Private Beaches in South Walton - Customary Use Updates & SB1622

We stay at Seaside and notice that the times we are there, the private homes to the east, seldom have any activity on their many decks/porches or on the beach. (One house might be as old as Seaside, but the other 3 - McMansions - are fairly recent additions. This is the same area, where during school breaks, too often a lot of young people gather from the public beach access next to them. Such a mess. Two extremes. No one wants hundreds of kids but also, if the owners/renters are seldom there, why can't people use one row parallel to the beach. That would be a good compromise. These McMansions are a different 'animal' than the condos, etc that have many people staying in them most of the time and would be using the beach. Of course, if the owners run off visitors, they will go to other beaches, and it's possible the restaurants they love will have to close. Of course, retail wouldn't do well either. Ellen (We do have a long history with 30A. Visiting since 1989, and staying since 1998.)

We stay at Seaside and notice that the times we are there, the private homes to the east, seldom have any activity on their many decks/porches or on the beach. (One house might be as old as Seaside, but the other 3 - McMansions - are fairly recent additions. This is the same area, where during school breaks, too often a lot of young people gather from the public beach access next to them. Such a mess. Two extremes. No one wants hundreds of kids but also, if the owners/renters are seldom there, why can't people use one row parallel to the beach. That would be a good compromise. These McMansions are a different 'animal' than the condos, etc that have many people staying in them most of the time and would be using the beach. Of course, if the owners run off visitors, they will go to other beaches, and it's possible the restaurants they love will have to close. Of course, retail wouldn't do well either. Ellen (We do have a long history with 30A. Visiting since 1989, and staying since 1998.)

At the beginning of the Customary Use issue, beachfront and non beachfront owners met with the Walton County commissioners in a “town hall” type of meeting. Some, but not all, beachfront owners wanted a discussion that would involve a “compromise” that would allow access to beachfront owners property during the high season. Basically Memorial weekend thru Labor Day. The commissioners were asked how many people were negatively affected by not having access to the beachfront. They could not or would not answer that question. With the miles of open State park beaches, this was a pertinent question and fact to know. The commissioners and other “local” business owners wanted access to all of the beach all of the time. They did want any compromise.

Pure development greed. No other explanation.

So these commissioners moved forward with a lawsuit they could not win. And spent about $12M of OUR taxpayer money in this pursuit.

And got nothing for the effort.

I’d like to think the compromise might have satisfied all parties.

At the beginning of the Customary Use issue, beachfront and non beachfront owners met with the Walton County commissioners in a “town hall” type of meeting. Some, but not all, beachfront owners wanted a discussion that would involve a “compromise” that would allow access to beachfront owners property during the high season. Basically Memorial weekend thru Labor Day. The commissioners were asked how many people were negatively affected by not having access to the beachfront. They could not or would not answer that question. With the miles of open State park beaches, this was a pertinent question and fact to know. The commissioners and other “local” business owners wanted access to all of the beach all of the time. They did want any compromise.

Pure development greed. No other explanation.

So these commissioners moved forward with a lawsuit they could not win. And spent about $12M of OUR taxpayer money in this pursuit.

And got nothing for the effort.

I’d like to think the compromise might have satisfied all parties.

News flash! Walton County good Ole boys ain't so smart. I miss the days when we had a few who weren't bought by developers.

Both sides cut off their own noses. Nobody wins.

At the beginning of the Customary Use issue, beachfront and non beachfront owners met with the Walton County commissioners in a “town hall” type of meeting. Some, but not all, beachfront owners wanted a discussion that would involve a “compromise” that would allow access to beachfront owners property during the high season. Basically Memorial weekend thru Labor Day. The commissioners were asked how many people were negatively affected by not having access to the beachfront. They could not or would not answer that question. With the miles of open State park beaches, this was a pertinent question and fact to know. The commissioners and other “local” business owners wanted access to all of the beach all of the time. They did want any compromise.

Pure development greed. No other explanation.

So these commissioners moved forward with a lawsuit they could not win. And spent about $12M of OUR taxpayer money in this pursuit.

And got nothing for the effort.

I’d like to think the compromise might have satisfied all parties.

