Led away in Handcuffs

The problem didn't start with the owners of private beach areas. It started with real estate agents and developers - people like Bobby J & Smiling Joe. When they're selling property down here, one of the perks they love to trumpet is access to the beach. Some developers advertise it before they even have beach access. Examples of that practice are legion on this site.

I doubt even a handful of realtors in the interest of full disclosure are honest enough to tell potential purchasers what "access" really, legally means. Wouldn't that kill a deal instantly if they said, "Yes, you have access, but I need to explain to you that the beach on either side of the access is privately owned and you might not be able to use it?" Ever done that Bobby J or Smiling Joe? I bet not. The profits are better when the buyers have this idylic vision of "their" beach.

I think there's been a lot of incomplete disclosure going on down here for years by knowing real estate agents and developers. They're the ones that have created the problem by over-developoing and over-selling areas that are already congested. And then they want to smugly turn around and blame the Commissioners as the problem for not stopping them. When the tourists come and rent these properties and are crawling over each other on the beaches and spilling over onto private beach property, Bobby J and Smiling Joe stick their chests out as defenders of the very problem they helped create. Please!

Perhaps a stall or even decline in growth is a good thing for the community and the health of the beaches? The only downside I can see is that it gives realtors like Bobby J and Smiling Joe too much time to genreate endless self-righteous, self-serving posts. Maybe a class action suit brought by all the cheated buyers against some of these unscrupulous realtors/developers would do more good than a silly 60's style sit in.

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".

Andy A, your position is honorable from the perspective of many on this thread.

Assuming you own unit #8 at Sea Bluffs (which is a condo development on Blue Mountain Beach which is just west of Bella Vita and a stone's throw from Adagio - for the benefit of others), can you share with us your association's position? In other words, is the beach in front of Sea Bluffs private or public? If it's private, is it OK, according to your association, for the public to use that beach?

If you're a renter, please share that as well.

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

I'll take a shot at that question, even though Sunshine has told you that she owned in the "past," not present. (she has no rentors.)

Yes, rentors in general are prevented from using public beaches. Many of the public accesses to public beaches have fewer parking spaces that would be visitors who drive. For example, the public accesses between CR83 and Big Redfish Lake. Without illegally parking in someone's yard or the shoulder of the road, beachgoers, who could theoritically use the beach, would have to walk long distances to arrive at any of those accesses, especially when the small parking lot at the 83 access is filled.

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.

This whole stinking thread is about IFs !!!! Get REAL!

I'll take a shot at that question, even though Sunshine has told you that she owned in the "past," not present. (she has no rentors.)

Yes, rentors in general are prevented from using public beaches. Many of the public accesses to public beaches have fewer parking spaces that would be visitors who drive. For example, the public accesses between CR83 and Big Redfish Lake. Without illegally parking in someone's yard or the shoulder of the road, beachgoers, who could theoritically use the beach, would have to walk long distances to arrive at any of those accesses, especially when the small parking lot at the 83 access is filled.

As much as I REALLY hate to say it, you're right! But then again you're sort of wrong (I believe). It is my understanding that the sheriff will not ticket a vehicle parked on Blue Mountain Road, assuming they are not beyond the right-of-way for this very reason. "Don't needlesly hassle the tourist if you don't have to" is the logical reason behind it. BUT PLEASE DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT!!! Park at your own risk!!

Again, you've made a very valid point! Thanks.

Question: has anyone received a parking ticket on Blue Mountain Road? If so, was your vehicle completely on the right of way?

The problem didn't start with the owners of private beach areas. It started with real estate agents and developers - people like Bobby J & Smiling Joe.

Those are HUGE words coming from someone who doesn't know jack about me. I am not "like" most real estate agents. ;-) Get your story straight before slinging horse sh_t in my direction.

I doubt even a handful of realtors in the interest of full disclosure are honest enough to tell potential purchasers what "access" really, legally means. Wouldn't that kill a deal instantly if they said, "Yes, you have access, but I need to explain to you that the beach on either side of the access is privately owned and you might not be able to use it?" Ever done that Bobby J or Smiling Joe? I bet not. The profits are better when the buyers have this idylic vision of "their" beach.

Until these no trespassing signs were erected and people arrested, there has not been question to the public's right to freely sit on the sandy beaches in SoWal.

