Scenic Gulf Drive

One note of clarification, this project is NOT a federal project and thus no federal funds were used. However, it was cost shared with the state and the County would have to pay back to the state over a million dollars. Furthermore, future funding for this stretch would be highly reduced.

Also, this is one of only two areas with public parking in all 5 miles in western WC, and there are no possibilites to create more without buying land with ad valoreum taxes.

My point is this is VERY important and would set precedent for removing a huge beach access parking area for all residents and visitors.

This is what makes it all interesting and complicated. It was OK to get their beach renourished with state and county money, but now they are not willing to share the publicly funded re-nourished beach.

Purely for effect, the opposition trotted out 2 sweet little old ladies who spoke sweet nothings about the area and beaches and how the county was being a big meanie for planning to improve the parking situation on that stretch of Scenic Gulf Drive.:roll: They were both really cute, but the intent was nauseating.

Why can't people just be nice and share? Was I the only one in kindergarten that day?

One of those sweet little ladies mentioned that the beaches were one of God's creations. My thought was that if it was God's creation, it should continue to be enjoyed by anyone who wants to visit it. According to the both sides, Seascape has been allowing the public to use this stretch of beach for some length of time, yet now that the beach is replenished, they want it to be private. If the County illiminates the parking spaces, they will owe a check of $1.2 million back to the Fed Gov't, from which the County received money for renourishment of the beaches. Did I mention that the cost of both Options 1 and 3, the only two existing options for the new parking on the County's property, would be $300,000 to $400,000 less than it the check that they would have to write for removing existing parking? It is so. Also, the money loss wouldn't stop there. According to Mr Pickel, the County would no longer be able to receive future renourishment funding for that length of beach, and that amount could be extremely costly.


The issue is tabled until the County gets legal advice on who technically owns the beach. There will be some very shady gray areas on that issue, since Seascape has not prevented the public from using the property. In the state of Florida, Squatters' Rights exists, and this could get interesting. Regardless, the new parking doesn't need to be on the property of Seacrest. According to the County, it will fit within the existing right of way. There may need to be an easement from Seascape to allow a common boardwalk to enter the beach, rather than all of the cattle trails currently being used down the face of the dunes along that entire stretch. That will only help maintain the dunes and will be beneficial to all.

I don't want to rehash the private beach details of Walton County. It is a long story and vary greatly from property to property. The next meeting should be interesting.

If I were a voting commissioner, I would vote for Option 3.

I just read the NW FL Daily News article, and it reads accurately. It mentions all the green shirts, but I saw two people who started the meeting wearing the green shirts on top of their other shirts. before that part of the meeting they removed their green shirts. It was interesting watching them, as they didn't clap, and looked rather disappointed when the other green shirters were clapping. The Green Shirters kept referring to the parking lot "being built on the beach." I did not see any of the four option plans where this was the case. Commissioners Jones and Brannon, had to keep reminding the public that the no parking on the beach was being proposed. In fact, option 3 includes 45 degree spaces on an parking access road, on the north side of old 98.

Thanks for the info from everyone - that area is an accident waiting to happen. Too many cars - too many people - someone is going to get hit. Sounds like they are trying to make sure they do the right thing here.

One of those sweet little ladies mentioned that the beaches were one of God's creations. My thought was that if it was God's creation, it should continue to be enjoyed by anyone who wants to visit it. According to the both sides, Seascape has been allowing the public to use this stretch of beach for some length of time, yet now that the beach is replenished, they want it to be private. If the County illiminates the parking spaces, they will owe a check of $1.2 million back to the Fed Gov't, from which the County received money for renourishment of the beaches. Did I mention that the cost of both Options 1 and 3, the only two existing options for the new parking on the County's property, would be $300,000 to $400,000 less than it the check that they would have to write for removing existing parking? It is so. Also, the money loss wouldn't stop there. According to Mr Pickel, the County would no longer be able to receive future renourishment funding for that length of beach, and that amount could be extremely costly.


The issue is tabled until the County gets legal advice on who technically owns the beach. There will be some very shady gray areas on that issue, since Seascape has not prevented the public from using the property. In the state of Florida, Squatters' Rights exists, and this could get interesting. Regardless, the new parking doesn't need to be on the property of Seacrest. According to the County, it will fit within the existing right of way. There may need to be an easement from Seascape to allow a common boardwalk to enter the beach, rather than all of the cattle trails currently being used down the face of the dunes along that entire stretch. That will only help maintain the dunes and will be beneficial to all.

