Private Beaches in South Walton - Customary Use Updates & SB1622

Maybe I'm simple but if I bought a house on a golf course and my deed extended on to the course I wouldn't make people stop playing golf. Before you say it's different, it's not.

Very interesting comment. Let's think about that for a minute.

The game of golf... typically 18 holes encompassing acres and acres of property (that's why I lose so many balls). Only x number of people are allowed per hole, of course, to keep the game moving. So the actual usage density is EXTREMELY LIGHT.

Let's say the golf course paid tens of millions for marketing. Even if they were wildly successful, they would not be able to cram in more people onto the course. In essence, the usage becomes self limiting due to the nature of the sport.

So on any given day, you, as a home owner on a golf course, would never see the crowds of people who were turned away due no tee times as a result of that marketing campaign.

Unlike golf, the only usage limitation at the beach, is how many people the beach can hold.

The TDC has been very successful at marketing the beach via the millions and millions they've spent and continue to spend. But unlike golf, the number of beach goers can be overwhelming as evidenced by crowded accesses and no parking.

A private beach owner next to or near a public access would have a very difficult time to quietly enjoy their property without enforcing private property rights. They should not be asked to give up that right without compensation.

So just over 20 years ago or so, beach usage in our area was relatively light compared to today. Similar to your golf course analogy, the light beach usage wasn't a real problem. Again, TDC helped grow the area immensely with millions of dollars thrown at marketing. As a result it's definitely a problem now, as we ALL know.

Hey @mputnal , just like years ago, your posts are disintegrating into disrespectful, condescending rhetoric. BFOs are - greedy, fearful, have no common sense, should allow access to their property because people are generally good, shouldn't put up signs, etc., etc., etc.

New flash!! CUSTOMARY USE IS DEAD.

Everything you mention above and most of your posts are YOUR emotional justifications for customary use which did absolutely nothing to bolster the county's CU litigation.

So please, give it rest.

No need to be rude. We have a good community with problems like everywhere else. Solutions are in the middle not the extremes. You come across as the guy on the deck of his multimillion dollar home holding a shotgun.

Very interesting comment. Let's think about that for a minute.

The game of golf... typically 18 holes encompassing acres and acres of property (that's why I lose so many balls). Only x number of people are allowed per hole, of course, to keep the game moving. So the actual usage density is EXTREMELY LIGHT.

Let's say the golf course paid tens of millions for marketing. Even if they were wildly successful, they would not be able to cram in more people onto the course. In essence, the usage becomes self limiting due to the nature of the sport.

So on any given day, you, as a home owner on a golf course, would never see the crowds of people who were turned away due no tee times as a result of that marketing campaign.

Unlike golf, the only usage limitation at the beach, is how many people the beach can hold.

The TDC has been very successful at marketing the beach via the millions and millions they've spent and continue to spend. But unlike golf, the number of beach goers can be overwhelming as evidenced by crowded accesses and no parking.

A private beach owner next to or near a public access would have a very difficult time to quietly enjoy their property without enforcing private property rights. They should not be asked to give up that right without compensation.

So just over 20 years ago or so, beach usage in our area was relatively light compared to today. Similar to your golf course analogy, the light beach usage wasn't a real problem. Again, TDC helped grow the area immensely with millions of dollars thrown at marketing. As a result it's definitely a problem now, as we ALL know.

You're working way too hard to justify a losing position in the court of public opinion. Face facts. You're the villain in the story of South Walton.

Hey @mputnal , just like years ago, your posts are disintegrating into disrespectful, condescending rhetoric. BFOs are - greedy, fearful, have no common sense, should allow access to their property because people are generally good, shouldn't put up signs, etc., etc., etc.

New flash!! CUSTOMARY USE IS DEAD.

Everything you mention above and most of your posts are YOUR emotional justifications for customary use which did absolutely nothing to bolster the county's CU litigation.

So please, give it rest.

You could not be more wrong about my posts. I have an opinion just like you and we both repeat ourselves a lot yes. The difference in us is that I try to find common ground from which to communicate and that requires self reflection. If you listen to my posts rather than react you will find that I believe we are more alike than not. The human element is emotional with capability to reason. Your post have become all emotion. Using all caps with the word's "customary" and "dead" reveals that emotion. You are better than that...

Very interesting comment. Let's think about that for a minute.

The game of golf... typically 18 holes encompassing acres and acres of property (that's why I lose so many balls). Only x number of people are allowed per hole, of course, to keep the game moving. So the actual usage density is EXTREMELY LIGHT.

Let's say the golf course paid tens of millions for marketing. Even if they were wildly successful, they would not be able to cram in more people onto the course. In essence, the usage becomes self limiting due to the nature of the sport.

So on any given day, you, as a home owner on a golf course, would never see the crowds of people who were turned away due no tee times as a result of that marketing campaign.