I think there's been a lot of incomplete disclosure going on down here for years by knowing real estate agents and developers. They're the ones that have created the problem by over-developoing and over-selling areas that are already congested. And then they want to smugly turn around and blame the Commissioners as the problem for not stopping them. When the tourists come and rent these properties and are crawling over each other on the beaches and spilling over onto private beach property, Bobby J and Smiling Joe stick their chests out as defenders of the very problem they helped create. Please!

Again, you are making HUGE assumptions and HUGE accusations regarding my principles and business. I didn't create the problem. I've been fighting the density increases in SoWal for a while. There is plenty of land to sell around here without having to keep chopping it into smaller pieces.

How about you come back with something real and purposeful, and until then, STFU. Maybe you were wronged by your real estate agent, but I was not he who wronged you.

As much as I REALLY hate to say it, you're right! But then again you're sort of wrong (I believe). It is my understanding that the sheriff will not ticket a vehicle parked on Blue Mountain Road, assuming they are not beyond the right-of-way for this very reason. "Don't needlesly hassle the tourist if you don't have to" is the logical reason behind it. BUT PLEASE DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT!!! Park at your own risk!!

Again, you've made a very valid point! Thanks.

Question: has anyone received a parking ticket on Blue Mountain Road? If so, was your vehicle completely on the right of way?

By the Sheriff not ticketing, the laws have not changed. It is still illegal to park in the road and on people's yards.

....Maybe a class action suit brought by all the cheated buyers against some of these unscrupulous realtors/developers would do more good than a silly 60's style sit in.

Exactly what I have said (but better stated by 1st in '59)....
Anyone involved in ANY part of a real estate transaction where an inland property purchaser was told they had deeded private beach access but really did not (and not disclosed), should be very nervous right about now.

So therefore I see the Florida Real Estate industry funding the law suits to attempt to convert private beach property to public property on a "case by case basis" as they possibly have a lot to lose here.

Smiling Joe:

You just stated "Until these no trespassing signs were erected and people arrested, there has not been question to the public's right to freely sit on the sandy beaches in SoWal."

How can you be so absolutely sure of this?


Also you state that it's illegal to park on Blue Mountain Road. Are there any "No Parking" signs?

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 have no idea. I sold the home over three years ago before the no trespassing signs were installed at a different beach. I remain familiar with the area and have not seen any evidence of enforcement of private beaches there.

So therefore I see the Florida Real Estate industry funding the law suits to attempt to convert private beach property to public property on a "case by case basis" as they possibly have a lot to lose here.

If only it were that easy. The very same developers/agents have no problem turning right around and pitching the opposite story to potential beachfront owners. "And, you own the beach all the way up to the mean high water line. Imagine... your own private beach!" They have their hands in everybody's pocket!

Smiling Joe:

You just stated "Until these no trespassing signs were erected and people arrested, there has not been question to the public's right to freely sit on the sandy beaches in SoWal."

How can you be so absolutely sure of this?


Also you state that it's illegal to park on Blue Mountain Road. Are there any "No Parking" signs?

I don't recall seeing any signs posted on your street, noting that murder is illegal, but again, I don't think that signs are required to be posted to state all of the laws.

I'm not absolutely sure, but I cannot prove a negative.

I have no idea. I sold the home over three years ago before the no trespassing signs were installed at a different beach. I remain familiar with the area and have not seen any evidence of enforcement of private beaches there.

No problem but I think you missed the last part of my question...

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 known to be public?

Honestly, this was more of a rhetorical question as the point I was trying to make before my post was dissected every which way, is that nobody is "prevented" from getting to a public beach. SJ brings up a valid issue with parking during peak times.

If only it were that easy. The very same developers/agents have no problem turning right around and pitching the opposite story to potential beachfront owners. "And, you own the beach all the way up to the mean high water line. Imagine... your own private beach!" They have their hands in everybody's pocket!

and if a kid fell in a hole on the private beach, breaking his leg and hitting his head on a beach chair, the first person crying, "it's not my property. The public has been using it for many years," would be the property owner.

So what is your point?

BMBV, you are adding to some important discussion, giving opposing views, and I appreciate that. I know you have not placed no trespassing signs on the beach in front of your privately deeded beach property, and I've not seen you chasing anyone off of the beach in front of your house. Would you share with us your reasons why you have not protested the public's use?

BMBV, you are adding to some important discussion, giving opposing views, and I appreciate that. I know you have not placed no trespassing signs on the beach in front of your privately deeded beach property, and I've not seen you chasing anyone off of the beach in front of your house. Would you share with us your reasons why you have not protested the public's use?

