Customary Use of SoWal Beaches: Contact Governor Scott
- Thread starter Teresa
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Bob, you stated the above. Clearly making the point that you hope and expect beach front property owners, should happily decline and NOT to expect tax dollars to repair/renourish [fortify beach front] private property. My point is in 2015 95%+ beach front owners already have.
Your previous point was clear and stated nothing about how "I would accept a courts ruling." You have no choice especially since it's not your personal money litigating against Walton's BCC abuse of power against private property rights. I wonder how much infrastructure Walton could buy with $40,000,00 or $50,000,000 (according to Comander)?
Believe what you want. Proves my point about "... spin up the conspiracies."
Do you understand Sunshine laws? Did you read and understand the bill?
Besides if I admitted owners secretly met with the Governor .... it wouldn't be a secret would it?
Absolutely a good ole boy deal. Sara Comander can tell you all about that one since it was her baby from its inception.
You neglected to mention he is also provided a county vehicle and gas to traipse all over the county doing pretty much nothing.
As for the Latin, it is mostly gibberish, a garbling of Latin that makes no real sense which translates as, "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain."
I think that has more to do with the web designer and the page not being finished more than it does in containing any factual information.
That is another one of those good ole boys deals where Imfield cost this county money in lost/missing planning fees ($600,000) doesn't get re-elected and what does the county do? Gives him another job.
Last edited:
It's fascinating that people believe that 900ish beachfront owners have so much power when they're opposed by the County and their lobbyist(s), 50,000ish people who want customary use, Surfriders, and influential people like Dave Rauschkolb and others were valiantly opposing this legislation. If they have that kind of pull, I'm amazed.Believe what you want. Proves my point about "... spin up the conspiracies."
Do you understand Sunshine laws? Did you read and understand the bill?
Besides if I admitted owners secretly met with the Governor .... it wouldn't be a secret would it?
If they had that kind of pull, 4 of the BCC would have been incarcerated long ago. Sadly in the latter instance, they do not.
Unfortunately, the 4 BCC insiders and their backers/enablers have to this point had the pull to do as they choose, and that includes serially ignoring the law. The Customary Use ordinance is just the latest and most far-reaching of their transgressions. They blatantly disregarded the law and the Constitution, and the Legislature has responded by slapping them down and statutorily encoding the existing case law such that their actions re CU are voided and in future prohibited.
The cure for the disease the malefactors represent is the ballot box. We can replace two of the biggest and longest tenured transgressors via the elections later this year with two honest, upstanding members of the community, Danny Glidewell and Bill Fletcher.
We all need Walton County to reject the people who have created such an incredible mess with people who intend to do their honest best to make Walton County government honest, open, effective, and devoted to serving the interests of its citizens, not just their own and those of the wealthy who own and direct the current office-holders.
Time for justice for the good ole boys and their corrupt system.
FloridaBeachBum.
I understand that a majority of owners have rejected renourishment. I also know that it is easy to reject something until you need it. As for dealing with it in court, it does sound as though the State Politicians have said that is the way it is going to be addressed. Based on that, it sounds as though you and I will have to live by the courts decision. In the end I have my point of view and you yours and I will attempt to be respectful no matter the issue.
Bob
I understand that a majority of owners have rejected renourishment. I also know that it is easy to reject something until you need it. As for dealing with it in court, it does sound as though the State Politicians have said that is the way it is going to be addressed. Based on that, it sounds as though you and I will have to live by the courts decision. In the end I have my point of view and you yours and I will attempt to be respectful no matter the issue.
Bob
You are right. The "Latin" on that webpage is an "example" style for the page when the template is selected. In other words no content exists for those sections - just boilerplate text (which happens to be in "Latin" to make sure the designer knows that is not real content).
I'm also not impressed with this organization --- seems like another one of those self licking ice cream cones. And why pick this guy as the employee? Was the job posted? Was there a selection process and multiple people interviewed?
Sun Sentinel editorial highlights what's at stake for many beach towns in Florida... Glad this is getting the attention it deserves in news outlets
Rep. Katie Edwards puts public beach access at risk | Editorial
Now she wants to prohibit local governments from protecting your access to the beach.
That’s right. Edwards’ House Bill 631 would ban local ordinances that ensure long-standing public access to stretches of beach that overlap private property. She’d rather the courts decide where someone’s property rights begin and your beach access ends.
This unwarranted proposal would make it easier for beachfront property owners to put up fences, post “No Trespassing” signs and sue to keep more of Florida’s coastline off limits to you and your family.
Do the people of Plantation — the people Edwards was elected to serve — really want a harder time finding a spot on the sand?
Beachgoers may be surprised to learn that someone’s property line can extend all the way to the mean high tide line — the point the water reaches at high tide.
With beach erosion, that line becomes a moving target, but it’s typically identified as the “wet” sand area, or the sea side of the line of seaweed that washes ashore.
However, the courts recognize that the public’s long-standing use of beaches can be protected, even when the land has technically become private property.
Maintaining that “customary use” standard is important for beachside communities, which is why Volusia, St. Johns and Walton counties have passed local ordinances that make clear that beaches should remain public.
Edwards says her bill is misunderstood, that she’s only trying to clarify how property rights disputes should be resolved, not favor oceanfront landowners.