Unlike golf, the only usage limitation at the beach, is how many people the beach can hold.

The TDC has been very successful at marketing the beach via the millions and millions they've spent and continue to spend. But unlike golf, the number of beach goers can be overwhelming as evidenced by crowded accesses and no parking.

A private beach owner next to or near a public access would have a very difficult time to quietly enjoy their property without enforcing private property rights. They should not be asked to give up that right without compensation.

So just over 20 years ago or so, beach usage in our area was relatively light compared to today. Similar to your golf course analogy, the light beach usage wasn't a real problem. Again, TDC helped grow the area immensely with millions of dollars thrown at marketing. As a result it's definitely a problem now, as we ALL know.

The golf course is an excellent analogy! Your emotion does not allow you to really think about it. You focus on whatever makes your case seem viable. Density is not the issue. Exclusivity is the issue. You do not see any picture but yours. If greedy and selfish are not the correct choice of words please correct me with better words!

"You're the villain in the story of South Walton."

You've said the quiet part out load.

The open border - open beach group needs a "villain" in which to rally against.

Facts regarding private property are irrelevant. As such, a villain has to be created for "group think" and outrage.

The developers/investors and County administrators have made the BFO's the shiny object of impasse. And the mostly uninformed public has swallowed the bait.

You've said the quiet part out load.

The open border - open beach group needs a "villain" in which to rally against.

Facts regarding private property are irrelevant. As such, a villain has to be created for "group think" and outrage.

The developers/investors and County administrators have made the BFO's the shiny object of impasse. And the mostly uninformed public has swallowed the bait.

Your signs, your actions and your words have informed the "public" and the public is responding. Nothing good comes from grouping into sides. We are all just people and community. All of us are part of community. Why is that concept so hard? Why is it so hard to understand that public beach with rules make everyone happy. It just feels like you don't like people and want more than you need to be happy. I really hope I am wrong but every post seems to confirm. Prove me wrong.

It's interesting that that the other side can only continue to villafy private property owners because they have no other recourse. Nothing is brought up by them to provide any possible compromise, ever. It's still, "All or none."

Look, I understand everyone's frustration. And no, I personally am not trying to win over public opinion in this matter. At the risk of sounding like @mputnal, human nature (for the majority - not all) prohibits acceptance of the current legal state of the beach. I get it. But to continually lash out at beach front owners only serves to polarize the situation.

I've already mentioned that the next battleground will be beach nourishment. And in general, the public's attitude only serves as absolute motivation for BFO to fight it with everything they have. That's also human nature when attacked.

I'm not trying to win hearts and minds here. For years on SoWal, I've tried to shine a light on the fact that just because one is in the minority of "the court of public opinion", doesn't make one wrong. Walton County backed that up in court.

You come across as the guy on the deck of his multimillion dollar home holding a shotgun.

Wrong on both counts. I don't own a multimillion dollar home or a shotgun. You'll need to come up with some other imagery to continue villafying me.

Density is not the issue.

It is if one owns property near a beach access, especially a regional beach access.

You do not see any picture but yours. If greedy and selfish are not the correct choice of words please correct me with better words!

Private property rights...

Enjoyed by EVERYONE who owns private property, including you.

"Private property rights enjoyed by EVERYONE who owns private property, including you."

This statement could be the baseline starting point for a positive path forward.

But the continual droning on about the "greedy" really lacks understanding and awareness. Just "follow the money" as it is the County and developers who want the beaches WIDE open.

Why doesn't the County and developers provide a number of how many people this issue affects? After seven years, I haven't seen that reply. Maybe I missed it, but since it was not addressed in the CU lawsuit either, I will assume they don't know or don't want us to know that number.

And who wants to spend 45 minutes on an overcrowded 30A going from Shunk Gulley to the Watercolor Inn?

For certain, the developers couldn't care less about that possibility.

Private property rights...

Enjoyed by EVERYONE who owns private property, including you.

Okay private property rights is one side of this issue. The other side is the rights of people to enjoy the natural resource of the "beach". We have more people but no more beach. Putting up private property signs to exclude people from enjoying this natural resource is not going to solve this problem. This is not rocket science just common sense. The more signs, ropes, fences etc the bigger the problem. Both sides of this issue will have to find common ground. More people coming to the beach and more wealth buying up all natural resources is inevitable. This is just the beginning of a big big problem. Do we blame wealth or do we blame more people? Do we control population? Do we control wealth who seem to have trouble being happy with anything but exclusive use of multiple properties on limited natural resources all over the world. The only real solution is learning how to share. Sharing does not mean that you are giving up anything really. You still have the beautiful home and beautiful sunsets and the beautiful views. People will show up when the weather is nice. Doubt you will see anyone when weather is not ideal. So you really only have to share the beach 25% throughout the year?!? Why is that so hard. Please explain...