I don't want to rehash the private beach details of Walton County. It is a long story and vary greatly from property to property. The next meeting should be interesting.

If I were a voting commissioner, I would vote for Option 3.

SJ:

One thing I think may have been missed is that NO ONE was there from Seascape Resorts Incorporated (SRI), the actual owner of most of the property in question. The same owner that has allowed the public to use the property. This is very interesting because if SRI had a problem with the public using the beach, they would have stopped it or at least been there last night. Believe me, Jay Nettles, the SRI general manager, knows what goes on with that beach and actively participates when he (or his bosses) feel it is neccesary. They have not stopped it in the past, and they are not trying to stop it now.

The "neighbors" across the street in the condos are. In all fairness the "neighbors" own 200 feet of the overall 2000 feet and they haven't stopped it either. By the way, SRI not only allows the county to maintain a PUBLIC vehicular access to the beach for TDC and other County vehicles, but they also have let other private owners use that as a drive-on for post storm repairs, beach restoration equipment ingress and egress, and post hurricane debris removal. It seems to me that it will be extremely hard to say that the majority owners (SRI) have not and continue to allow public access.

Also, Mr. Pickel stated it was state not federal funding that would have to be paid back. This would disallow future state and federal funding however for this stretch of beach.

I've been getting the distinct impression that SRI likes this idea and would grant easements, whatever, to get it done.

I've been getting the distinct impression that SRI likes this idea and would grant easements, whatever, to get it done.

Me too.

Also, Mr. Pickel stated it was state not federal funding that would have to be paid back. This would disallow future state and federal funding however for this stretch of beach.

Thanks for the correction regarding the State, not the Fed's, funding being involved.

I think you are on to something with the fact that SRI was not there, nor were their representatives. The green shirters and their attorney were present, but their attorney wasn't even able to give evidence that the beach, in front of the parking was private or public. I'm not sure why they even hired an attorney.

Thanks for the correction regarding the State, not the Fed's, funding being involved.

I think you are on to something with the fact that SRI was not there, nor were their representatives. The green shirters and their attorney were present, but their attorney wasn't even able to give evidence that the beach, in front of the parking was private or public. I'm not sure why they even hired an attorney.

Also, keep in mind that a property can be privately owned, yet publically accessible via easement or other method. I have a feeling SRI will be contacted very soon regarding this issue.

By the way, if I am not mistaken Whale's Tail is owned by SRI. If all parking was removed then I believe their business would fail, or at least sales would decline rapidly. Typically, if you own or are staying at a gulf-front condo as close as Majestic Sun, you are more likely to go back to your room to eat and drink, or bring it with you. Not pay Whale's Tail. It doesn't appear to me to be a smart business decision for SRI to remove parking for their most likely source of sales for Whale's Tail- the drive-up visitor. Especially when public beach access doesn't hurt them, it only increases the number of people to sell to.

By the way, they also rent beach chairs and other types of vending that would be hurt financially....

One of the Green shirters or their attorney mentioned that the beach vending on that small stretch of beach, rent to only guests and owners of Seascape (maybe Majestic Sun and Arial Dunes as well). I don't know if that is true or not.

I believe one of the County Commissioners mentioned that Whales Tail was formerly known as the Beach Club for SRI, so my guess is that it is likely owned by SRI.

Note that this area is outside of my area of knowledge, so I don't keep up with it.

The county also has a pretty big stake in keeping that stretch of road eligilbe for beach renourishment. Because Scenic 98 is very very close to the Gulf at a number of points, and it wouldn't take much for a storm to wash out the entire roadway if you don't renourish after a major storm.

There were a couple of spots starting at Destiny and going east where the road was scarily close to getting undermined after Ivan/Dennis. If there is no further nourishment, and the dunes don't rebuild themselves, you're two major storms away from losing parts of the road entirely.

One of the Green shirters or their attorney mentioned that the beach vending on that small stretch of beach, rent to only guests and owners of Seascape (maybe Majestic Sun and Arial Dunes as well). I don't know if that is true or not.

I believe one of the County Commissioners mentioned that Whales Tail was formerly known as the Beach Club for SRI, so my guess is that it is likely owned by SRI.

Note that this area is outside of my area of knowledge, so I don't keep up with it.