I think you have doubled down on your position and became uninterested in compromise. Possibly because MH planted the misconception that you own the beach and the constitution will protect your exclusive right to the beach. I believe Walton County sensed that uncompromising attitude and had no choice. More people means more development. We can call that greed or we can call that economics or we can call it human nature. Blaming Walton County is like blaming yourself because we elect people to represent us. This country elected a developer for President so do you want to blame the President or blame the people who elected him? Many have posted on this issue regarding rules and compromises before MH got involved. Beach front owners changed their positions and willingness to compromise. It created negative emotions on both sides of the issue. Once there are two sides of an issue humans tend to become very tribal.

Can't blame it all on MH for this because it is human nature. However I learned a lot about power and wealth on this forum during the exchange with MH. Power is a result of exteme wealth. Extreme wealth is the result of an increasingly flawed economic system which is another issue. My observation from this exchange and many other experiences in life is that power and wealth is never satisfied. Once you have wealth you become entitled to power. Once you have power you dictate and stop listening, again because of entitlement. My experience in 68 years of life (which I am very thankful for) is that the more wealth and power we have the more we seem to want. During those early conversations regarding compromise it soon became very clear to me that beach front property owners wanted to dictate instead of listen. So in my opinion beach front owners caused the lawsuit that we tax payers have to pay for. You can spin it like you want but this is the TRUTH. I have learned a lot from this issue about people. We are so tribal in nature and so willing to blame and hate other people that we are capable of hurting each other. Words hurt more than it should. Signs and chains to keep off my beach go beyond hurt. We all came from the Ocean and it is in our DNA. The Beach is life affirming...

News flash! Walton County good Ole boys ain't so smart. I miss the days when we had a few who weren't bought by developers.

Both sides cut off their own noses. Nobody wins.

Walton County "good ole boys ain't so smart" has no relevance to anything. We have never lived in a time where developers had less power than the people. We the people only have power when we realize that we have more in common than not. Being divided allows developers to gain even more power. You know this but can't help blaming all our problems on government. Not saying that government is perfect or even close to perfect but we should blame ourselves as much as government. I believe there is good in all of us including the people we don't agree with. Trust me it is hard work to do this and I fail at it every day. The hope is in that we don't lose the ability to see the good. The only way to do this is to control our emotions. Easier said than done, right

The "public easement" requirement removed by the repeal bill does not appear to be the same as the construction easement requirement. Also the removal of the public easement requirement does not seem to affect public recreational use being allowed seaward of the ECL in beach renourishment project areas.

From the analysis of SB1622 (PDF download):

• Authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection to proceed with beach restoration projects for areas it has designated as critically eroded, and provides that notwithstanding existing law, such projects do not require public easements

My interpretation of the above is that "public easements" = construction easements. The bill states that DEP does not have to get "public" (construction) easements to perform restoration projects.

Assuming the above is correct, and per my previous post, I believe the next legal battle will be whether or not the DEP can come on private property to perform "beach restoration" without permission and against the wishes of the private property owner for the sole benefit of the upland private property owner, again, who does not want "beach restoration" in the first place.

From the analysis of SB1622 (PDF download):

• Authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection to proceed with beach restoration projects for areas it has designated as critically eroded, and provides that notwithstanding existing law, such projects do not require public easements

My interpretation of the above is that "public easements" = construction easements. The bill states that DEP does not have to get "public" (construction) easements to perform restoration projects.

Assuming the above is correct, and per my previous post, I believe the next legal battle will be whether or not the DEP can come on private property to perform "beach restoration" without permission and against the wishes of the private property owner for the sole benefit of the upland private property owner, again, who does not want "beach restoration" in the first place.

DeSantis will do what he wants to do.

From the analysis of SB1622 (PDF download):

• Authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection to proceed with beach restoration projects for areas it has designated as critically eroded, and provides that notwithstanding existing law, such projects do not require public easements

My interpretation of the above is that "public easements" = construction easements. The bill states that DEP does not have to get "public" (construction) easements to perform restoration projects.

Assuming the above is correct, and per my previous post, I believe the next legal battle will be whether or not the DEP can come on private property to perform "beach restoration" without permission and against the wishes of the private property owner for the sole benefit of the upland private property owner, again, who does not want "beach restoration" in the first place.

