Led away in Handcuffs

I had some real responses thought out, but what the hell...

Shoot the mutt!!!

All this dog talk makes me miss Saint George Island regarding dogs on the beach.

I lived in a place that allowed dogs on the beach. Some dog owners are not considerate. If all the owners would pick up the Dog doo-doo it would be fine, however, not all the owners did and it was absolutely the grossest thing! Looking down a beautiful beach and a big pile of dog Sh*t in the middle of it.

The ordinance governing dogs. It applies to "private" beaches too.

From the AG opinion:
The City of Destin may regulate in a reasonable
manner the beach within its corporate limits to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. This regulation must have a rational relation to and be reasonably designed to accomplish a purpose necessary for the protection of the public. The city may not exercise its police power in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner. Such regulation may be accomplished regardless of the ownership of this area, with the exception of state ownership, and without regard to whether the public has been expressly or impliedly allowed to use that area of the beach by a private property owner who may hold title to the property.

So based on your interpretation, if an owner sitting on his private beach with his dog by his side, that the owner should be cited for having a dog on the beach?

I lived in a place that allowed dogs on the beach. Some dog owners are not considerate. If all the owners would pick up the Dog doo-doo it would be fine, however, not all the owners did and it was absolutely the grossest thing! Looking down a beautiful beach and a big pile of dog Sh*t in the middle of it.

"Some" parents with "kids" aren't considerate either. Watch as some kids run up and down sand dunes while the parent photographs them.

I found a comment you made kind of interesting: "In fact, it sort of implies that the beach is public, why else would you worry about a public access?"

Bobby J is going to be proud of me (I hope)! According to Surfrider, lateral access to the world's waves is a principal goal. In other words, if they can't get to the "public" water, they can't surf. The rest of the beach doesn't have to be public.

But the reality is 99% of the visitors in that area don't surf and the county knows that. So your point is very valid.

I, too, think that this is a great point. Thanks for bringing it up again, BMBV. I believe that many people share that point of view regarding the beach.

So based on your interpretation, if an owner sitting on his private beach with his dog by his side, that the owner should be cited for having a dog on the beach?

It isn't my interpretation, it is the county's, as regards the beach and dog ordinances. They are using the AG's opinion as the legal authority to pass these rules, which apply on all the beaches regardless of ownership. The state takes the same position when it regulates constuction on beachfront properties forward of the coastal construction contol line.
If someone is sitting on the beach with an unlicensed dog or outside of the allowable hours for a licensed dog, he can be citied no matter whose beach it is. Same thing applies to driving, etc.

Hmmmm.... All this could get very interesting.

from Floridabar.org


WHAT IS TRESPASSING?

The law makes a distinction between criminal trespass and civil trespass; a criminal trespass is an offense against the state and is punishable as a crime, while a civil trespass is an offense against a private party.

...Even if a court would award only a small amount of money damages for a trespass, it is still important for landowners to consider taking legal action. If you suffer repeated violations of your property rights without filing an action for legal trespass, you may give the trespasser some important rights to your property. If you allow a neighbor to continually use a portion of your land as a driveway without your consent and against your will, for instance and if you fail to stop the neighbor's trespass by appropriate action, then after a period of twenty years, your neighbor could have what is called an "easement" to continue to make a driveway over your land even if you decide later to file suit or if you sell your property. In other words, by your inaction, you have given your neighbor the legal right to keep using your land. If an action is not filed within the time period the law requires, then it may be too late.



******************
Sounds like the Florida Bar also backs up the twenty year rule. I'd say that the public has been using those beaches for more than twenty years prior to the erection of the no tresspassing signs.

from Floridabar.org


WHAT IS TRESPASSING?

The law makes a distinction between criminal trespass and civil trespass; a criminal trespass is an offense against the state and is punishable as a crime, while a civil trespass is an offense against a private party.

...Even if a court would award only a small amount of money damages for a trespass, it is still important for landowners to consider taking legal action. If you suffer repeated violations of your property rights without filing an action for legal trespass, you may give the trespasser some important rights to your property. If you allow a neighbor to continually use a portion of your land as a driveway without your consent and against your will, for instance and if you fail to stop the neighbor's trespass by appropriate action, then after a period of twenty years, your neighbor could have what is called an "easement" to continue to make a driveway over your land even if you decide later to file suit or if you sell your property. In other words, by your inaction, you have given your neighbor the legal right to keep using your land. If an action is not filed within the time period the law requires, then it may be too late.