SJ et al,

There seems to be definite bias here against what the "green shirters" were trying to represent at the meeting. I saw you there SJ squatting intently, and for you to come away from that meeting with such a slanted view of what went on disappoints me.

SRI owns the Whales Tale and property within Seascape along with roughly 1800 ft of beach. The way it breaks down is the County easement is 50ft from the center line of scenic Hwy 98. From there to the ECL or Mean high water mark belongs to the property owner..SRI and the HOAs. Restored beach or acreted beach from the ECL to the water is for public use.

At the start of the meeting a document was presented by Mike Cheshire (sp) attorney for Majestic Sun, from a title search, that showed the only agreement between the county and SRI was that SRI would not compromise the view of the gulf from scenic 98. The ownership of the beach was/has never been in contention and the publics access to the PUBLIC beach (from the ECL south to the water) may not occur thro' private property. Thats an important distinction. The public has been accessing the beach because of SRI and the county's acquiescence. No squatters rights here.
Just think, for the county to commit to accepting Federal and State funds without making sure of the LEGAL status of the property they were trying to "beautify" is downright ludicrous. That didn't strike you as being odd?
I have talked to Nettles and attended Seascape HOA meetings and SRI will NOT agree to an easement to the county for this project.
So that leaves Option 1 and 3. Either option, if forced by the county, will essentially wind up being parking for Seascape and Majestic Sun, the only people allowed access to the "beach" along the project length.
There are hoards of other concerns..garbage pick up, toilet facilities, life guards etc.
I spend more than an hour most days picking up garbage from the beach currently being despoiled by the "public" illegally there. It will be nice to see some restriction to access of this beach..IMO.
NO parking signs and fences..like it is every where else along 98, should be restored. Thats the way it was.

I, like Beach SiO2 and others, find it interesting that SRI did not have representation at the meeting. I don't call a bunch of green shirted HOA representatives formal representation for SRI.

I also think it is so funny when these same people whine about new construction, parking, etc. spoiling their beautiful beach. Hello!! What about the fact that these people own and/or live in a freaking big a$$ building that probably originally blocked the beautiful view of someone else that happened to be there first? I think the beautiful beach was spoiled when those buildings were built. Anything additional now is not making a noticeable difference in the aesthetics of that area- the roadside beauty is long gone with only the beauty of the beach itself remaining. Now we just need to make it safer and keep some access for the public to enjoy.

dsilvar, will you disclose to everyone whether or not you own any units developed by SRI?

I have not seen an engineering drawing or survey showing distances from the cente line of road to the beach or nothern right of way. I do know that the engineer at the meeting stated that the center line of the road was not the center line of the Right of Way. He stated this after a gentleman told him that his math was wrong.

I studied the four optional parking plans prior to attending the meeting. I kept my mind open during the meeting. I was not slanting my view of the meeting on this board. As I mentioned, the NW FL Daily News story, linked in a prior post, accurately summarizes the meeting, and I just added a little balance to the Green shirters in my posts.

Does anyone know of a "beach shuttle" which Destin operates? The second Green shirt speaker gave a brief interview to Channel 7 at the meeting, and in that interview, he said that Walton County needs doesn't have a beach shuttle to get people to the beach, and that the County should get one, like Destin has. Destin is not my backyard, but I have never heard of or seen one in Destin.

By the way, the Commissioners voted to eliminate options 2 and 4, due to cost effectiveness, so receiving easements from SRI for those two options is not an issue at this point.

I, like Beach SiO2 and others, find it interesting that SRI did not have representation at the meeting. I don't call a bunch of green shirted HOA representatives formal representation for SRI.

I also think it is so funny when these same people whine about new construction, parking, etc. spoiling their beautiful beach. Hello!! What about the fact that these people own and/or live in a freaking big a$$ building that probably originally blocked the beautiful view of someone else that happened to be there first? I think the beautiful beach was spoiled when those buildings were built. Anything additional now is not making a noticeable difference in the aesthetics of that area- the roadside beauty is long gone with only the beauty of the beach itself remaining. Now we just need to make it safer and keep some access for the public to enjoy.