I am curious to know why you believe there will be a "next battle" and why a beach front owner would ever be against beach restoration. Are you against beach restoration? Let's say that there is one beach front owner for every few miles of beach that would rather go to "battle" rather than all for beach restoration. What would be the reasoning? Lawsuits cost money for both sides. Would it not be more reasonable and cost efficient to restore the beach? I fail to understand what your believe you are losing. You lose nothing but gain everything.

"Lawsuits cost money for both sides."

Yes, they do. The mainstream public didn't seem to have an issue with that when the county sued the private property owners for customary use - which failed miserably and was more anti-property rights oriented than the topic of beach restoration.


"Would it not be more reasonable and cost efficient to restore the beach?"

Cost efficiency may be a valid way to look at the county's desire to acquire public beach via nourishment - as opposed to outright purchasing of the beach via eminent domain and the expenses associated it. But so called "critical erosion" is not a justification in itself for acquiring beach front for public use. And therein lies the root of this issue.

On the other hand, as I stated many moons ago on SoWal, the county should first focus on eminent domain efforts only on parcels where the public has relatively easy access to and obviously not the whole beach. Even if the beach is nourished years out, the ECL (private property boundary) would then be all the way to the dune line. This would still allow the public access to the beach even if some catastrophic hurricane wiped out all the sand north of the ECL. Otherwise, the public could still easily be locked out of the "nourished" beach after a direct hit.


"You lose nothing but gain everything."

There are almost 1200 parcels of private beach front property in Walton County in the possession of many thousands of owners. In case you missed my earlier post, well over 90% of these parcels refused to provide a construction easement for beach nourishment in 2015. The vast majority of beach front owners did not want it. And I'm just making an educated guess that it's still true today.

That's why they are trying to force beach nourishment upon private property owners with this new legislation, effectively not having to get permission (construction easements) from the owners. If beach front owners "lose nothing but gain everything" as you suggest, then there wouldn't be any resistance to beach nourishment as evidenced in 2015.

And I'll say it again, if the county simply waits for the next major hurricane, then maybe the beach front owners will whistle a different tune.

"Lawsuits cost money for both sides."

Yes, they do. The mainstream public didn't seem to have an issue with that when the county sued the private property owners for customary use - which failed miserably and was more anti-property rights oriented than the topic of beach restoration.


"Would it not be more reasonable and cost efficient to restore the beach?"

Cost efficiency may be a valid way to look at the county's desire to acquire public beach via nourishment - as opposed to outright purchasing of the beach via eminent domain and the expenses associated it. But so called "critical erosion" is not a justification in itself for acquiring beach front for public use. And therein lies the root of this issue.

On the other hand, as I stated many moons ago on SoWal, the county should first focus on eminent domain efforts only on parcels where the public has relatively easy access to and obviously not the whole beach. Even if the beach is nourished years out, the ECL (private property boundary) would then be all the way to the dune line. This would still allow the public access to the beach even if some catastrophic hurricane wiped out all the sand north of the ECL. Otherwise, the public could still easily be locked out of the "nourished" beach after a direct hit.


"You lose nothing but gain everything."

There are almost 1200 parcels of private beach front property in Walton County in the possession of many thousands of owners. In case you missed my earlier post, well over 90% of these parcels refused to provide a construction easement for beach nourishment in 2015. The vast majority of beach front owners did not want it. And I'm just making an educated guess that it's still true today.

That's why they are trying to force beach nourishment upon private property owners with this new legislation, effectively not having to get permission (construction easements) from the owners. If beach front owners "lose nothing but gain everything" as you suggest, then there wouldn't be any resistance to beach nourishment as evidenced in 2015.

And I'll say it again, if the county simply waits for the next major hurricane, then maybe the beach front owners will whistle a different tune.

The resistance to beach nourishment just makes no sense to me. If you do not have a sustainable "beach" because of climate change or development on the sand dunes or both then what am I missing? Beach nourishment helps you keep your beach! Something is not adding up if we are using logic.

The resistance to beach nourishment just makes no sense to me. If you do not have a sustainable "beach" because of climate change or development on the sand dunes or both then what am I missing? Beach nourishment helps you keep your beach! Something is not adding up if we are using logic.