I'm just one person in our association so I can't speak for the entire association. It would be validly assumed that the board members of an association must exercise prudent fiduciary responsibilty to not "knowingly" jeopardize the private property rights of the owners of our condos REGARDLESS of "opinion".

Could you now please answer my question about the parking signs on Blue Mountain Road?

The problem didn't start with the owners of private beach areas. It started with real estate agents and developers - people like Bobby J & Smiling Joe. When they're selling property down here, one of the perks they love to trumpet is access to the beach. Some developers advertise it before they even have beach access. Examples of that practice are legion on this site.

I doubt even a handful of realtors in the interest of full disclosure are honest enough to tell potential purchasers what "access" really, legally means. Wouldn't that kill a deal instantly if they said, "Yes, you have access, but I need to explain to you that the beach on either side of the access is privately owned and you might not be able to use it?" Ever done that Bobby J or Smiling Joe? I bet not. The profits are better when the buyers have this idylic vision of "their" beach.

I think there's been a lot of incomplete disclosure going on down here for years by knowing real estate agents and developers. They're the ones that have created the problem by over-developoing and over-selling areas that are already congested. And then they want to smugly turn around and blame the Commissioners as the problem for not stopping them. When the tourists come and rent these properties and are crawling over each other on the beaches and spilling over onto private beach property, Bobby J and Smiling Joe stick their chests out as defenders of the very problem they helped create. Please!

Perhaps a stall or even decline in growth is a good thing for the community and the health of the beaches? The only downside I can see is that it gives realtors like Bobby J and Smiling Joe too much time to genreate endless self-righteous, self-serving posts. Maybe a class action suit brought by all the cheated buyers against some of these unscrupulous realtors/developers would do more good than a silly 60's style sit in.

And how about addressing this, Smiling Joe. you're surprisingly quiet.

And how about addressing this, Smiling Joe. you're surprisingly quiet.

I think you have no clue what you are talking about... I have never sold a beach as private nor would I ever. The beaches are public. The reason SJ is quiet is why would he address the post. It is personal and does not pertain to the 18 pages this thread has covered. We are all trying to learn what the facts are... Welcome. Do you have any facts other then Real Estate agents caused all this? I thought it was George Bush that caused it.

I was sent this today:

In response to Walton County?s TDC ?public vs private beaches?
http://story.waltonsun.com/article.display.db.php?a=1734

Walton County?s TDC stated:
?Many of the county?s beaches are private due to the way some of the area?s properties were originally deeded?.?

My opinion: There are no ?PRIVATE BEACHES? in Florida:

Beaches consists of 2 elements: (1) A dry sand area and (2) A wet sand area

The dry sand area can be either privately of publicly owned, while the wet area has proprietary (ownership) authority and held in trust for the public:

?All tidally influenced waters to the mean high water line and navigable fresh waterbodies to the ordinary high water line in existence when Florida became a state in 1845 are considered sovereign. In accordance with the Constitution of the State of Florida, these lands are held in trust by the state for all the people. As the Trustees, the Governor and Cabinet have proprietary (ownership) authority over sovereign submerged lands and their uses and are responsible for insuring that these lands and the associated aquatic resources remain healthy and in abundance for present and future generations.?

Reference: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/WATER/wetlands/erp/propvreg.htm

Hence, to say a beach in Florida is a ?PRIVATE BEACH? should be considered both false and misleading.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Walton County?s TDC stated:
??beachgoers who set up tents and chairs in these areas may be asked to move?

My opinion: Private sand owners, those who own dry sand on public beaches, may file complaints with local law enforcement, but cannot use local law enforcement as their private agents, to enforce speculated trespassing violations.

From AGO 2002-38 ~ "Thus, it is my opinion that private property owners who hold title to dry sand areas of the beach falling within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Destin may utilize local law enforcement for purposes of reporting incidents of trespass upon their property on a case-by-case basis. However, local law enforcement officers may not be pre-authorized to act as agents of private landowners for the purpose of communicating orders to their property on a case-by-case basis. However, local law enforcement officers may not be pre-authorized to act as agents of private landowners for the purpose of communicating orders to leave private property to alleged trespassers pursuant to section 810.09(2)(b), Florida Statutes.."


From AGO 2002-38 ~ "The general public may continue to use the dry sand area for their usual recreational activities, not because the public has any interest in the land itself, but because of a right gained through custom to use this particular area of the beach as they have without dispute and without interruption for many years."

My opinion: The general public should be allowed to continue to use the dry sand area for their usual recreational activities until the private sand owner, those who own dry sand on public beaches, prove that no "customary right of use" by the public exists.