Okay private property rights is one side of this issue. The other side is the rights of people to enjoy the natural resource of the "beach". We have more people but no more beach. Putting up private property signs to exclude people from enjoying this natural resource is not going to solve this problem. This is not rocket science just common sense. The more signs, ropes, fences etc the bigger the problem. Both sides of this issue will have to find common ground. More people coming to the beach and more wealth buying up all natural resources is inevitable. This is just the beginning of a big big problem. Do we blame wealth or do we blame more people? Do we control population? Do we control wealth who seem to have trouble being happy with anything but exclusive use of multiple properties on limited natural resources all over the world. The only real solution is learning how to share. Sharing does not mean that you are giving up anything really. You still have the beautiful home and beautiful sunsets and the beautiful views. People will show up when the weather is nice. Doubt you will see anyone when weather is not ideal. So you really only have to share the beach 25% throughout the year?!? Why is that so hard. Please explain...

Nothing compared to losing your access to your local beaches, but many Louisvillians no longer want to pay for a day at the Oaks or Derby. The infield experience is now $135, I think, and no longer have access to the Paddock area. If it weren't for recent financial uncertainties in the country, they would have started building in the Infield. The Woodford Room seats were $11,000. It's now like the Super Bowl. Exclusive and for those with money and/or connections. The beach is more special but exclusivity is happening more and more. Even little church picnics have VIP areas now! Ellen (Counting down. This week!)

The other side is the rights of people to enjoy the natural resource of the "beach".

And therein lies the root of the issue. There are no rights for people to enjoy a "natural resource" unless the resource is public. PERIOD. Customary use is an exception and the county threw in the towel, like in '"it's dead."

Are you going to demand bay front private property owners allow the public to use their property without compensation? How about river front property owners? How about dune lakes which are gateways to the beach? Natural springs property? Mountain view property?

They are all different flavors of private property that people, in general, like to get away to.

Let me share something personal with you. If it wasn't for the past shannigans instigated on us by Walton County (not including the CU debacle and the great expense fighting it), I might not feel as passionate as I do about private property rights.

Oh yeah, when I made a simple comment a couple of days ago, that @mputnal 's posts were disintegrating similar to ones from years ago, here's @Jimmytown 's response.

No need to be rude.

Here's the rest of the story from 2019 to help shine a light:

bmbv, your post are revealing your character:

1. Dishonest
2. Deceiving
3. Inaccurate
4. Demeaning
5. Dish it out but can't take it
6. Antisocial
7. Anti-community
8. Always hiding behind something

You can stop trying to justify your fake name. I understand why you chose it and why you hide your real name. It's okay. I think we have the picture of who you are and what you represent.

I believe it's a revealing post, considering @mputnal 's professed love for mankind.

And therein lies the root of the issue. There are no rights for people to enjoy a "natural resource" unless the resource is public. PERIOD. Customary use is an exception and the county threw in the towel, like in '"it's dead."

Are you going to demand bay front private property owners allow the public to use their property without compensation? How about river front property owners? How about dune lakes which are gateways to the beach? Natural springs property? Mountain view property?

They are all different flavors of private property that people, in general, like to get away to.

Let me share something personal with you. If it wasn't for the past shannigans instigated on us by Walton County (not including the CU debacle and the great expense fighting it), I might not feel as passionate as I do about private property rights.

How in the world can you not understand the public response to your posts? How in the world can you not understand why your position is not sustainable? The "public" is humanity!!! Your post contradicts itself. On one hand you say that your beef is really with the county but before that you say that the public is the problem. You say you want exclusive rights then you say you want compensation. It sounds like you just want to be angry and feel like a victim.

Just stay focused on the beach for now. We can talk about all the other natural resources later if you want. My position would not change on the shrinking access to ALL natural resources.

Oh yeah, when I made a simple comment a couple of days ago, that @mputnal 's posts were disintegrating similar to ones from years ago, here's @Jimmytown 's response.



Here's the rest of the story from 2019 to help shine a light:


I believe it's a revealing post, considering @mputnal 's professed love for mankind.

The only thing this reveals is your desperate need to talk about everyone's character but yourself. If you take the emotion out and just listen to the words I post I have mostly "revealed" that we all have character flaws. Some may be worse than others but the commonality is that non of us are perfect. Once you accept that you are not perfect (as in all people including myself) then you would be better able to listen to common sense. There is no common sense in your position as it relates to the public's access to natural resources. There would be common sense in your position as it relates to public behavior on the beach but your post are all about exclusive use of this natural resource unless you are compensated. I have expressed that I would be for reducing your property tax if you are willing to share the beach but your posts are unclear if that would be enough. I know how MH and wealth think about sharing natural resources and you have followed that same path...exclusive use.

If you're going to quote my posts, be sure to include the crux of it, especially the part that you said in 2019 for everyone to see:

bmbv, your post are revealing your character:

1. Dishonest
2. Deceiving
3. Inaccurate
4. Demeaning
5. Dish it out but can't take it
6. Antisocial
7. Anti-community
8. Always hiding behind something

You can stop trying to justify your fake name. I understand why you chose it and why you hide your real name. It's okay. I think we have the picture of who you are and what you represent.

Try to focus on the subject at hand (your disdain for my private property rights position as evidenced by your hostile and very mean spirited post) instead of throwing a large soup bowl of words to cover up the inadequacies of your overly stated, hypocritical position concerning goodness, humanity and all.

@mputnal, you never discuss any of the REALITIES of the current situation or even entertain compromises that I've thrown out there. I have accused you of being a surrogate for Dave Rauschkolb and you haven't proved me wrong. It's "All or None" with you.

Your posts just go on and on with no substance unless one considers private property rights a weapon against humanity.

I cringe at the expectation of your next post regarding humanity and all.

Oh, don't forget there are THOUSANDS of others who own private beach beach front property who feel very similar to me as evidenced by customary use litigation outcome. I'm going out on limb here... they are part of humanity as well

I have expressed that I would be for reducing your property tax if you are willing to share the beach but your posts are unclear if that would be enough.

Ooops! I missed this golden nugget of possible compromise. My eyes normally start to glaze over when digesting your posts which consists of so much goodness, humanity and let's not forget greediness and selfishness.

So let's take that to the next level. Would you support that the public could conditionally use, let's say the back half of the beach or maybe any unused beach as of 11:00 AM in exchange for the elimination of property taxes or some other amount?

If you're going to quote my posts, be sure to include the crux of it, especially the part that you said in 2019 for everyone to see:



Try to focus on the subject at hand (your disdain for my private property rights position as evidenced by your hostile and very mean spirited post) instead of throwing a large soup bowl of words to cover up the inadequacies of your overly stated, hypocritical position concerning goodness, humanity and all.

I do not understand how you can misread my post so badly. I do not have "disdain" for private property rights. If you stop feeling like a victim and listen to the other side of this issue you will find common ground. Maybe you can start with listening to your "hostile and mean spirited post". I also do not understand why you lack a sense of the things that make a human...well human. Why does it bother you so much to talk about our human connection to each other and our common human flaws of imperfection? Are you in denial that you and I are equally imperfect or maybe you believe that everyone that has another opinion or belief is imperfect?

@mputnal, you never discuss any of the REALITIES of the current situation or even entertain compromises that I've thrown out there. I have accused you of being a surrogate for Dave Rauschkolb and you haven't proved me wrong. It's "All or None" with you.

Your posts just go on and on with no substance unless one considers private property rights a weapon against humanity.

I cringe at the expectation of your next post regarding humanity and all.

Oh, don't forget there are THOUSANDS of others who own private beach beach front property who feel very similar to me as evidenced by customary use litigation outcome. I'm going out on limb here... they are part of humanity as well

When you talk about "substance" are you talking about your belief that you own the beach as in exclusive use of the beach meaning that you despise other human beings existing between your home and this beautiful and very limited natural resource? You should cringe at your own lack of human connection.

I understand that you believe you are not alone with your desire for exclusive use of the beach and you are correct. You speak with emotion as if to motivate others to join your cause of exclusive use. Do you really believe that customary use threatens your happiness? Back in 2019 when MH was stirring the pot I listened to one of his TV shows. He had a guest on the show that explained to him that it is not what you own but what you share that gives this miracle life purpose and value. If you could have seen MH's face. We are all equal parts of humanity...

Ooops! I missed this golden nugget of possible compromise. My eyes normally start to glaze over when digesting your posts which consists of so much goodness, humanity and let's not forget greediness and selfishness.

So let's take that to the next level. Would you support that the public could conditionally use, let's say the back half of the beach or maybe any unused beach as of 11:00 AM in exchange for the elimination of property taxes or some other amount?

No I would not agree to elimination of your property taxes. I would be for reducing your property tax for that portion of the beach that is being taxed with conditions that you are not allowed to put up signs or fences. Beach behavior should have conditions yes just as your behavior...

@mputnal i appreciate your posts!

Do Beach front owners know or care that when someone sees signs and ropes on the beach it disgusts them?

@mputnal i appreciate your posts!

Do Beach front owners know or care that when someone sees signs and ropes on the beach it disgusts them?

I am not sure they do. Somehow they have grouped people into exclusive use and customary use with the victims being exclusive use and the villians being customary use. When I try to explain that there is a way out of this by just listening to common sense it does not help. It seems they are determined to be the victim and there is nothing that anyone can say to reason with them.