Beach nourishment should be done when it is needed. But carefully. The sand that is pumped in from offshore is not linen napkin white. Some beach areas east of PC that had nourishment done look like Jersey beaches on the Atlantic. Not ideal at all. A little research will confirm the end result of implementing nourishment - helps when a storm pulls sand back to the sea, hurts when more beach is available and crowd level increases.

The folks pushing beach nourishment are only interested in more development and attracting more visitors. Really very little to do with "helping" the beach. Raise your hand if you want 30A to become an overrun Gulf Shores or Destin. Taking 35 minutes to go from Gulf Place to Grayton Beach will become the norm.

The resistance to beach nourishment just makes no sense to me. If you do not have a sustainable "beach" because of climate change or development on the sand dunes or both then what am I missing? Beach nourishment helps you keep your beach! Something is not adding up if we are using logic.

In mid 200s when all the illegal seawalls and geotubes went in the owners said they didn't want government doing it they'd do it themselves. It's going to be a huge mess the government is going to have to pay 10 times to clean up and owners will sit back and watch.

Beach nourishment should be done when it is needed. But carefully. The sand that is pumped in from offshore is not linen napkin white. Some beach areas east of PC that had nourishment done look like Jersey beaches on the Atlantic. Not ideal at all. A little research will confirm the end result of implementing nourishment - helps when a storm pulls sand back to the sea, hurts when more beach is available and crowd level increases.

The folks pushing beach nourishment are only interested in more development and attracting more visitors. Really very little to do with "helping" the beach. Raise your hand if you want 30A to become an overrun Gulf Shores or Destin. Taking 35 minutes to go from Gulf Place to Grayton Beach will become the norm.

The 1st Panama city beach nourishment had excellent white sand. The 2nd wasn't as good. But it's a very nice beach and very wide and very public the way it should be.

Beach nourishment should be done when it is needed. But carefully. The sand that is pumped in from offshore is not linen napkin white. Some beach areas east of PC that had nourishment done look like Jersey beaches on the Atlantic. Not ideal at all. A little research will confirm the end result of implementing nourishment - helps when a storm pulls sand back to the sea, hurts when more beach is available and crowd level increases.

The folks pushing beach nourishment are only interested in more development and attracting more visitors. Really very little to do with "helping" the beach. Raise your hand if you want 30A to become an overrun Gulf Shores or Destin. Taking 35 minutes to go from Gulf Place to Grayton Beach will become the norm.

Helping the beach would be to not own and build on Mother Nature's sand dunes. Yet we all know that human nature wants what it wants. You got your development on a beautiful resource but you are still not satisfied so now you want people to go away. I just do not understand why you try so hard to blame everyone else except you. We all got to take the bad with the good in this life. No matter how wealthy or powerful you are we are all going to die and you can't take it with you...

Helping the beach would be to not own and build on Mother Nature's sand dunes. Yet we all know that human nature wants what it wants. You got your development on a beautiful resource but you are still not satisfied so now you want people to go away. I just do not understand why you try so hard to blame everyone else except you. We all got to take the bad with the good in this life. No matter how wealthy or powerful you are we are all going to die and you can't take it with you...

When I see people who live on a beach try to keep people off it I feel like I live in an alternate, dark universe from the one I grew up in. And that darkness is everywhere in this new world. How did the good people let this happen? We allowed the darkness to take over. Will we ever be able to reclaim the world and bring it back into the light?

When I see people who live on a beach try to keep people off it I feel like I live in an alternate, dark universe from the one I grew up in. And that darkness is everywhere in this new world. How did the good people let this happen? We allowed the darkness to take over. Will we ever be able to reclaim the world and bring it back into the light?

We seem to be going in the wrong direction but I hope it is just temporary. Maybe just a blip. All it takes is one bad apple and a lot of worms. We were taught to live and let live but now we know that we must be more vigilant. Vigilant means wakeful and watchful of danger. I believe these people are dangerous to society. How could they not be. They use and abuse society for personal gain and then they file lawsuits to keep society away. On the flip side it will take many more good apples to right the ship. Unfortunately people are a mixed bag and will have to work to find the light. Lets hope society is willing and able to work toward a better future than what we have at the moment...