******************
Sounds like the Florida Bar also backs up the twenty year rule. I'd say that the public has been using those beaches for more than twenty years prior to the erection of the no tresspassing signs.

SJ,
I think this is the point all along. It seems to get watered down quickly with other comments but the beaches have been in use for years and years... I have posted the following link many times but it really sums up your post and why the courts ruled and will continue to rule in favor of the publics right to ALL beaches.

Florida Beach Access

Policies

The state constitution says all beaches below the ?mean high-water line,? or the wet sand, are public. Court cases have found that the public has the right to the dry sand parts of beaches in two instances:

• One is if the public has established a ?prescriptive easement,? using a particular beach for the past 20 years without objection from private landowners.
• The other is through ?customary use,? which is the ?ancient,? peaceful use of the beach by the public.

Florida regulations and laws that help shape public beach access policy include Section 161.053, F.S., and Chapter 62B-33, F.A.C. Specifically, the conditions within Chapter 62B-33.0051, F.A.C., prohibit the loss of lateral public access.

It isn't my interpretation, it is the county's, as regards the beach and dog ordinances. They are using the AG's opinion as the legal authority to pass these rules, which apply on all the beaches regardless of ownership. The state takes the same position when it regulates constuction on beachfront properties forward of the coastal construction contol line.
If someone is sitting on the beach with an unlicensed dog or outside of the allowable hours for a licensed dog, he can be citied no matter whose beach it is. Same thing applies to driving, etc.

Nope.

Per Walton County Ordinance 2001-21:

Sec. 5-32. Dogs on the beach.
(a) All dogs shall be prohibited from public beaches of Walton County except as provided below:

(b) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to apply to a property owner of the sandy area next to the mean high tide which would interfere with said owner's right to have their own animal on said property.
(Ord. No. 2001-07, ? V, 6-12-01; Ord. No. 2001-21, ? 5.107, 10-23-01; Ord. No. 2005-10, ? 2, 4-26-05; Ord. No. 2006-08, ? 2, 6-13-06)

SJ,
I think this is the point all along. It seems to get watered down quickly with other comments but the beaches have been in use for years and years... I have posted the following link many times but it really sums up your post and why the courts ruled and will continue to rule in favor of the publics right to ALL beaches.

Florida Beach Access

Policies

The state constitution says all beaches below the ?mean high-water line,? or the wet sand, are public. Court cases have found that the public has the right to the dry sand parts of beaches in two instances:

• One is if the public has established a ?prescriptive easement,? using a particular beach for the past 20 years without objection from private landowners.
• The other is through ?customary use,? which is the ?ancient,? peaceful use of the beach by the public.

Florida regulations and laws that help shape public beach access policy include Section 161.053, F.S., and Chapter 62B-33, F.A.C. Specifically, the conditions within Chapter 62B-33.0051, F.A.C., prohibit the loss of lateral public access.

No one here is arguing Tona-Roma although I question it. So you or SJ or anyone else needn't repeat the post. Let's agree Tona-Roma is valid because the Florida attorney general says so (per the supreme court).

But you continue to fail to mention the other HALF of the equation that the attorney general MADE PERFECTLY CLEAR:

"The Attorney General advised that ?whether th[e] ?customary right of use? [announced in [FONT=CenturySchoolbook,Italic]City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc.] exists in a particular piece of property is a mixed question of law and fact that must be resolved judicially.? " [/FONT]

This was from my post a couple of days ago.

To ignore this aspect and not discuss it, well it's like spinning your wheels...make a lot of dust and smoke but you don't get anywhere. Yea, I know, the Tona-Roma supports your "popular" opinion with the "masses".

Tona-Roma is "law". The "facts" have to be proved on a case by case basis per the AG. I'm not arguing the public vs. private issue here. I'm just trying to show you what would have to be legally done to change things.

You can't just btch and moan (feels good though) and say the beach is public per Tona-Roma and expect something to happen, other than maybe someone taking a private property owner that's preventing you from entering "their" beach to court. It's going to be a tough case to prove from what I've heard and read.

But all this makes for a lot of hits on the internet ($) for Kurt! Perhaps Kurt could reinvest some of his advertising budget to support a case.