Jdarg,
That freaking big ass building that you refer to, is my home.
Probably different to the shack you live in, but nonetheless, it is where I want to live. Try to stretch your mind around that, because my big ass building was built accordance with the county codes and has every right to be where it is.
SRI was not at that meeting because they are only developers who are interested in making a dollar for themselves. For them, the public represents a market that will use the Whales tale and the other concessions they own. They do not live in Seascape nor are they interested in Seascapes welfare.
We at Seascape, Ariel Dunes 1 and Ariel Dunes 2, Majestic Sun and Surfside are the people that own and live here and represent the majority ownership.
We are not whining about anything, we are just demanding our rights to use what is ours. You should be concerned about the way the County is spending your tax dollars. $4 million dollars for a project and they don't even have a clue about the legality of the project.

We are not whining about anything, we are just demanding our rights to use what is ours. You should be concerned about the way the County is spending your tax dollars. $4 million dollars for a project and they don't even have a clue about the legality of the project.

The County didn't draw the plans for the two proposals, estimating at $4+million. They rejected those option, and did so without hesitation. If anyone wanted to be concerned with Walton County spending, you should be aware that it will cost more to illiminate the parking than adding safer parking. Also, they didn't seem to question the legality of paving parking lots on County Right of Way.

You say I have a scewed view of what happened at the meeting. Perhaps you would like to share your version?

dsilvar, will you disclose to everyone whether or not you own any units developed by SRI?

By the way, the Commissioners voted to eliminate options 2 and 4, due to cost effectiveness, so receiving easements from SRI for those two options is not an issue at this point.

SJ,
I own and live at Ariel Dunes one. SRI are the developers and owners of the golf course. They also have 4 seats on the Seascape HOA board and have a great deal of control over what goes on. Not very ethical, but thats the way it is for now.
Options 1 and 3 still cost just under a million dollars, and although those options do not require an easement from SRI, who will the beneficiaries be?
Park your car there and access the beach a mile west via the public beach access at Pompano Joes?
Also please consider that the dunes, our first line of defense against storms, is being systematically trampled by the hoards that park and violate the beach with their holes, garbage and jetsam. SRI could care less. The more the merrier for business..a la Whales Tale, that they intend to expand.
Currently the Wales Tale uses plastic cups and straws to serve their clients, despite my complaints of EXCESSIVE plastic garbage on the beach.
Nobody seems to care.
As far as I am concerned, the "public" are just hoards of pigs that rape the beach with their unsanitary habits from spring break till the end of summer.
Ces't la vie.

dsilvar, you make some good observations about "the public." All options presented call for a common boardwalk to get people down to the beach, rather than the random "cattle trails" which they are currently using. It certainly sounds like you don't want the public using and creating cattle trails down the dunes. I wouldn't want that either. These parking option plans should help prevent further damage to the dunes, and all of the plans call for the planting of dune vegetation. It seems to me that creating the safer parking would be more beneficial than detrimental, if SRI and the Home Owners Associations are allowing people to use the beach in that area, as was mentioned in the meeting.

I imagine that the "public" that "rapes the beach" includes quite a few vacation renters in the buildings along that stretch of Scenic Gulf Drive. I don't think a distinction can be made between people that drive in and park on the side of the road, and people that walk across from the vacation rentals- I am sure they ALL share blame in trashing that stretch of beach. Some of those visitors are helping pay a few HOA fees at least.

dsilvar, you make some good observations about "the public." All options presented call for a common boardwalk to get people down to the beach, rather than the random "cattle trails" which they are currently using. It certainly sounds like you don't want the public using and creating cattle trails down the dunes. I wouldn't want that either. These parking option plans should help prevent further damage to the dunes, and all of the plans call for the planting of dune vegetation. It seems to me that creating the safer parking would be more beneficial than detrimental, if SRI and the Home Owners Associations are allowing people to use the beach in that area, as was mentioned in the meeting.

Granted,anything is better than the status quo here. And I will agree that the major offenders of the beach are in fact the renters of the many units in these high rises. But thats the point, we already have intensive use of the beach without inviting the public to make things worse. There are over 1300 units in the Seascape area with several hundred more planned.
I'm not complaining I'm just tired of the multitude of cars making life here a safety issue. My son catches his school bus in the midst of this mayhem.

One other point...SRI granted the county a "negative easement", per the document presented the other night, that curtails SRI from building any structure along the said 1800 ft of beach front that may affect the public view of the gulf. This easement , however,grants the county no right to do anything along this stretch, let alone build a structure that may impair the view of the gulf..
In the end I have no doubt there will be some organized parking built here..its just a shame the county accepted all that $1.2 million without delving into the legal details of who has what rights and where.