Right. Like no one now knows they can take property disputes to court.
In reality, Edwards’ bill is about eliminating the ability of cities and counties to protect beach access for residents and visitors.
It’s not just beaches, either. Lakefront properties, access points between homes, land near community trails and other sites could be made off-limits by her legislation, too.
Edwards, an attorney, says the courts are better suited than local politicians to decide property rights. She’d also like to end confusion about differing standards across the state.
But going to court is hardly a practical way for families to find a spot on the beach. And who has the money to take on a wealthy oceanfront landowner?
Allowing communities to set local rules makes more sense than having the courts weigh in, property by property. If a local ordinance goes too far, that’s the point the courts should step in.
With her bills to prohibit local governments from protecting beach access and trees, Edwards is emerging as a warrior against home rule and the concept that government closest to the people works best.
We disagree that, as Edwards’ House Bill 521 suggests, Tallahassee should decide what the tree canopy should look like in Key West or Live Oak. Neither should local governments be forced to look away when beach access is eroded.
The Legislature should reject these two bills.
And Edwards should stop kicking sand on the concept of home rule.
Rep. Katie Edwards puts public beach access at risk | Editorial
Now she wants to prohibit local governments from protecting your access to the beach.
That’s right. Edwards’ House Bill 631 would ban local ordinances that ensure long-standing public access to stretches of beach that overlap private property. She’d rather the courts decide where someone’s property rights begin and your beach access ends.
This unwarranted proposal would make it easier for beachfront property owners to put up fences, post “No Trespassing” signs and sue to keep more of Florida’s coastline off limits to you and your family.
Do the people of Plantation — the people Edwards was elected to serve — really want a harder time finding a spot on the sand?
Beachgoers may be surprised to learn that someone’s property line can extend all the way to the mean high tide line — the point the water reaches at high tide.
With beach erosion, that line becomes a moving target, but it’s typically identified as the “wet” sand area, or the sea side of the line of seaweed that washes ashore.
However, the courts recognize that the public’s long-standing use of beaches can be protected, even when the land has technically become private property.
Maintaining that “customary use” standard is important for beachside communities, which is why Volusia, St. Johns and Walton counties have passed local ordinances that make clear that beaches should remain public.
Edwards says her bill is misunderstood, that she’s only trying to clarify how property rights disputes should be resolved, not favor oceanfront landowners.
Right. Like no one now knows they can take property disputes to court.
In reality, Edwards’ bill is about eliminating the ability of cities and counties to protect beach access for residents and visitors.
It’s not just beaches, either. Lakefront properties, access points between homes, land near community trails and other sites could be made off-limits by her legislation, too.
Edwards, an attorney, says the courts are better suited than local politicians to decide property rights. She’d also like to end confusion about differing standards across the state.
But going to court is hardly a practical way for families to find a spot on the beach. And who has the money to take on a wealthy oceanfront landowner?
Allowing communities to set local rules makes more sense than having the courts weigh in, property by property. If a local ordinance goes too far, that’s the point the courts should step in.
With her bills to prohibit local governments from protecting beach access and trees, Edwards is emerging as a warrior against home rule and the concept that government closest to the people works best.
We disagree that, as Edwards’ House Bill 521 suggests, Tallahassee should decide what the tree canopy should look like in Key West or Live Oak. Neither should local governments be forced to look away when beach access is eroded.
The Legislature should reject these two bills.
And Edwards should stop kicking sand on the concept of home rule.
Last edited:
This article is completely misleading and ignorant of the facts. Walton county made a sweeping land grab by issuing a county wide ordinance giving rights to the entire US population to private property owned by individuals without any due process to the property owner. Customary use has been ruled by the FLA SC and it has to be determined on a case by case basis for a specific parcel of land, and proven in court. That's all the bill is trying to do - keep local county boards from simply voting in an ordinance without giving the property owner due process. To say "everyone knows they can dispute in court" is ignoring reality. I think most of us who own private property would be pretty upset if the county came along and voted in an ordinance that turned our property into de facto unlimited public use without offering any proof or getting a court order.
BTW - the FLA SC case that everyone cites as proving customary use across the board granted access to 225 sq feet of beach - that SINGLE parcel, and it has to be proven on a case by case, individual parcel basis.
This is not about PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS. Public beaches have NOTHING to do with this bill - it's about private property rights. FYI for those who aren't familiar with Walton county, there are 8 miles of public beach with many access points. In fact there is so much public beach space that the county allows private beach vendors to reserve 50% of the public beach space for themselves. So no one has ever suggested that the public's access to enjoy the beach be limited in anyway. Not this bill, and not the property owners of Walton county. Very misleading opinion article.
BTW - the FLA SC case that everyone cites as proving customary use across the board granted access to 225 sq feet of beach - that SINGLE parcel, and it has to be proven on a case by case, individual parcel basis.
This is not about PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS. Public beaches have NOTHING to do with this bill - it's about private property rights. FYI for those who aren't familiar with Walton county, there are 8 miles of public beach with many access points. In fact there is so much public beach space that the county allows private beach vendors to reserve 50% of the public beach space for themselves. So no one has ever suggested that the public's access to enjoy the beach be limited in anyway. Not this bill, and not the property owners of Walton county. Very misleading opinion article.