• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts
Jul 10, 2017
98
14
DeFuniak Springs
“So in your opinion your personal economy out weights Walton County's economy....got it.” Wow, did you really say that? Yes, my private property rights of personal enjoyment and financial investment protected by the rule of law under the Constitution absolutely outweighs your and any Walton BCC economic claim to my personal property that I pay Walton BCC five figures in taxes annually on.

Your “economy” or financial security do NOT outweigh Walton’s economic interests?

I recently heard Tony Anderson state; "... we only have tourism..." because the BCC over the decades have failed to encourage economic growth in the north and have failed to mange growth in the south. Burdening the private property owner and taking value from property owners (many who have to rent to pay property taxes) is not a solution and against the Constitution. Walton has been a county since 1824 and BCC are only now claiming customary use of private property that has been private since 1824?

That Walton BCC could not “afford” to pay fair value for beachfront; has NOTHING to do with claiming public customary use on private property. I guess taxpayers can now afford BCC litigation. Walton Commissioner Chair Sara Comander, Oct 25, 2016 stated on customary use ordinance “...if it took spending 40 MILLION to 50 MILLION in tax payer’s money - if we [commissioners] have to, then we have to!” Wonder how much beachfront or more importantly needed infrastructure improvements Walton could get for that? Board of County Commissioners on 2016-10-25 9:00 AM - Regular Meeting - Oct 25th, 2016

You are not a very good guesser. Our family has been here since the 70s, bought our private beachfront with title to the MHWL in the 80s. Many owners have, just like the Goodwins did, who have the courage to standup to the BCC in court.

I’ve heard Tony Anderson say; This [customary use] became an issue recently ...
False. Customary use as been litigated and an issue in Walton long before now. Ask Walton’s $425/hr land use attorney, Mr. Theriaque, about Meyer v. Apollo and Destin's 2002 veiled attempt to declare customary use. 2003 Walton Beach ordinance, customary use was considered and rejected by commissioners. 2007 Walton commissioners directed County Attorney to draft a customary use ordinance and failed to enact it.

Only now that public demand for the beach has exceeded supply, maybe Walton BCC/TDC should stop marketing, and public beach goers don't respect private (or public) beaches, Walton code enforcement don't enforce, ... beach owners are not going to take the public beach goer abuse of their private property anymore and protect their Constitutional property rights and investments from BCC failure to lead.


Your first mention of customary use in Walton was 2003 (15 years ago) which in my opinion is fairly recent. That was shortly after Walton county started getting a lot more tourism hence why it became an issue. Sorry but Mr. Anderson wasn't far off.

I agree that the BCC has failed for many many years on developing any other industry down here besides tourism but unfortunately that is where we are.

I don't own gulf front property so I am not going to act like I know what you are feeling but I can certainly sympathize with you and your issue. Im just worried that without an adequate amount of beach for anybody who doesn't own/rent gulf front property the tourism will tank. Tanking tourism means less shopping, restaurants, and entertainment. With fewer options even gulf front tourist will find a different place to vacation. That will start hurting your pocketbook.
 

FactorFiction

Beach Fanatic
Feb 18, 2016
494
409
Your first mention of customary use in Walton was 2003 (15 years ago) which in my opinion is fairly recent. That was shortly after Walton county started getting a lot more tourism hence why it became an issue. Sorry but Mr. Anderson wasn't far off.

I agree that the BCC has failed for many many years on developing any other industry down here besides tourism but unfortunately that is where we are.

I don't own gulf front property so I am not going to act like I know what you are feeling but I can certainly sympathize with you and your issue. Im just worried that without an adequate amount of beach for anybody who doesn't own/rent gulf front property the tourism will tank. Tanking tourism means less shopping, restaurants, and entertainment. With fewer options even gulf front tourist will find a different place to vacation. That will start hurting your pocketbook.
Nice to see someone take the emotion, sarcasm, criticism, and other negative leaning comments and use some empathy and express genuine concerns. Don't get much of that on this topic. Thanks.
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
WYLTK, it was clear when I heard Commissioner Anderson speak, that he was trying to justify Walton’s “recent” need for a county ordinance declaring public customary use of private property. I doubt Tony Anderson had never heard of or was aware of these 15 year old Walton legal and legislative customary use attempts or was referring to them. Those are just the ones I remember, could find from the online paper archives I searched and Walton BCC minutes.

Thank you for acknowledging beachfront owner’s perspective. Only judges and rule of law; not politically elected law makers can declare someone’s property rights are superior to another.

How did Walton County economy survive without the tourism between 1824 and about 2000 when the Redneck Riviera was discovered and demand for Walton beaches increased? How did Walton economy survive when 50 feet of beachfront to the mean high water line in the 1980s was $150,000? Where were the Commissioners managing this demand and economic growth since 2000? How many years has C. Jones, Comander, Chapman, Larry Jones (Meadows and Imfeld too) been commissioners since 2000? Now that the private property owners have had enough and are asserting their rights the Commissioners solution is to declare an obscure, very limited, common law doctrine of custom to circumvent the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution so they can get something of value for relatively nothing. Relative to the 20 miles of private beachfront property value being claimed.

I’m not worried about the long term Walton economy or my pocket book should property owners prevail. If the demand (use of the beach) is great and the supply does not meet the demand then the tourist market will determine what they are willing to pay for its use. The free market will fill the demand. Did tourism demand decrease two years after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? We should embrace the demand and become more upscale, the America Riviera, to fill the market demand and that would create more better-paying jobs. Now the Walton BCC have pissed off property owners have 20 miles of the supply; not the BCC/TDC, and they can’t just declare 75% of beachfront property that’s been private since 1824, public, even for limited "recreational" use. A judge can but not the BCC.