They just assumed this area to be a public park by default..it isn't.

Let's not even mention the lack of toilet facilities and other services in the county's plans....

Granted,anything is better than the status quo here. And I will agree that the major offenders of the beach are in fact the renters of the many units in these high rises. But thats the point, we already have intensive use of the beach without inviting the public to make things worse. There are over 1300 units in the Seascape area with several hundred more planned.
I'm not complaining I'm just tired of the multitude of cars making life here a safety issue. My son catches his school bus in the midst of this mayhem.

One other point...SRI granted the county a "negative easement", per the document presented the other night, that curtails SRI from building any structure along the said 1800 ft of beach front that may affect the public view of the gulf. This easement , however,grants the county no right to do anything along this stretch, let alone build a structure that may impair the view of the gulf..
In the end I have no doubt there will be some organized parking built here..its just a shame the county accepted all that $1.2 million without delving into the legal details of who has what rights and where.

They just assumed this area to be a public park by default..it isn't.

Let's not even mention the lack of toilet facilities and other services in the county's plans....

Actually, from my understanding of the comments made at the meeting, the 1.2 million is seperate and distinct from "new parking". The 1.2 million dollars was granted to Walton County for the beach restoration project due to the existing right of way parking. The money has nothing to do with the new parking except that 100 parking spots must remain no matter what improvements are or are not made.

As for it being a public accessible area, I think both attorneys for the green shirts were very clear to state that he was not saying whether or not the public had a rght to use this property. For the reasons I stated previously, this seems as it would set up very well for a traditional and customary use argument.

Your last comment was interesting. Are you saying that you would support public restrooms also?

I am confused...if you decide to live in a highrise, why would you complain of traffic?

My only complaint is of traffic that is created by random people parking in the county right of way and traveling down Scenic Hwy 98. ( It is my understanding that parking was not allowed here previously and there was county "No Parking Signs " that disappeared). Our condo is across the street from the beach in a gated community (Seascape) and by the way, the only view it blocks is a golf course on the bayside. Also, Our son's school bus stop is on the beach side and when cars are parked their there is no space for him to enter and exit the bus, not to mention that cars do not stop when the bus is stopped with it's stop sign out and flashing lights. The county does not seemed to be concerned about that, as they have placed parking spaces continuously from end to end on their plan, with no concerns of our children's safety. Also as my husband pointed out there is NO Restrooms on this stretch of beach, no lifeguards and plenty of garbage that is left behind in the area that the car's are parking, this area is not touched by the TDC when they do their daily garbage pick up. My two cents....dsilvar's wife!

My only complaint is of traffic that is created by random people parking in the county right of way and traveling down Scenic Hwy 98. ( It is my understanding that parking was not allowed here previously and there was county "No Parking Signs " that disappeared). Our condo is across the street from the beach in a gated community (Seascape) and by the way, the only view it blocks is a golf course on the bayside. Also, Our son's school bus stop is on the beach side and when cars are parked their there is no space for him to enter and exit the bus, not to mention that cars do not stop when the bus is stopped with it's stop sign out and flashing lights. The county does not seemed to be concerned about that, as they have placed parking spaces continuously from end to end on their plan, with no concerns of our children's safety. Also as my husband pointed out there is NO Restrooms on this stretch of beach, no lifeguards and plenty of garbage that is left behind in the area that the car's are parking, this area is not touched by the TDC when they do their daily garbage pick up. My two cents....dsilvar's wife!

Please look at the plan again. There is at least one break where the emergency vehicle access is.

Please also note the trash bags on the beach that say provided by the Walton County Tourist Development Council, they are serviced by the TDC. As part of the vendors requirements, the vendors are required to clean their stretch of beach, not the County or TDC. I do not believe that the TDC cleans up roadside trash, but with coordinated parking that would be much easier to maintain.

In the seven+ years that I have lived here that stretch of beach has been used by the public and parking has occurred. It is my understanding by people who have lived here all their lives, parking has occurred here much longer than that. I will try to track down some old pictures and post them if I can find them. Also, it looks to me like the parking plans are trying to stop the randomness of the parking and make it coordinated.

I also ask again, would you support the construction of public restrooms? Also, I have never been stopped using the Whale's Tail restrooms that are on the beach even when I didn't buy anything. Have you or anyone else you know. They seem pretty public-friendly.