From @mputnal
"The resistance to beach nourishment just makes no sense to me."

What a surprise after explaining to you that 1000s, yes thousands, of other owners don't want beach nourishment. Their property, their desires - not yours. It makes sense to them and that's what counts in the court of logic.

From @mputnal
"The resistance to beach nourishment just makes no sense to me."

What a surprise after explaining to you that 1000s, yes thousands, of other owners don't want beach nourishment. Their property, their desires - not yours. It makes sense to them and that's what counts in the court of logic.

Their property, NO! Their desires, yes! They built on the sand dunes which were their to protect the beach. It was a natural flow of sand not land. You messed it up. We taxpayers have to fix it. Logic is a system of reasoning like don't build on the sand dune unless you are willing to replace the sand that the natural sand dunes did for free. Your "court of logic" is a kind of never satisfied emotion that is dangerous to society. Do you believe those "thousands" of bfo's are all willing to spend the money to replace the sand? No, this is all about fear of a family going to the beach and ruining your life.

Their property, NO! Their desires, yes! They built on the sand dunes which were their to protect the beach. It was a natural flow of sand not land. You messed it up. We taxpayers have to fix it. Logic is a system of reasoning like don't build on the sand dune unless you are willing to replace the sand that the natural sand dunes did for free. Your "court of logic" is a kind of never satisfied emotion that is dangerous to society. Do you believe those "thousands" of bfo's are all willing to spend the money to replace the sand? No, this is all about fear of a family going to the beach and ruining your life.

You would need a time machine and a bunch of money to get the dunes back. There was no entity here to stop the sale and development of beachfront back in the day. No one who cared when it was carved up. Hard to believe SoWal was considered nearly worthless before pavement.

When I see people who live on a beach try to keep people off it I feel like I live in an alternate, dark universe from the one I grew up in. And that darkness is everywhere in this new world. How did the good people let this happen? We allowed the darkness to take over. Will we ever be able to reclaim the world and bring it back into the light?

Because of mental health issues. People are more and more mentally ill. My personal theory is that its due to individualism, less focus on family, sending babies to day care at 6 weeks old, all that contributes to the increase of mental health issues and aggressivity. There’s no love. Back then, families were more tight, no day care before 3 years old and the economy also was better which helped people. As time goes on, society is devolving, adopting bad decisions, not investing in families and supporting them. Unfortunately, society is just like the ocean, we all swim in the same ecosystem healthy fish along swampy/pond fish. Normal people along the psychos. And, yeah, these people are dangerous. They are so far gone in their dark sinful behaviors, they have adopted evil ways as a norm. Greed. Pride. Entitlement. It reeks. They can’t even stop for a minute and think about their actions, no insights, no possibility of doing better in this life. They’ll only realize after they die or maybe never like the rich man in the parable "the rich man & Lazarus”. It’s like they’re blind and in their rage, they risk bringing innocent people into their world. The best thing you can do is let them and get away from them. Never interact with them. They’re like the plague, get too close and you’ll get infected. I know we’re supposed to pray for them, but it’s hard to pray for these kind of people in all honesty. They are the reason of so many bad stuff in society. The only honest prayer I can say is that I hope God takes away their wealth and gives it to people who truly contribute and better society. We should stay humble and whenever we have means, do productive things with our excess money like help the community, build things to make this place better, do ambitious projects like build churches libraries, create culture, encourage positive initiatives that lessen homelessness, increase literacy, increase the wellbeing of the community as a whole, use each our talents to make the world a tiny bit better and relieve people of stress, anxiety and darkness, not create it.

I'm convinced that newly created @JuridicBeach is actually @mputnal .

How do I know?

Painfully long posts with no substance. But the real telltale is the complete absence of paragraphs. And those are free to everyone.

It truly saddens me how the mob mentality thinks they are right solely based on majority opinion. It does smell like a lynch mob with nothing to back up their position other than their "feelings". It's a true sign of desperation with total contempt for private property rights.

I'm convinced that newly created @JuridicBeach is actually @mputnal .

How do I know?

Painfully long posts with no substance. But the real telltale is the complete absence of paragraphs. And those are free to everyone.

It truly saddens me how the mob mentality thinks they are right solely based on majority opinion. It does smell like a lynch mob with nothing to back up their position other than their "feelings". It's a true sign of desperation with total contempt for private property rights.

We are both sad but for different reasons. I am sad because you see families enjoying the beach as a "lynch mob". You are not able to see beyond some kind of paranoia about people taking something from you. I keep asking the question what are people taking from you and you keep deflecting into this rant about mobs. You pushed your agenda so hard that the Legislative branch got involved and it is not going your way so you resort to personal attacks. I use my name and you hide your name. I am one person. I am one human being. I am not two or more people posting like MH. A family enjoying the beach is not hurting you. Human beings enjoying the beach are not hurting you. I am not hurting you or attacking you or at least I am aware and trying not to. I am honestly just trying to understand why you believe what you believe about this natural resource and the people who want to enjoy it.

I believe we are on the same page regarding property rights but the problem is you believe you have rights to prevent people from enjoying the beach. The beach can not be sectioned off to serve only you. If you want that then go purchase an island somewhere. A family going to the beach does not live on the beach. They visit the beach and then go home.
You built or inherited property that was built on a sand dune that prevents people from even seeing the beach and mother nature from protecting the beach yet you want to blame the people going to the beach, government for allowing people to go to the beach and then you become a victim of mob behavior. I don't know you except what you type in this forum but you are so wrong about so many things. I do agree with you that this is truly saddening...

Hello. I am an infrequent poster but frequent reader of this forum and a long time visitor to Seagrove and surrounds for over 50 years. Started with Willie Snow Ethridge's house on the bluff. So seen a bit of change over the years. Some good; some not so good. In the latter category is the concept of "private beach". I posted on this issue a long time ago and have been observing since; my opinion has not changed. I am glad to see that that concept may be on its way out to sea.

The beaches should NOT be privatized, the wildly offensive signs on the beach to that effect should be prohibited, the ghost chairs set up by private BFOs are, well, embarrassing for them, and the county should enforce its ordinances prohibiting bad behavior and actors on the beach. While not an insider, focusing on bad actors is not going to offend tourists so that people quit coming ($$$). The private beach concept will. Including me and many I know who just won't come there now. Hope yall get it right.

Started with Willie Snow Ethridge's house on the bluff.

What's the story for those of us who don't know the name?

I'm convinced that newly created @JuridicBeach is actually @mputnal .

How do I know?

Painfully long posts with no substance. But the real telltale is the complete absence of paragraphs. And those are free to everyone.

It truly saddens me how the mob mentality thinks they are right solely based on majority opinion. It does smell like a lynch mob with nothing to back up their position other than their "feelings". It's a true sign of desperation with total contempt for private property rights.

Idk who that is, you have paranoia. Might want to check yourself in a psychiatric hospital to get a mental health check.

Goofy answer. Stay miserable in your little scarcity mindset and entitlement. Get help honestly, and don’t skip your meds. Soon enough you’ll probably end up dying in a shooting about sand cause you’ll piss off the wrong kind of crazies like yourself, cause that’s what irrational lunatics like you end up doing. They put themselves in even crazier absurd situations. Natural selection some might say. You won’t be missed with your attitude you definitely don’t have a fan club out there. Who loves you in your life? Does your own mother even does? Is that why you’re so hateful? Is it because your mom never loved you or showed you good manners? Take your miserable argument to Jesus when you die, we’ll see what he has to say about your "private beach" and your mentality. What a waste honestly. Willfully choosing to spend your life hating, and focusing on all the wrong things. You speak of mob mentality, but that’s you. You’re the mob person. You’re the mafia. You’re the crazy insensitive person. The hateful prick masquerading under "private property" BS. It can’t even be your private property. Common law does not admit this theory of yours. Never has and never will. Read a book. I hope someone makes a map indicating all the pricks like yourself who harrass people, and I hope there’s gonna be activist groups who will go there on purpose. We should go specifically there and set up and be like hundreds each week we’ll have a meet in your backyard. I also hope you lose all your wealth. You don’t deserve it. Jesus gave it to you with a choice, hoping you’d do the good you’re able to. And, instead of honoring that stewardship, you chose to showcase your hate, and you use it to follow Satan’s ways. You’re a fool.