Again economic consideration is NOT an element of determining customary rights. On the contrary, historically (many hundreds of years), customary use of private property was for local persons that had used a property before the memory of man (and other elements) but regardless of the other elements the use could not be for profit (or take value from) the property owner.
 

formosa64

Beach Lover
Apr 18, 2017
62
88
Seacrest Beach
Danielle Ellis (WJHG) did the story..she is on Facebook or you could try calling the station. She also attends the BCC meetings in Walton County and you could catch up with her at a meeting. You might also want to try the public information officer for the county (good luck there).

I also looked for a date for this bill to be heard or even the bill number which you could actually look up online...surprised (sorta) the reporter didn't mention it.

I often feel the lack of information being given to the public is by design.

HB631

House Bill 631 (2018) - The Florida Senate
 

formosa64

Beach Lover
Apr 18, 2017
62
88
Seacrest Beach
Your first mention of customary use in Walton was 2003 (15 years ago) which in my opinion is fairly recent. That was shortly after Walton county started getting a lot more tourism hence why it became an issue. Sorry but Mr. Anderson wasn't far off.

I agree that the BCC has failed for many many years on developing any other industry down here besides tourism but unfortunately that is where we are.

I don't own gulf front property so I am not going to act like I know what you are feeling but I can certainly sympathize with you and your issue. Im just worried that without an adequate amount of beach for anybody who doesn't own/rent gulf front property the tourism will tank. Tanking tourism means less shopping, restaurants, and entertainment. With fewer options even gulf front tourist will find a different place to vacation. That will start hurting your pocketbook.

So let me just understand your position. Buyer A purchases a $3MM beachfront lot - she thinks it is her private property (because it is). Customary use comes along. Buyers B,C,D,E,F pays $50K for their lots which are not on the beach but advertised as having beach access to Buyer A's private property - and due to customary use now uses Buyer A's property as their own beach area. Buyer's B,C,D,E,F are not paying the property taxes that Buyer A is paying - in fact Buyer's B-F aren't paying any beach front property taxes at all. They get to use the private property and pay nothing for it nor do they maintain it as it's not their property.

Second case. 40 years ago - subdivision #1 was created and the developer deeded the beach to the homes in the subdivision so it's a private beach for 100 homes. Fast forward - customary use. 100 buyers of a new neighborhood #2 who are not on the beach or anywhere near it, declare that #1 subdivisions beach is now their neighborhood's beach too. In fact #3 neighborhood gets developed too and wants to use #1's beach as well.

Yet, subdivision #2,#3 didn't pay a dime for a private beach, like subdivision #1 did. They get to use it - but didn't pay for it, nor do they maintain it - after all it's not their property. They just use it. And BTW - they bring their beach vendors on subdivision #1's beach and set up their own reserved area. Hmm.

I may be reaching here - but this seems just a little bit unfair.
 

ShallowsNole

Beach Fanatic
Jun 22, 2005
4,292
849
Pt Washington
Not that it matters but here is a history lesson. The beach hasn't been private since 1824. Reason #1 is that most of our beaches were in Washington County until 1913 or so.
Reason #2 is that the original reason for deeds being worded "to the MHWL" was so that nobody could bring in a load of fill dirt and build between those on the bluff and the gulf. This was before the CCL. The concept of "private beach" did not enter into the equation. Unfortunately, that is how most people construe it, and once you put the language in - and people pay a premium to have the unintended consequence of a private beach - you can't take it back out.
 

FactorFiction

Beach Fanatic
Feb 18, 2016
494
409
Not that it matters but here is a history lesson. The beach hasn't been private since 1824. Reason #1 is that most of our beaches were in Washington County until 1913 or so.
Reason #2 is that the original reason for deeds being worded "to the MHWL" was so that nobody could bring in a load of fill dirt and build between those on the bluff and the gulf. This was before the CCL. The concept of "private beach" did not enter into the equation. Unfortunately, that is how most people construe it, and once you put the language in - and people pay a premium to have the unintended consequence of a private beach - you can't take it back out.
Never heard this history lesson before. Some old deeds read to the Gulf of Mexico. So your presumption is that the deed didn't actually mean that the entity named on the deed owned the land defined therein?
 

formosa64

Beach Lover
Apr 18, 2017
62
88
Seacrest Beach
Not that it matters but here is a history lesson. The beach hasn't been private since 1824. Reason #1 is that most of our beaches were in Washington County until 1913 or so.
Reason #2 is that the original reason for deeds being worded "to the MHWL" was so that nobody could bring in a load of fill dirt and build between those on the bluff and the gulf. This was before the CCL. The concept of "private beach" did not enter into the equation. Unfortunately, that is how most people construe it, and once you put the language in - and people pay a premium to have the unintended consequence of a private beach - you can't take it back out.

What specifically are you talking about? Beach hasn't been private since 1824? What in the world does this even mean? If you are talking about rights of fishing and navigation that has little to do with what's being discussed here with customary use doctrine.

There have clearly been private beaches in Walton county and many other places in Florida up to this current day. What does what county the beach property was in have ANYTHING to do with a beach being private or not? It's all about the deed.

MHWL is a LEGAL description of a boundary. MHWL is a vertical datum of the coastal boundary. Just like a river boundary. There is no *reason* to use that language in a deed other than to describe the boundary for describing ownership. There is no other boundary that is acceptable as it would cross over the coastal boundary.

The seabed is incapable of private ownership (English Law - Lord Hale) established and first reported case in 1662 - Bulstrode vs. Hall . Florida follows the English rule, as does Alabama and others. The NOS started charting coastal boundaries almost 100 years ago. It has nothing to do with any "rational" of filling dirt as you suggest.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter