Customary Use Will Happen On Sowal Beaches
- Thread starter Dave Rauschkolb
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
I haven't thought about it much but it makes sense in a commercial building that holds lots of people so you can ensure egress in an emergency. I don't think 20 or 30 people in a house is going to be a problem for emergency exit. 50 yes, 20 no.
The number of beds and limiting parking spaces is enough to address the situation. If there are 40 people staying in a house with people sleeping on the floors then yes that could be a problem. Is it happening? Maybe on occasion. Is the argument that if 8 people are staying in a house instead of 20 that a fire will kill fewer? Maybe we should require more doors, bigger doors and fire escapes on rental houses?
My guess is you just want fewer people coming to SoWal and you want them all to behave and if they don't then you require that the sheriff get on their butts immediately and fine them or jail them.
@John G Nanny Stater
My guess is you just want fewer people coming to SoWal and you want them all to behave and if they don't then you require that the sheriff get on their butts immediately and fine them or jail them.
That's actually a pretty fair assessment...
Before the customary-take ordinance, if a beachfront property owner (to the MHWL with proof of ownership) asked you or any uninvited persons to make space for their friends and family on their beachfront property, would you or would you expect the uninvited persons to respect that owner's request or demand to occupy their own property? Or would you expect the beachfront owner not to use their property (they pay taxes on)?
But where I differ from you is that I only want to maintain the status quo and you want to change the entire character and use patterns of the single most important economic engine in this county. I believe a desire to change the status quo is liberal and a desire for things to remain as they have been is conservative.[/QUOTE]
We have very different perspectives of the status quo, if there is such a thing. Status quo since when? The status quo before April 1, 2017 was the Walton Sheriff recognized beachfront owners property rights, that includes the right of enjoyment and exclusive use should the owner want. Just because beachfront owners did/have not enforce their property rights does not mean that the property owners gave up any rights (let's not quibble about prescriptive easements etc.). The TDC should educate the public and the public should understand littoral private property rights, know where PUBLIC property boundaries are (otherwise it is private property and should respect the owner's rights), and be grateful should the owner not ask them to leave their private property. Not the self-entitled your-property is my-property kumbaya.
But since you believe that the government can tell you HOW you can use your private property then I am sure you do not object to the prohibition on signs, fences, or any other objects being placed on the beach.[/QUOTE]
If it does not interfere with the property owners right of free speech to display that they Love the USA or think the BCC should be voted out, contradict state law, like how to post property boundaries to enforce trespass laws, like FS 810.011, or is a legitimate barrier to emergency services, I would likely have no objection. I've seen Walton vehicles drive around volleyball nets so I doubt that any of the signs, plastic chain, or other objects marking property boundaries could not be driven around, removed or run over, in a true life and death emergency. Not Walton's disingenuous definition of obstruction. If you educate the public to respect private property owners rights and enforce the beach activities laws I doubt many or any owners would put "obstructions" on their property.
Good discussions. Thanks. I realize non-beachfront property owners like you and Dave R. and the majority want free use of private beachfront property - because you want it and you think you deserve it and none of these customary-use facts will change your minds. Heck even the state park beaches have more property restrictions than private beachfront owners with customary-take have now.
What frustrates me is guys like you, Dave R., Bob bob, and others who do not understand the historical (many hundreds of years) legal concept/criteria of custom, or how it does and does not apply to property, mislead others that customary-use is one thing when it’s not, and custom is going to solve all the problems on the beach and economy. That the Walton BCC has created by their incompetence over years and attacking private property rights, owners have had, including private use and enjoyment. How many FL beachfront properties have been subject to customary-use since 1975 and not over-turned by higher courts?
If property owners prevail, then what? I will not be too accommodating to uninvited people on my property like I have in the past. Not after the BCC cost me and the other 900 Walton beachfront owners ten$ or hundred$ of thousand$ of dollar$ each to protect our Constitutional rights. It will be too late for the BCC to respect beachfront owners private property rights then - the Walton BCC and Sheriff will have to respect and enforce all owner’s private property rights.
Sir (or Ma'am) I have no idea how long you have been a resident of Walton County, but I have lived here all my life. In fact, my maternal family has lived in Walton County since the 1820's. So when I say status quo, I am talking about many, many years. I have no desire personally to use either the public or private beaches; as I said, in the last 30 years are so I have became a freshwater kind of guy. But I do understand that the community was built on the premise that the beaches were for the enjoyment of the tourists and citizens including walking, sunbathing and fishing. The Sheriff's Office cannot change what has always been, nor can the BCC or you or I. It is what it is. I do not want anything that is not mine and surely support your right to enjoy and protect your property. But I also believe that you knew when you bought your slice of paradise that the public used the beaches to walk, sunbathe and fish and so your property came with these stipulations. As I have previously said, the courts will determine whether I am right or you are. It is what it is.
Danny, I do not understand. Which is it? Your ancestors hated change in Walton County over the decades or Walton has always been the same; and the greedy wealthy carpet baggers, attracted by the decades of $20 million dollar a year Walton TDC marketing to bring them here, want to change the “status quo” (not your words but that’s what I get from you and words I’ve heard and read by the BCC during the 2016 primaries and the majority for public rights above private property rights)?
Danny, have you ever resided south of 98 or do you reside in far North Walton? Have you ever owned beachfront? The community was built on the premise that the beaches were for tourist and citizens? Built on who’s premise? Not by the people I know. Tourist and the public did not pay for the beachfront property; property owners did. When Walton allowed private property ownership and recorded the title people paid for, the property was private with all the property rights you have in north Walton. When I came here to live many decades ago; I understand the community was built on respect for other's private property and owners could and have shared their beachfront property at their pleasure.
You are wrong in your belief about our family and if you talk to recent beachfront property owners they will tell you they bought in Walton because they could own private property to the water. Our family has been here since the 1960s. They bought beachfront for our family’s use knowing their title states to the MHWL, the foreshore is public, and we have paid property taxes on it ever since. Heck we have paid many times more in property taxes than we did to purchase the property. Nowhere in our property title does it stipulate anything about public use without our permission. Nor does it in the Constitution.
Most of the time we don’t mind if others use our private property and other times we do mind. I agree with others that there is more private and public demand for Walton beachfront and inconsiderate tourist have increased exponentially each year for the last five years or more. Upsetting the “status quo”, if there is one. The only status quo I know of is that in Walton County, private property rights and the Constitution have not changed since Florida became a state in 1845; until April 1, 2017.
Yes, it is what it is, and the courts will decide except ALL the Walton tax payers may have to pay up to $40 to $50 million (according to Commissioner Comander Oct 2016) to find out. What if owners prevail? I wonder what kind of roads and infrastructure Walton could get for $50M?
Wow, after reading all 4 pages of this, I`m glad we just bought a waterfront home in Freeport. Have fun ya`ll.
Last edited:
Don't be so sure there Gumby. ANY private property, if Walton County BCC and the majority of the voting public, or anyone really, desire and demand use of your property, may claim customary use of it without your permission. If the Walton BCC think people have used your waterfront shoreline for decades, Walton County archeologist expert, Dr. Miller, “proves” native Americans and the public have used your waterfront property to recreate since before 1970, or if the Walton economy will collapse if the public does not have access to your private property (according to Danny). That is enough justification to claim customary use of your private waterfront property for the public without your permission. I'm sure you wouldn't mind the public pulling up to your waterfront and coming up to within 15 feet of your house. Like the BCC permits in beach ordinance 2017-10. You knew if it was customary or not that Native American and the public have used the water and your property frontage since time-immemorial before you bought it right? And the title/deed? Don't mind that piece of paper; the Walton BCC will tell you who has the right to use your property. It's not that farfetched.
Like in Aug 2016 Gulf Trace, neighbors, Randy New and Russell Tippens, inland from the beach, represented by David Theriaque, who also represents Walton County for $425/hr, claimed an easement (claim rejected by Judge Green) and customary use of David Bradford’s private property (TBD) because the Bradford's had the gall to want to have private use and enjoyment of the property they own to the water's edge and pay property taxes on. It was in the news paper.
Customary use is a very narrow legal doctrine that has been interrupted by the majority in Walton, like Danny, Dave R., and BCC, that could apply to anyone's property anywhere in Walton County; not just the beach. It's just that the Walton BCC, majority of voters and public want beachfront, not waterfront in Freeport, without paying you for it, for now.
