Customary Beach Use

[BeachSiO2]

A few years ago, I saw a fairly extensive report prepared by the TDC for the County on access points and right of way locations along the entire beach. You might request to see this if anyone can locate. Very informative, pictures, locations, etc. It is also amazing to see the number of public beach access points and right of ways that were blocked with anything from a fence, pool or even a building. Perhaps the right of ways might transfer to public access points or clarify right of public use. That might get you up to that bigger number. This could really open up a bag of worms, so some may be in no hurry to find or clarify. For example, could a condo be asked to remove a fence it has built between its building and the next that blocks a public beach access or right of way?

I am also familiar with the report you are talking about which is one reason why the TDC now has about 50 beach accesses from the mid-20's in 2004. Unfortunately, a lot of the perceived beach accesses were for utilities and other uses instead of County easements for pubic use and access. Additionally, some were abandoned a long time ago in County Commission minutes, or were perceived as publically-owned areas but in reality were privately-owned and have been converted into existing parcels like the ones that we have discussed in Blue Mountain.

That being said, new ones are adequately documented and added to the TDC list every year. For example, this year one was added on Scenic Gulf Drive at the south end of Geronimo Street.

 

[DuneLaker]

In those cases where the county "gave" away the public accesses, I guess it will also be hashed out in court. For the beach property that was "government land" there seems to be some legal precedence for getting it back. Isn't there some clause that says once the land is public it is public in perpetuity?

 

[BeachSiO2]

In those cases where the county "gave" away the public accesses, I guess it will also be hashed out in court. For the beach property that was "government land" there seems to be some legal precedence for getting it back. Isn't there some clause that says once the land is public it is public in perpetuity?

That's a good question, but isn't abandoning a right of way the same thing as "giving away" public land. There seems to be requests for abandoning rights of way off the beach fairly regularly in BCC meetings from what I remember.

 

[NotDeadYet]

Here you go, an email response from the TDC to an inquiry about the policy du jour:

"The TDC is removing items left on public beaches over night. The SO is not tagging items on private beaches as they do not feel the current ordiance allows for that. It is my understanding the BCC is currently working on updateing the exsisting beach ordiance but untill that process is done the TDC will only remove items on public beach.
Thank you,
Dave Sell"

Raises a few questions in my mind. I guess y'all can think of some too. Have at it.

 

[NotDeadYet]

Oops, my bad.
I posted this in the thread about removing stuff from the beach, and then I hit the wrong button and reposted it here.
Still getting used to the new thread categories. :roll:

 

[drivingtheview]

One issue that cannot be avoided is that there are private homes/condos immediately adjacent to public access points (Ed Walline & Gulfview Heights are good examples).

So, as an open question, how does all of this information relate to the new signs @ Seaside (The Seaside Times current Spring Issue airs this debate quite pointedly)? Sorry, but I don't have a picture of the new signs. Here comes my ignorance-I vaguely remember Seaside charging their property owners a large $ assessment for beach/dune repairs after the past hurricane damages. I beleive they did this because the County/State was going to take way too long to make the repairs @ their expense (not the property owners)? Assuming I'm correct, if Seaside owners previously had not thought they owned their beaches, I'm sure this financial assessment made them feel an immediate sense of ownership. Before I go on, I suppose it would wise of me to ask if this is indeed correct? Thanks in advance for your help!

 

[BeachSiO2]

One issue that cannot be avoided is that there are private homes/condos immediately adjacent to public access points (Ed Walline & Gulfview Heights are good examples).

So, as an open question, how does all of this information relate to the new signs @ Seaside (The Seaside Times current Spring Issue airs this debate quite pointedly)? Sorry, but I don't have a picture of the new signs. Here comes my ignorance-I vaguely remember Seaside charging their property owners a large $ assessment for beach/dune repairs after the past hurricane damages. I beleive they did this because the County/State was going to take way too long to make the repairs @ their expense (not the property owners)? Assuming I'm correct, if Seaside owners previously had not thought they owned their beaches, I'm sure this financial assessment made them feel an immediate sense of ownership. Before I go on, I suppose it would wise of me to ask if this is indeed correct? Thanks in advance for your help!

The areas immediately adjacent to the two accesses you mentioned, and in Seaside are privately-owned. This is not a statement in regards to uses for the public that may or may not exist.

 

[rapunzel]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but when we went to Silver Springs a couple of years ago, our boat pilot told us that the state of Florida had reevaluated the value of the springs because of the uniqueness of the resource and the importance of the water to the state, and had began taxing the property surrounding the springs accordingly. This forced many landowners around the springs to sell to the state. Silver Springs was desperately trying to hold out, but the boat pilot seemed to think the park wouldn't survive as a private enterprise.

Well, the beach is a major resource, and the tourism it generates is the lifeblood of this county. The storms a couple of years ago showed everyone that they are as delicate and in need of protection as the springs. If you value the beach appropriately, it's highly unlikely many of these people putting up their little signs and chasing families off the beach would be able to afford the taxes. The beach is simply too valuable for many people to afford the taxes, not even the very wealthy. If the customary use can't be honored, perhaps taxes that reflect the true value of that beautiful white sand would be the best way to see that land deeded back to the public.

 

[BeachSiO2]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but when we went to Silver Springs a couple of years ago, our boat pilot told us that the state of Florida had reevaluated the value of the springs because of the uniqueness of the resource and the importance of the water to the state, and had began taxing the property surrounding the springs accordingly. This forced many landowners around the springs to sell to the state. Silver Springs was desperately trying to hold out, but the boat pilot seemed to think the park wouldn't survive as a private enterprise.

Well, the beach is a major resource, and the tourism it generates is the lifeblood of this county. The storms a couple of years ago showed everyone that they are as delicate and in need of protection as the springs. If you value the beach appropriately, it's highly unlikely many of these people putting up their little signs and chasing families off the beach would be able to afford the taxes. The beach is simply too valuable for many people to afford the taxes, not even the very wealthy. If the customary use can't be honored, perhaps taxes that reflect the true value of that beautiful white sand would be the best way to see that land deeded back to the public.

I have seen values of beach property relative to the "attached" upland areas and they are typically very low. As BMBV pointed out, the owners in Blue Mountain could but it for $100 in Sept 2007.

 

[rapunzel]

I have seen values of beach property relative to the "attached" upland areas and they are typically very low. As BMBV pointed out, the owners in Blue Mountain could but it for $100 in Sept 2007.

Here's my formula --

Tourism $ spent in Walton County / 137,280 (26 miles*5280 feet per mile) = tax per foot