(b) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to apply to a property owner of the sandy area next to the mean high tide which would interfere with said owner's right to have their own animal on said property.
(Ord. No. 2001-07, ? V, 6-12-01; Ord. No. 2001-21, ? 5.107, 10-23-01; Ord. No. 2005-10, ? 2, 4-26-05; Ord. No. 2006-08, ? 2, 6-13-06)

I stand corrected. I suppose now the county will have to amend the beach ordinance to exempt owners of the sandy area from those rules too.

Walton County Comp Plan
"Policy C-3.2.11: The County shall protect beach and shoreline ecosystems through buffer standards as established in Policy C-3.2.1, and where feasible, shall identify and pursue the acquisition of properties that contain or are adjacent to such ecosystems. The County shall target shoreline properties adjacent to Choctawhatchee Bay for acquisition as a primary means of protecting its shoreline resources. Where shoreline ecosystems have been degraded, the County shall take measures to restore the ecosystem in a manner that enhances or recreates a natural system."

Are the dry sand and sand dunes considered to be shorline ecosystems?

No one here is arguing Tona-Roma although I question it. So you or SJ or anyone else needn't repeat the post. Let's agree Tona-Roma is valid because the Florida attorney general says so (per the supreme court).

But you continue to fail to mention the other HALF of the equation that the attorney general MADE PERFECTLY CLEAR:

"The Attorney General advised that ?whether th[e] ?customary right of use? [announced in [FONT=CenturySchoolbook,Italic]City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc.] exists in a particular piece of property is a mixed question of law and fact that must be resolved judicially.? " [/FONT]

This was from my post a couple of days ago.

To ignore this aspect and not discuss it, well it's like spinning your wheels...make a lot of dust and smoke but you don't get anywhere. Yea, I know, the Tona-Roma supports your "popular" opinion with the "masses".

Tona-Roma is "law". The "facts" have to be proved on a case by case basis per the AG. I'm not arguing the public vs. private issue here. I'm just trying to show you what would have to be legally done to change things.

You can't just btch and moan (feels good though) and say the beach is public per Tona-Roma and expect something to happen, other than maybe someone taking a private property owner that's preventing you from entering "their" beach to court. It's going to be a tough case to prove from what I've heard and read.

But all this makes for a lot of hits on the internet ($) for Kurt! Perhaps Kurt could reinvest some of his advertising budget to support a case.

We have all understood your position which has been repeated time and time again as well. It has also been agreed that this may be looked at on a case by case basis and in past threads I have admitted to this. I have said it will get thrown out and be a huge waste of money. What I have studied tells me the law has been written very vague. Almost as if it could be interrupted anyway you like it to read. That is why I have said a good lawyer will eat it up. I also think you have avoided certain issues such as why would one want to say there beach was "private". Are you concerned about your property values? Are you the lone Saviour for property rights? I have openly stated my reason of why I feel the beaches should and are public. I would like to hear the real reason BMBV benefits from a so called "private" beach. I have stated my benefits for the public to have full access. Please address the answer from a personal point of view. I am looking for why "you" want such thing as a "private beach". I am trying to understand the other side of this issue. Thanks in advance.

PUBLIC OR PRIVATE?

