Beach Ownership

Seems like this issue needs its own thread, so here it is.

Can somebody (SJ????) please explain what the differences of opinions are in simple terms.

In reading back and forth all I can glean is that there may be some people who own gulf front property who also legally own the beach in front of their lot BUT because the public has used these beaches and claimed ownership in the past, it is unlikely that a court would uphold the rights of the property owners who may object to this?

Are there many people who would like to see the beach in front of their house become private? Please speak up and explain your position. I am interested in this issue on a number of fronts and would like to hear both sides of the argument.

For those of you who believe that beaches should remain as a public amenity as they have in the past x number of years, do you think that the private gulf lot owners are entitled to some form of finiancial compensation from the County/State for allowing or permitting this use?

Thank you.

I think the Gulf front owners who have deeded beach, should deed that beach back to the County or State, and in return, thereby reducing their liability, as well as the size of their property, which in turn, reduces their taxes substantially. I don't think they should be compensated for this in any other way. The public has used the beach without objection from the "land owners" for numerous years and to try and stop the public's use now, seems way too late.

From the Destin Log




Beach issues: Harassment? Public access?
By Fraser Sherman
June 24, 2007 1:15 AM
Destin beachfront resident Kathy Wright says allowing the public to walk across private beaches allows ?violent men? to threaten her family.
Wright and her husband, Mike, are now fighting in court to ban Jeffrey Reed and Bill Leech ? whom the Wrights say have trespassed on their property and intimidated their children ? from coming near their Gulf-front Destiny Shores home, claiming the two men trespassed on the Wright?s property and threatened their children.
Reed and Leech claim the Wrights are lying.
This week, Kathy Wright told Destin?s City Council that the two men had been on the brink of settling the court case until the city filed a brief in the case asserting the right of the public to walk and fish on private beaches up to 20 feet upland of the wet sand area.
?You gave these guys courage and confidence to go back to my property,? Wright told the council. ?If you don?t understand fear when your girls are in jeopardy, you don?t understand love.?
In an interview, Reed?s attorney, Glenn Swiatek, said Wright was wrong: Reed would never have accepted settlement terms that included staying 500 feet away from the entire Destiny Shores subdivision, even when out on the water.
About the only thing that isn?t in dispute is that everything began on April 21 when Reed and Leech set up fi shing poles behind the Wright?s house. Kathy Wright contacted an Okaloosa County sheriff?s deputy, who told the men that while they could walk across private beachfront, they couldn?t stop there.
The men subsequently contacted the sheriff?s office, which confi rmed that the city does allow beachgoers to walk, sit or fish up to 20 feet upland of the wet sand. The men resumed fi shing.
According to the Wrights, the men also threatened and harassed Kathy Wright and her children, and later returned and did so again. Swiatek, the attorney, said Reed and Leech never even saw the Wright?s children. In an e-mail on file at City Hall, Reed said Kathy Wright falsely claimed Reed had spent eight hours on the beach at the Wright property May 16 when his work records would prove he?d been on his job until 3 p.m.
Since then, the Wrights have fi led suit against the two men, and have received an initial restraining order against them. Kathy Wright told the City Council this week that the restraining order proves the suit has merit. Swiatek said issuing one in a case like this is routine, regardless of the merits.
On Monday, the Wrights told the City Council that the city had interfered with the case by fi ling its brief on the 20-foot rule.
?I was shocked and dismayed the city turned the safety of my family into a political issue,? Mike Wright said, ?to make a point about beach restoration. (You?re) opposing my wife?s efforts to protect my family.?
Wright said the city had been seduced into favoring tourists over residents, and that the issue was trespassing, not the 20-foot zone.
City Manager Greg Kisela said the Wright?s attorney had contacted the city with questions about the 20-foot rule, and the city had filed the brief to make the policy clear to the judge. Kisela said the brief hadn?t touched on the Wright?s allegations.
Councilor Dewey Destin said that even though the council would probably have supported fi ling the brief, Kisela should have obtained council approval before going ahead. The council voted unanimously that city attorneys should check with the council before making most court fi lings.
Councilor Cyron Marler asked if the Wrights were participants in a current lawsuit by beachfront owners opposed to the controversial beach restoration project under way in east Destin. Wright said he was not involved, but county court records list both Wrights as plaintiffs in the case as recently as May 7.
Mike Wright told the City Council that the merits of the 20-foot rule were irrelevant, since the court case ?is about bullying, it?s about harassment.?
In a letter to Mayor Craig Barker about the case last month, however, Kathy Wright said the city should abandon the 20-foot rule to protect her children.
?Authority has been given for violent and or sexual predators to sit within 50 feet of my children,? Wright wrote. ?If that rule is put in place, criminals will be able to sit on my back porch.?
Destin resident Bob Biel, a frequent critic of the lack of beach access in Destin, has also become involved, writing to City Hall in support of Leech and Reed and their right to use the beaches behind Destiny Shores.
The Wrights did not return The Log?s calls seeking comment for this article.

?Authority has been given for violent and or sexual predators to sit within 50 feet of my children,? Wright wrote. ?If that rule is put in place, criminals will be able to sit on my back porch.?