It?s up to the courts to decide if "customary right of use" of the dry sand on a particular beach exists and not the dry sand owner, not the local police and not the TDC.

From AGO 2002-38 ~ "However, portions of this property are subject to private ownership and until a court establishes a "customary right of use" by the public in such real property, the fee owners thereof may make complaints of trespass to local law enforcement officers as they occur."



Graham Ginsberg

www.publicshore.com

The case by case is up to landowner filing a suit against the person enjoying the beach. The police have no authority to make an arrest. It can be reported to the police. It is in the homeowners court to file suit and let the jury decide from there. If I was arrested recently, I would make sure I had a good attorney and be looking into false arrest.

I was looking at this thing all wrong all along. According to AG, the burden of proof lies in the hands of the HO on a "case by case" basis that is why the police can not act as agent for HO.

1st in '59,

it's too bad you apparently had a bad experience with either a Realtor or a developer, however, IMO, your personal comments about SJ and Bobby are over the line.

How would you feel if someone generalized in that manner about you and your profession...

Just as in any area and any profession, there are those who are ethical and do a good job, and then there are others...

1st in '59,

it's too bad you apparently had a bad experience with either a Realtor or a developer, however, IMO, your personal comments about SJ and Bobby are over the line.

How would you feel if someone generalized in that manner about you and your profession...

Just as in any area and any profession, there are those who are ethical and do a good job, and then there are others...

All I'm saying is there's a lot of people that have deeds and titles for beachfront property that deeds their property to the mean high water line. The vast majority of those people were led to believe by SOMEONE when they completed their real estate transactions that that property was indeed (no pun intended) theirs. Bobby J and Smiling Joe claim that everyone knows that no one owns any of the beach - it's all public. So SOMEBODY'S been brokering a hell of a lot of transactions over and over again over a long period of time, knowing (in their heart of hearts) that what's being sold is a sham. I assume that the realtors in this community are knowledgeable about the local laws and practices.

Help me understand what it is I'm missing???

This happened to me today around 5 pm on the beach in Blue
Moutain. I am an owner on Redfish Circle. I walked to the beach access
between the Inn and the Retreat and set up a chair and a towel on the
Retreat side of things. All was fine for about an hour, at which time
I was approached by a security guard and his sidekick. I was asked to move and I did. He wanted to call the Sheriff because of all the questions I was asking. He did, and I called the manager of the Blue Mountain Beach Club.
Ultimately, we had a beach-side fiesta consisting of me, two guards, two Sheriff's Office guys, and another Redfish homeowner. Where were all you Sowallers to bring me a maragarita? Sheesh!

I learned a lot today that I wanted to 'share' with the other users of this board. I believe that those of us who own on Redfish and other members
of the Beach Club/BMB Masters Association have the right to use that
access and the beach there. I also believe that the public has the right to use that beach. The Beach Club Manager had documents with him to support those facts, none of which the guards or law were keen to inspect. I should point out that there were no private property signs on the Retreat side of things, only on the Inn's side. The Inn's signs were also not lined up perpendicularly to the beach, but kind of staggered.

The Sheriff folks are sick of this guy calling all the time. They said they can always tell when he's on duty. They are enforcing the MHW line until this issue can be elevated above them. They recommended the Manager call Charlie Crist's office, or at least Cindy Meadows' office. The Gonzalez case may solve all this, but it also may have to be decided by the state Supreme Court. I promise you, if you bring up what I can only remember as the "Tony Roma" Dayton Beach case, it will be disregarded beachside. They don't care, they just want to do their jobs and this is currently their least favorite task. They are sticking to the assertion that we only have ingress/egress rights to the MHW line, where we can then plant ourselves and our stuff.

I could name the names of those who were part of my group this afternoon, but I don't think it's necessary. What is pertinent is that others know what can happen on a lovely, almost barren beach in Walton County to folks just sitting in a chair with an adult beverage reading People magazine. I wanted to warn people about this on a more personal level. I was civil, just asked a lot of questions, as any homeowner would. The one security guard in particular I had a problem with (older male, for lack of a better description, his sidekick looked barely 20) was very argumentative and harrassing. I had heard about him from my family who visited over the week of July Fourth. True to form, he seems to target singles on the beach, evidently with the assumption that they won't challenge his rights. He verbally and physically threatened my brother-in-law on Saturday, July 7th. I did not witness it, but I believe my in-law and also believe his and my sis' first-hand accounts of this rent-a-cop physically removing people's belongings from the beach. I questioned him about this, and he admitted that he has relocated 'abondoned' property. These things (chairs, bags, towels) were left unattended because their owners were swimming in the Gulf of Mexico.

