydrants that dictate where you can and cannot park, a bike path, a mailbox whose size, shape and location is determined by others, your trees may be cut down or trimmed by power companies, the list goes on and on.

I grew up on a lake and the area of our yard near the water's edge was public property. Not just the area where the waves hit (like wet sand), but an area of dry land as well (like the beach from the water to the dunes). Someone could stand on the shore and fish for hours, walk through the area to get to the water or to continue walking across other yards (all the way around the lake if they wanted), swim, throw for their dog, whatever.

Shorelines and beaches are public areas and there should be no limitations on people using them as long as they follow the laws and regulations (litter, dogs, glass, etc.) How people GET to those shorelines and beaches is the problem. Greedy developers funneling large amounts of people through one small access has created problems, but that doesn't mean we should drastically change the way we all use the beaches. More and more people are going to come to our beaches, so we need to plan for how to reasonably accommodate those numbers. Providing more parks with more parking spaces, bathrooms, garbage disposal etc. is a reasonable solution - having your own security force arresting little kids building for sand castles is not.

So, can we please sell off these gulf front parks now that this movement is underway to declare all the beachfront available for public use? Let me guess:

You want that and more.
You want to take the funds from the taxpayers.
You want to limit new development on private land to keep homes away from it too.

[scooterbug44]

If you actually read my post, I stated that we needed to use our existing gulf front parks (and create additional ones) to provide the access, parking, restrooms, etc. so that we can effectively accommodate the increasing number of people using the beach.

[AAbsolute]

The whole idea of "it's my private beach because it's on my plat" is just dumb. Every piece of property in the world has restrictions and easements - even the MOON has regulations about what you can and cannot do on it.

Just because you own a piece of property and pay taxes on it does not mean others do not also have various rights to use it or alter it. Your "private property" may include public sidewalks that you must maintain, drainage or utility easements, fire hydrants that dictate where you can and cannot park, a bike path, a mailbox whose size, shape and location is determined by others, your trees may be cut down or trimmed by power companies, the list goes on and on.

I grew up on a lake and the area of our yard near the water's edge was public property. Not just the area where the waves hit (like wet sand), but an area of dry land as well (like the beach from the water to the dunes). Someone could stand on the shore and fish for hours, walk through the area to get to the water or to continue walking across other yards (all the way around the lake if they wanted), swim, throw for their dog, whatever.

Shorelines and beaches are public areas and there should be no limitations on people using them as long as they follow the laws and regulations (litter, dogs, glass, etc.) How people GET to those shorelines and beaches is the problem. Greedy developers funneling large amounts of people through one small access has created problems, but that doesn't mean we should drastically change the way we all use the beaches. More and more people are going to come to our beaches, so we need to plan for how to reasonably accommodate those numbers. Providing more parks with more parking spaces, bathrooms, garbage disposal etc. is a reasonable solution - having your own security force arresting little kids building for sand castles is not.

So does this mean it's o.k. with you that the same holds true for our bayfront, bayou front, river front, lake front properties too. Can we set up on someone's bayfront shoreline with a chair, food and drink, radio, frisbee and fishing gear for a family get together?

What, exactly, is the difference?

[Winnie]

So does this mean it's o.k. with you that the same holds true for our bayfront, bayou front, river front, lake front properties too. Can we set up on someone's bayfront shoreline with a chair, food and drink, radio, frisbee and fishing gear for a family get together?

What, exactly, is the difference?

I know this one. This refers to navigable lakes and rivers.

"The Ordinary High Water Boundary

The boundary between publicly owned navigable waters and adjacent privately owned uplands is the ordinary high water boundary. Two seventy-two year-old Florida Supreme Court decisions definitively addressed how the ordinary high water boundary is located in Florida. The first case states that the ordinary high water boundary represents just what the words suggest: the ordinary reach of high water during the year. Thus, the boundary is, in general, the normal or average reach of water during the high water season.(16) The term "ordinary" excludes floods and other unusual high water events but includes the average high water of each year.(17) In determining the location of the boundary, Florida Supreme Court cases recognize the state's unique topography and differentiate between steep-banked and flat-banked water bodies. On steep-banked water bodies, the boundary is located where the presence and action of water has wrested the bank of vegetation and left a visible mark. However, on low, flat-banked water bodies - most lakes and streams south of Orlando - there is no well-defined mark, and the boundary is located where the presence of the water prevents the cultivation of ordinary agricultural crops. In 1927, the Florida Supreme Court also ruled that where the shore of a water body is low, flat, and vegetated, ordinary high water can be determined by locating water marks on local objects such as dock pilings and trees.(18)"
- The Public Trust Doctrine And Florida's Navigable Lakes And Rivers

[kzbird]

I've got 30 years of pictures of myself, family members and friends all up and down the beaches of SoWal to document my "customary use". Blue Mtn. is truly my 2nd home and great escape. My family and I own 2 houses right off the water and a gulf front condo and we believe there's enough beach for everyone. These beaches have always been public.(Unfortunately our condo assoc. doesn't like our view) I'm sick and tired of the "this is my beach" crap. I'm ready to submit my pictures to the commission as proof and I'll testify as a gulf front homeowner as well that these beaches need to stay open and accessible to everyone.