Beach conflict making waves

By HEATHER CIVIL heatherc@nwfdailynews.com



Lola Carlisle of Atlanta and her family thought they were going to jail when they encountered an angry property owner on the beach in Seagrove earlier this month.
The children were building sandcastles near the public beach access on Pelayo Street off County Road 30A.
Little did they know that they had started their sand art on private property behind the Jasmine Dune subdivision.
When an unidentified man confronted them and told them to move off the beach he owns, Carlisle got scared and called 911.
?It was very upsetting,? she said.
Although the white sand may appear welcoming, beachgoers need to be careful where they lay down their towels. Some areas of the beach are considered private property, and those who venture onto the sand could find themselves in danger of being arrested for trespassing.
In Carlisle?s case, Walton County sheriff ?s deputies responded to her call and told her to move a few hundred feet to the public sand nearby. Although she questioned whether she really stood on private property, Carlisle opted to relocate her family for fear that she would get arrested.
The incident happened July 5, the same day that tourist Eduardo Gonzalez was arrested for trespassing on a private beach in another part of South Walton.
In Okaloosa County, beachgoers are trespassing if they are more than 20 feet away from the wet sand area of a private beach, while in Walton, beachgoers are trespassing if they are on the dry sand of a private beach.
?We?re just enforcing the same policies we?ve always enforced,? Walton County Sheriff?s Office spokesman Lt. Bryan Maule said.
Some beaches are private property created as part of subdivisions and other developments.
Gonzalez, 47, was arrested after a private security guard at the Retreat at Blue Mountain Beach called the Sheriff?s Office and reported him for trespassing on a private beach.
The Atlanta resident told lawmen that he would not move to the public beach only three feet away. He was arrested, booked for misdemeanor trespassing and later released on $500 bond.
Neither Gonzalez nor Frank Flautt, president of the Retreat of South Walton County homeowners association, returned phone calls.
Incensed by her encounter with the angry property owner in Seagrove, Carlisle did some research.
She learned of a 1974 Florida Supreme Court opinion that she thinks could give beachgoers some muscle in fighting private property owners.
In City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama Inc., the state Supreme Court recognized the common law principle of ?customary use? by the public of Florida?s dry sand beaches.
The court said the property owner in the case could not interfere with the public?s established right to enjoy the beach.
But whether the public has enjoyed customary use of the private beaches along the Emerald Coast has not been determined.
A 2002 legal opinion from the state attorney general?s office to Okaloosa County officials states in part that until a court establishes a ?customary right of use? of a private beach by the public, the beach remains private property.
That means trespassing laws apply.
Determining where public beach ends and private beach begins is not easy, said Okaloosa County Sheriff?s Office spokeswoman Michele Nicholson.
The state says that anyone with title to the beach owns to the mean high water line.
However, that line shifts over time. That?s why Okaloosa gives beachgoers 20 feet of leeway on private beaches.
?If somebody wants to challenge (private beach ownership) and take it through the courts, it?d be interesting to see how it turns out,? Nicholson said.
Walton County has 48 public beach accesses, Destin has 12 and there are at least a dozen more in Okaloosa and Santa Rosa counties.
The majority of beachgoers and tourists seem to find their way safely onto public sand without incident.
Many private beaches have signs posted that warn wouldbe trespassers to stay away.
Carlisle said she didn?t see any private property sign in Seagrove.
She said incidents such as the one she experienced make Walton County appear unwelcoming to tourists. She and her family have vacationed in Seagrove for 10 years and had never been told to move off private beach before, she said.
?This feels like our vacation spot,? she said. ?We definitely have a lot of respect for the beach here. We love it.?
Walton County Tourist Development Council Director Kriss Titus said most visitors have no troubles on the beaches.
It?s up to the rental properties to make sure that visitors know where they can go to the beach, Titus said.
?I don?t think we are unfriendly in Walton County,? she said.

I finally made it through this thread - the good, the bad, the ugly and even the occasional funny. What I don't understand is how anyone, especially a full time resident or a rental property owner would not want all of the beaches to be public.

As a full time resident, my occupation (real estate) and my husband's (retail business) are both inextricably attached to visitors coming to our area. If the visitors have good experiences, they'll take advantage of the goods and sevices that my family offers. My neighbors include landscapers, shop owners, developers, carpenters, cooks and interior designers. Each of these families also rely (in varying degrees of course) upon our tourist industry, and I believe that most families living here have a similar reliance.

As a former rental property owner (not my cup of tea), I would be mortified if my well behaved guest was kicked off of any beach down here, and I would not count on their return.

If the visitors have a bad experience, they will go elsewhere next year. Plain and simple. If they leave, so will many of the amenities that all area residents, full time, part time, working and retired enjoy.

Studies abound showing that our visitors enjoy many things here (shopping, golf, fishing, etc.) in addition to the beach while they are here. But, it's the beach that gets them here.

IT"S ALL ABOUT THE BEACH AND THE BEACH SHOULD BE FOR ALL.

We have all understood your position which has been repeated time and time again as well.

Yea, but I want the last word!!!

It has also been agreed that this may be looked at on a case by case basis and in past threads I have admitted to this. I have said it will get thrown out and be a huge waste of money. What I have studied tells me the law has been written very vague. Almost as if it could be interrupted anyway you like it to read. That is why I have said a good lawyer will eat it up.

Not "may" be looked at on a case by case basis, but must be. per the AG.
I'm a bit confused when you say "it will get thrown out..". What will be thrown out?

I also think you have avoided certain issues such as why would one want to say there beach was "private". Are you concerned about your property values? Are you the lone Saviour for property rights? I have openly stated my reason of why I feel the beaches should and are public.

Bobby, once more, the private beaches today are NOT public. Fact.