So are these two men, being accused, registered sexual predators? I don't understand where that comment came from. Don't the Wrights know that registered sexual predators can go to many public places where their children are playing?

If the Wright's were smart, they would have captured the threats on video. I'm wondering if the two men were being threatened by the homeowners, to leave "their" property.

These people are either paranoid or have a major safety issue that they need to document via videotape to prove.

Solely based on the article it seems these people are crying wolf. They seem to have been tripped up on several major points so far.

“Authority has been given for violent and or sexual predators to sit within 50 feet of my children,” Wright wrote. “If that rule is put in place, criminals will be able to sit on my back porch.”

SJ;

What? You didn't you know that ALL non gulf-front owners, especially fishermen, should be considered violent or sexual predators, and criminals until proven innocent ;-) I have heard of luring them in by candy or electronically, but with a fishing pole. What would you say, here kiddie do you want to see my live bait???

By the way, if the water is within the 20 feet of their back porch that Destin is allowing people to use, they have bigger problems then "predators."

I can see it now, NBC's To Catch a Predator setting up sting operations in the wet sand area of the beach in Destiny Shores. Do you think Jim Cantore would co-anchor?

?Authority has been given for violent and or sexual predators to sit within 50 feet of my children,? Wright wrote. ?If that rule is put in place, criminals will be able to sit on my back porch.?

This seems to be 100% fair and accurrate and not exaggerated one iota (heavy scooterbug sarcasm).

Between the rent-a-cops, sharks, and predatory fisherfolk, the beaches seem quite unsafe lately!

I am one of the two men the article is talking about and I want everone to know that these people are lying. I have never done anything but fish there and only twice. They are slandering my good name in order to give the perception of merit to their case against me. Look at the county records (Jeffrey Reed) I have no history of violence in fact I was a single father for many years why I have not had a speeding ticket since I was a teenager. I am being made into a criminal for fishing on the gulf beaches.

Jay:

It is sad that this is happening to you. Thanks for coming on and to the board. Please keep us updated on what happens with the claims against you.

I am one of the two men the article is talking about and I want everone to know that these people are lying. I have never done anything but fish there and only twice. They are slandering my good name in order to give the perception of merit to their case against me. Look at the county records (Jeffrey Reed) I have no history of violence in fact I was a single father for many years why I have not had a speeding ticket since I was a teenager. I am being made into a criminal for fishing on the gulf beaches.

Come fish over here until the restraining order gets dropped and you win your libel/slander suit and can BUY their property :roll:
As long as you stay away from the Blue Mtn. properties mentioned should be free to fish!

I think the Gulf front owners who have deeded beach, should deed that beach back to the County or State, and in return, thereby reducing their liability, as well as the size of their property, which in turn, reduces their taxes substantially. I don't think they should be compensated for this in any other way. The public has used the beach without objection from the "land owners" for numerous years and to try and stop the public's use now, seems way too late.

Just curious as to your opinion of Kelo. What should the state or county do if they don't want to deed the beach back?

Thanks for the coments, your right it is sad and I never thought this kind of thing would happen to me becuase I am a non confrentational very rational person. it is tough seeing those kinds of untrue things in print when they are about you. I am optomistic though and in the mean time the more people that know about this atempt to limit the publics access to the beaches the better.

Just curious as to your opinion of Kelo. What should the state or county do if they don't want to deed the beach back?

The State or County should do exactly what they did to my property on which they expanded a jeep trail into a paved roadway with a 60' right of way. I still hold the deed to the property, but because the jeep trail had been used by the public for many years, they County continues to use it for a public road. As I said, I own the property, but the public has rights to 1/3 of it, just about .25 Acres. BTW, I'm still taxed on the part of the property which is the road & R/W.

Jay, thanks for posting on here. I never give much credibility to only one side of a newspaper story.

The State or County should do exactly what they did to my property on which they expanded a jeep trail into a paved roadway with a 60' right of way. I still hold the deed to the property, but because the jeep trail had been used by the public for many years, they County continues to use it for a public road. As I said, I own the property, but the public has rights to 1/3 of it, just about .25 Acres.

Jay, thanks for posting on here. I never give much credibility to only one side of a newspaper story.

What about Kelo? Where do we draw the line on public use? I say we just start throwing parties and inviting everyone to all of the great property in the US so we can take it from the rich, who always seem to have the most kick-ass land.

What about Kelo? Where do we draw the line on public use? I say we just start throwing parties and inviting everyone to all of the great property in the US so we can take it from the rich, who always seem to have the most kick-ass land.

I could probably win a case against the County, and have them pay me for my land. After all, the 5th Amendment reads that the gov't cannot take my land for public use without just compensation (paraphrasing).

Where do we draw the line on taking private property for public use? Good question, but I think it should be drawn sometime priort to private development getting involved in the "public use," as in a shopping mall which might bring in more tax revenues. When it is the beach which is Nature-made, and available at no cost to the beachgoer, I definitely think the use is for the good of the public. Other things need to be addressed such as adequate restroom facilities, rinsing showers, and parking. We cannot continue to encourage everyone to use private owners yards as fecal dumps for beachgoers, by not constructing ample facilities. Same goes for parking. We have a few accesses in SoWal, yet many have zero parking, unless you are parking in front of someone's home, blocking the field of view for their egress.