Last edited by a moderator:
FloridaBeach Bum, I respect your opinion and do not fault you for standing up for what you believe. But you go way too far and flat out misstate and misrepresent the views and opinions of others to try and defend your position. I for one have never said that customary use applies in any way to bay front property or any other property except the white sandy beach on the gulf. The only reason I believe that the narrow strip of white sand falls under customary use is that in fact the public has used it to walk, sunbathe and fish as far back as anyone can remember. Period. As you so frequently point out, that is a very narrow legal doctrine and absolutely cannot be applied to 99.9% of the real property in Walton County. To say otherwise is to attempt to use scare tactics to further your position.
County must now prove Customary Use exists
Friday
Posted Apr 7, 2017 at 7:58 AM
By DEBORAH WHEELER
The Walton Sun
As the battles continue over Customary Use, Walton County lost the latest skirmish over the weekend.
Fort Panic Beachfront property-owners Ed and DeLanie Goodwin are suing the county over its Customary Use ordinance, which went into effect April 1.
An order was issued by Chief United States District Court Judge Casey Rodgers on March 31 denying the county’s petition to dismiss the lawsuit. Rodgers also established 45 days for discovery, which gives the county 45 days to prove uninterrupted Customary Use of Walton County’s beaches exists by the public, said the Goodwin’s Attorney Will Dunaway.
However, Rodgers also denied the Goodwin’s request for a Temporary Injunction preventing the county from enforcing the Customary Use ordinance, said County Attorney Mark Davis.
“The Goodwins are pleased that Judge Rodgers denied Walton County’s Motion to Dismiss,” Dunaway said in a prepared statement to The Sun. “The judge gave the parties 45 days to complete discovery. That means the county has 45 days to produce evidence supporting its claim against the Goodwins.
“At the conclusion of the 45 days, the Goodwins expect to file a Motion for Summary Judgment,” he added. “Importantly, in allowing the Customary Use ordinance to go into effect, Judge Rodgers’ order was clear that if the county fails to prove its case against the Goodwins, then the Goodwins (and all beachfront private property owners) will be entitled to compensation from Walton County for the loss of use of their beachfront.”
No court date has been set for the case. It will be heard in Pensacola.
The Goodwins filed their initial complaint in June 2016 to protect their free speech to erect “private property” and “no trespassing” signs on their property.
“We are very pleased that the judge has allowed our case to proceed,” said DeLanie Goodwin, who, along with her husband, bought their home in 1971.
Friday
Posted Apr 7, 2017 at 7:58 AM
By DEBORAH WHEELER
The Walton Sun
As the battles continue over Customary Use, Walton County lost the latest skirmish over the weekend.
Fort Panic Beachfront property-owners Ed and DeLanie Goodwin are suing the county over its Customary Use ordinance, which went into effect April 1.
An order was issued by Chief United States District Court Judge Casey Rodgers on March 31 denying the county’s petition to dismiss the lawsuit. Rodgers also established 45 days for discovery, which gives the county 45 days to prove uninterrupted Customary Use of Walton County’s beaches exists by the public, said the Goodwin’s Attorney Will Dunaway.
However, Rodgers also denied the Goodwin’s request for a Temporary Injunction preventing the county from enforcing the Customary Use ordinance, said County Attorney Mark Davis.
“The Goodwins are pleased that Judge Rodgers denied Walton County’s Motion to Dismiss,” Dunaway said in a prepared statement to The Sun. “The judge gave the parties 45 days to complete discovery. That means the county has 45 days to produce evidence supporting its claim against the Goodwins.
“At the conclusion of the 45 days, the Goodwins expect to file a Motion for Summary Judgment,” he added. “Importantly, in allowing the Customary Use ordinance to go into effect, Judge Rodgers’ order was clear that if the county fails to prove its case against the Goodwins, then the Goodwins (and all beachfront private property owners) will be entitled to compensation from Walton County for the loss of use of their beachfront.”
No court date has been set for the case. It will be heard in Pensacola.
The Goodwins filed their initial complaint in June 2016 to protect their free speech to erect “private property” and “no trespassing” signs on their property.
“We are very pleased that the judge has allowed our case to proceed,” said DeLanie Goodwin, who, along with her husband, bought their home in 1971.