I would like to hear the real reason BMBV benefits from a so called "private" beach. I have stated my benefits for the public to have full access. Please address the answer from a personal point of view. I am looking for why "you" want such thing as a "private beach". I am trying to understand the other side of this issue. Thanks in advance.

Bobby, I'll skip the obvious constitutional concept of quiet enjoyment of private property "stuff".

If I decide to step out on the beach at 2:00 PM, I fully expect that I will have adequate room to set up the umbrella and chairs on my property without having to compete with the public for a "prime" spot about 10 to 20 feet from the water's edge. Otherwise I could easily find myself setting my chairs behind someone else's and not being able to see the water (on my property). The more crowded the beach becomes, the more problems that I will have to face regarding my own access to my own property.

Walton County is doing very little in controlling growth in our area. They certainly appear to have no regard to private property rights on the beach.

There certainly appears to be more than enough public beach areas "at this time" where everyone who really wants to go to the beach can get there. I do feel threatened by the county's attitudes. The approval of Redfish Village is an ABSOLUTE CASE IN POINT - no question.

Since we're still on a personal level, for your information, I have never asked anyone to leave our beach...and really would like to not have to do so in the future. But with uncontrolled growth, this more than likely will change.

Would this affect my property value? Bobby J, you're the trained professional expert here with years of experience. What do you think?

Question for sunshine:
Are your renters prevented from using the public beaches that are available?

Question for sunshine:
Are your renters prevented from using the public beaches that are available?

This is her quote "As a former rental property owner (not my cup of tea), I would be mortified if my well behaved guest was kicked off of any beach down here, and I would not count on their return."

I feel like getting arrested. Anyone want to bond me out?

Question for sunshine:
Are your renters prevented from using the public beaches that are available?

As I mentioned, I no longer own a rental property. It wasn't for me. However, the home was on a street with a beach access. I don't know if the neighboring homes and condos consider the beach in front of their properties to be public or private. It seems kind of stupid (and environmentally WRONG) to have to drive to a public beach when there's a TDC maintained access a stroll away.

This is her quote "As a former rental property owner (not my cup of tea), I would be mortified if my well behaved guest was kicked off of any beach down here, and I would not count on their return."

It still doesn't answer my simple question to sunshine of ....
"Are your renters prevented from using the public beaches that are available?"

It still doesn't answer my simple question to sunshine of ....
"Are your renters prevented from using the public beaches that are available?"

Since she is a former rental owner, if I were her, I would answer no. Because she no longer ownes rentals.

You should ask her "Were your renters prevented...." past tense.

I notice on several of your post, you don't read completely what you are commenting on, or you only see what you want to see.

I'm all about civil disobedience. Go for it.

But when you consider the Retreat is one of the highest of the high-end developments, I'm guessing the law might respond a little quicker than they would if the same thing had happened in front of a small cinder block house on Blue Mountain Road. Fair? Nope. Reality? You betcha.

I'm not one of your 400 closest friends, in fact, I don't even know you but I'm certainly volunteering and I'm close enough to walk to the "Retreat".

As I mentioned, I no longer own a rental property. It wasn't for me. However, the home was on a street with a beach access. I don't know if the neighboring homes and condos consider the beach in front of their properties to be public or private. It seems kind of stupid (and environmentally WRONG) to have to drive to a public beach when there's a TDC maintained access a stroll away.

Our posts passed each other.

I agree whole heartedly with what you are saying about the drive vs. the walk. The problem obviously boils down to the county deeding public beach access without the public beach part. This is not a matter of personal opinion, it's the way it is at the moment.

Please allow me to rephrase my question (since yippie is our local grammar nazi) in order to address the issue:

IF you still owned your rental property, and IF the beach was private on each side of the "nearby" public access WOULD your renters have been prevented from getting to the beach in an area that is know to be public?

Our posts passed each other.

I agree whole heartedly with what you are saying about the drive vs. the walk. The problem obviously boils down to the county deeding public beach access without the public beach part. This is not a matter of personal opinion, it's the way it is at the moment.

Please allow me to rephrase my question (since yippie is our local grammar nazi) in order to address the issue:

IF you still owned your rental property, and IF the beach was private on each side of the "nearby" public access WOULD your renters have been prevented from getting to the beach in an area that is know to be public?

I am curious how she is going to answer that. How can you speculate on "IF's". Had you ask me that quesion, my answer would be I don't know.