What about Kelo? Where do we draw the line on public use? I say we just start throwing parties and inviting everyone to all of the great property in the US so we can take it from the rich, who always seem to have the most kick-ass land.

From the actions of some homeowners erecting solid seawalls, we may not continue to have a beach to walk upon.

One other note, limit the tourists and non-beach front property owners, to the small space of "County deeded" beach, and you will chase money out of town faster than you can say, "Beaches Closed." The open beaches drive this economy, and if you think differently, perhaps you should look more closely at all local businesses. I cannot name one which isn't driven by the beaches/tourism. The beaches are the lifeblood of this entire area, and without them, there would be no desire from wealthy people to live on the beach.

SJ,
Are you saying that the government should only take the best private land, or only the land that everyone else really, really likes, i.e. land that could make the county a whole heap of money? Your argument is very sympathetic, but it's classic class warfare.

SJ,
Are you saying that the government should only take the best private land, or only the land that everyone else really, really likes, i.e. land that could make the county a whole heap of money? Your argument is very sympathetic, but it's classic class warfare.

Show me a bunch of homes built on the actual beach. I know of only a handful in Walton County. The land of which we are talking is the beach, known to be wet often, especially during storms. While it is great for walking and resting upon, and it is the cog which spins everything, it isn't truly the "best private land" for personal use.

Are you aware that private landowners have personally given access to hikers, in order to complete a 2100+ mile hiking trail from GA to Maine, crossing some of the most beautiful land imaginable? While that is possible, it seems nearly impossible to open a tiny 27 mile stretch of a God made wonder for people to view a natural wonder. Class warfare? How about calling the opposing property owners depriving me of my natural rights to experience life.

BTW, your entire post above, doesn't in the least way, represent my views. Perhaps today is Opposite Day???

Show me a bunch of homes built on the actual beach. I know of only a handful in Walton County. The land of which we are talking is the beach, known to be wet often, especially during storms. While it is great for walking and resting upon, and it is the cog which spins everything, it isn't truly the "best private land" for personal use.

Are you aware that private landowners have personally given access to hikers, in order to complete a 2100+ mile hiking trail from GA to Maine, crossing some of the most beautiful land imaginable? While that is possible, it seems nearly impossible to open a tiny 27 mile stretch of a God made wonder for people to view a natural wonder. Class warfare? How about calling the opposing property owners depriving me of my natural rights to experience life.

BTW, your entire post above, doesn't in the least way, represent my views. Perhaps today is Opposite Day???

My point is that the state should not be allowed to forcefully take private land. No matter what the view.

My point is that the state should not be allowed to forcefully take private land. No matter what the view.

In the case of the road and R/W, taking 1/4 Acre of my lot, the "public" took my land from constant public use over time. I hold the Deed to the property, so in effect, the State, nor County, actually took it. I'm not sure that the State would have to "take" the beach in order for the public to use it. Not my call.

In the case of the road and R/W, taking 1/4 Acre of my lot, the "public" took my land from constant public use over time. I hold the Deed to the property, so in effect, the State, nor County, actually took it. I'm not sure that the State would have to "take" the beach in order for the public to use it. Not my call.

Could you set up a bonfire in the middle of the 1/4 acre?

Could you set up a bonfire in the middle of the 1/4 acre?

Why would I want to do that? I guess I could, but it would melt the asphalt and I'd probably get into trouble for having a fire during our current fire ban.

By the way, beach bonfires require permits. ;-)

I am one of the two men the article is talking about and I want everone to know that these people are lying. I have never done anything but fish there and only twice. They are slandering my good name in order to give the perception of merit to their case against me. Look at the county records (Jeffrey Reed) I have no history of violence in fact I was a single father for many years why I have not had a speeding ticket since I was a teenager. I am being made into a criminal for fishing on the gulf beaches.

Jay

I copied the Destin Log story because I couldn't believe it myself. I think the story makes the Wrights look bad - not you and your friend. I walk this area quite frequently and I guess I just haven't been exposed to her wrath because I keep moving. Please keep fishing and enjoying the beaches that God gave all of us - not just a few.

I am one of the two men the article is talking about and I want everone to know that these people are lying. I have never done anything but fish there and only twice. They are slandering my good name in order to give the perception of merit to their case against me. Look at the county records (Jeffrey Reed) I have no history of violence in fact I was a single father for many years why I have not had a speeding ticket since I was a teenager. I am being made into a criminal for fishing on the gulf beaches.

Jay,
This beach access issue is really getting out of hand especially in the last year. Signs are everywhere and the county better get a handle on it. Once again we will be used as an example in Florida of how not to do something (see seawall section). I ask everyone to please get involved. This is just the beginning and we all have to start speaking up and let the county know we will continue to use our beaches! See www.surfrider.org for more info about the "private beaches". Please join and get involved.

Your right I think it makes them look bad as well but I come from a very conservative upbringing and it is hurtfull to see those kind of things said about me in public. I will stick to Walton county beaches and other areas until this gets better. Thanks for the support