Additionally, he moves these items to the western side of the public beach access. This is considered by some to be owned by the Retreat. It seems that when the Inn rebuilt the public beach access, they mistakenly built it on Retreat land, or so it seems. So this guard moves people's stuff from Retreat/Inn land to Retreat land, which he admits.

I can't afford to get arrested. I was super-civil and did all I could to (successfully) stall the guard until the Club Manager arrived and we all chatted with the Sherriff Sargeant and his coworker. I can't be the next Senora Gonzalez and keep my job. I just know in my heart of hearts that this isn't right and I've seen plenty of evidence to suport that belief. I would be very interested to hear what you others think and what you would have done. I'll be down here until early Wednesday and will be out of the beach (by the water, natch) each day. I am upset about this and in particulary how that one guard has harrassed my family. He tried to get me but must not have noticed my spine, my brain, and my cell phone!

Thanks for reading this long rant, I feel a bit better already. I should also mention that nurse sharks (some small, one bigger) were spotted on the beach in BMB today. There was at least one bull shark sighted near Fort
Panic. According to one of the Sheriff dudes, he saw it leap from the water with a 100 lb tarpon it its mouth! I will be on the lookout tomorrow, for sure.

All I'm saying is there's a lot of people that have deeds and titles for beachfront property that deeds their property to the mean high water line. The vast majority of those people were led to believe by SOMEONE when they completed their real estate transactions that that property was indeed (no pun intended) theirs. Bobby J and Smiling Joe claim that everyone knows that no one owns any of the beach - it's all public. So SOMEBODY'S been brokering a hell of a lot of transactions over and over again over a long period of time, knowing (in their heart of hearts) that what's being sold is a sham. I assume that the realtors in this community are knowledgeable about the local laws and practices.

Help me understand what it is I'm missing???

what you seem to missing is common sense. do you realize there are around a thousand realtors along the emerald coast? can you believe that some of this property was sold before Bobby or Smiling JOe received their licenses? Do you know where these two realtors actually sell most of their listings? Do you realize you look like an uneducated bully singling out two realtors who actually care about the same issues you and pretty much everyone on this board share. take a step back from the keyboard for a few days, reread you post, then apologize. you're way out of line.

.......My opinion: There are no ‘PRIVATE BEACHES’ in Florida....

.....Hence, to say a beach in Florida is a ‘PRIVATE BEACH’ should be considered both false and misleading.

---------------
Edited and added: I can't tell what Bobby's quotes are vs someone elses. I'm assuming it's Bobby's....it's at least his position I think. Also the link didn't work regarding the Walton Sun article.
---------------



Alrightynow. So what's the problem? Bobby's opinion trumps the Okaloosa County Sheriff, Walton County's Sheriff, Walton County TDC and the Florida Attorney General. I guess there's no need for the Supreme Court to decide on current SOB v Walton case; Bobby's got it figured.

I see the light now.

Walton County’s TDC stated:
‘…beachgoers who set up tents and chairs in these areas may be asked to move”

My opinion: Private sand owners, those who own dry sand on public beaches, may file complaints with local law enforcement, but cannot use local law enforcement as their private agents, to enforce speculated trespassing violations.

I think the "opposing side" has pointed that out so is there a reason you bring that up? And isn't that typical regardless of WHERE the private property is? A sheriff simply doesn't go to everyone on private property and asks them to leave without a complaint from the owner.

From AGO 2002-38~ "The general public may continue to use the dry sand area for their usual recreational activities, not because the public has any interest in the land itself, but because of a right gained through custom to use this particular area of the beach as they have without dispute and without interruption for many years."

My opinion: The general public should be allowed to continue to use the dry sand area for their usual recreational activities until the private sand owner, those who own dry sand on public beaches, prove that no "customary right of use" by the public exists.

It’s up to the courts to decide if "customary right of use" of the dry sand on a particular beach exists and not the dry sand owner, not the local police and not the TDC.

From AGO 2002-38 ~ "However, portions of this property are subject to private ownership and until a court establishes a "customary right of use" by the public in such real property, the fee owners thereof may make complaints of trespass to local law enforcement officers as they occur."

This is exactly right and already discussed. The public does not have a right to trespass on ANY PARTICULAR PROPERTY without a court decision on a case by case basis. You've quoted it now admit it.