[AAbsolute]

I know this one. This refers to navigable lakes and rivers.

"The Ordinary High Water Boundary

The boundary between publicly owned navigable waters and adjacent privately owned uplands is the ordinary high water boundary. Two seventy-two year-old Florida Supreme Court decisions definitively addressed how the ordinary high water boundary is located in Florida. The first case states that the ordinary high water boundary represents just what the words suggest: the ordinary reach of high water during the year. Thus, the boundary is, in general, the normal or average reach of water during the high water season.(16) The term "ordinary" excludes floods and other unusual high water events but includes the average high water of each year.(17) In determining the location of the boundary, Florida Supreme Court cases recognize the state's unique topography and differentiate between steep-banked and flat-banked water bodies. On steep-banked water bodies, the boundary is located where the presence and action of water has wrested the bank of vegetation and left a visible mark. However, on low, flat-banked water bodies - most lakes and streams south of Orlando - there is no well-defined mark, and the boundary is located where the presence of the water prevents the cultivation of ordinary agricultural crops. In 1927, the Florida Supreme Court also ruled that where the shore of a water body is low, flat, and vegetated, ordinary high water can be determined by locating water marks on local objects such as dock pilings and trees.(18)"
- The Public Trust Doctrine And Florida's Navigable Lakes And Rivers

Thanks much for your clear and direct response.

Doesn't it sound to you like the intent of the law and Article X, Section 11 of the Florida Constitution preserve public rights in Florida's Navigable Lakes and Rivers for Navigation? The premis is based wholly on the ancient theory of pre-highway navigation for industry.

[Winnie]

Thanks much for your clear and direct response.

Doesn't it sound to you like the intent of the law and Article X, Section 11 of the Florida Constitution preserve public rights in Florida's Navigable Lakes and Rivers for Navigation? The premis is based wholly on the ancient theory of pre-highway navigation for industry.

Hmmm. Maybe.

But I know it means I can walk along, sit, and fish from the shore up to the ordinary high water line.

[AAbsolute]

Hmmm. Maybe.

But I know it means I can walk along, sit, and fish from the shore up to the ordinary high water line.

That makes this whole story much more interesting now. There're all sorts of interesting public access versus trespass side effects.

[scooterbug44]

What exactly are the side effects? We live in a community, not a desert island, so other people - whether they be neighbors or visitors - are a fact of daily life.

I really don't understand how people on a beach is different from any other typical use or easement - there are both good and bad aspects of it. I grew having to close my drapes so I didn't give the fisherman a show from my backyard/lakefront window, policing the illegal actions of people in the park next door, shoveling sidewalks so other people could walk on them, and will spend time tomorrow removing the trash people on the multi-use path have thrown in my yard.

[AAbsolute]

What exactly are the side effects? We live in a community, not a desert island, so other people - whether they be neighbors or visitors - are a fact of daily life.

I really don't understand how people on a beach is different from any other typical use or easement - there are both good and bad aspects of it. I grew having to close my drapes so I didn't give the fisherman a show from my backyard/lakefront window, policing the illegal actions of people in the park next door, shoveling sidewalks so other people could walk on them, and will spend time tomorrow removing the trash people on the multi-use path have thrown in my yard.

This sounds eutopic to me and I'm glad it worked for you. It would be great if brother and sisterly love would spread across the country.

I hear you saying that this issue of the beach being in the public's domain is not limited to gulf front beach, but also all other shorelines in Florida. That concept expressed evenly is not hypocritical at all. I think you are correct in that if the State and County grant the beach as trespass free then they also grant the shores of the bay, bayous, rivers and lakes as trespass free.

Some people have an expectancy of privacy on the land in their Deed. There's also an older principle about a man's home/castle.

[John R]

people walk along the shore and shallows of the bay all the time, crabbing and fishing. I never ran them off or saw them run off by anyone else.

[Winnie]

This sounds eutopic to me and I'm glad it worked for you. It would be great if brother and sisterly love would spread across the country.

I hear you saying that this issue of the beach being in the public's domain is not limited to gulf front beach, but also all other shorelines in Florida. That concept expressed evenly is not hypocritical at all. I think you are correct in that if the State and County grant the beach as trespass free then they also grant the shores of the bay, bayous, rivers and lakes as trespass free.

Some people have an expectancy of privacy on the land in their Deed. There's also an older principle about a man's home/castle.

People may not get privacy on their deeded land adjacent to a navigable waterway nor a public roadway, golf course, etc. Inside their home/castle, they do.

[scooterbug44]

A man's home is his castle - not his yard! That's why you can't walk around your front yard naked.

P.S. If you want privacy in your home/castle, the solution is called "curtains" not "private beach".