Led away in Handcuffs

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.

Nope. You're assumption above is incorrect and you know it. But nice try at attempting to twist things around to confuse those not fully up to speed.

---------------
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.



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.


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.

Wow BMBV, we have something in common. Your post was as confusing as mine. They can ask them to leave but can not arrest them. If they arrest them they are acting as an agent for the HO. They can issue a citation and the HO can file a civil suit against the "person enjoying a day at the beach". The HO then will need to prove on a case by case basis that this is private property. The burden of proof lies in the hands of the homeowner who will also run the risk of paying all court cost. I am glad you are seeing the light. About time...

Nope. You're assumption above is incorrect and you know it. But nice try at attempting to twist things around to confuse those not fully up to speed.

From what I have read, I believe the case by case basis by the AG was meant for the HO not the beach goer.

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...

Goodwitch58, since you think I would be happier living elsewhere ;-) , and since I do, then I am saying this as a very happy camper .

1st in '59 certainly doesn't need my help as myself and others have complimented the eloquence of his posts behind the scenes. He is spot on, IMO, about the real estate industry in general. It's a tough pill to swallow but none the less true, IMO.

From what I have read, I believe the case by case basis by the AG was meant for the HO not the beach goer.

Like the goat on the AFLAC commercial...
naah, naah, naaah

The "public" must prove (again, no easy task) that they have used the property for 20 years, etc., BEFORE they are allowed to use that private property. The private property owner already has private proprty property rights as evidenced in his deed. Therefore anyone trespassing and reported who doesn't leave the property will be arrested.

Like the goat on the AFLAC commercial...
naah, naah, naaah

The "public" must prove (again, no easy task) that they have used the property for 20 years, etc., BEFORE they are allowed to use that private property. The private property owner already has private proprty property rights as evidenced in his deed. Therefore anyone trespassing and reported who doesn't leave the property will be arrested.

Falsely arrested! If the police arrest him/her they are acting as agent for the HO.

I did not know there was goat on the AFLAC commercial? I thought it was a duck?

Like the goat on the AFLAC commercial...
naah, naah, naaah

The "public" must prove (again, no easy task) that they have used the property for 20 years, etc., BEFORE they are allowed to use that private property. The private property owner already has private proprty property rights as evidenced in his deed. Therefore anyone trespassing and reported who doesn't leave the property will be arrested.

Interested in where you are coming up with the public having to prove use for 20 years? Statute?? Where?

According to the Constitution of Florida written in 1885 and revised in 1968 under Article X Section 11- Sovereignty


SECTION 11. Sovereignty lands.--The title to lands under navigable waters, within the boundaries of the state, which have not been alienated, including beaches below mean high water lines, is held by the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, in trust for all the people. Sale of such lands may be authorized by law, but only when in the public interest. Private use of portions of such lands may be authorized by law, but only when not contrary to the public interest. History.--Am. H.J.R. 792, 1970; adopted 1970.

I am no lawyer, but I would venture a guess that a State Constitution would take precedence over any County regulation or jurisdiction.

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 are missing is something no one can teach you. It's your attitude, and it's one prevelant with alpha type beachfront owners who look down from their dune-top residences at the great unwashed.

1st in '59 certainly doesn't need my help as myself and others have complimented the eloquence of his posts behind the scenes. He is spot on, IMO, about the real estate industry in general. It's a tough pill to swallow but none the less true, IMO.

Very easy when the RE market went to hell to point fingers at agents. When the beaches get crowded, point fingers at the agents. He may be spot on but pointing fingers at myself and SJ is out of line. He has no clue what we do or who we sell to. I sign my name on these boards as Bobby J and am wide open and as honest as my threads to my clients. Funny how these type of comments come from someone who would never disclose who they are.

Falsely arrested! If the police arrest him/her they are acting as agent for the HO.

Bobby, it is really simple. The sheriff can NOT simply "patrol" the beach on the owner's behalf and enforce the no trespassing law. The owner must call the sheriff and REPORT an incident of trespassing. Then the sheriff can remove the trespasser from the property.

That is what they mean when they say the sheriff can not "act on the owner's behalf. The sheriff cannot do on his own what the guy in one of SJ's photos was doing at the Inn at BMB, acting on behalf of the owner.

Interested in where you are coming up with the public having to prove use for 20 years? Statute?? Where?

According to the Constitution of Florida written in 1885 and revised in 1968 under Article X Section 11- Sovereignty


SECTION 11. Sovereignty lands.--The title to lands under navigable waters, within the boundaries of the state, which have not been alienated, including beaches below mean high water lines, is held by the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, in trust for all the people. Sale of such lands may be authorized by law, but only when in the public interest. Private use of portions of such lands may be authorized by law, but only when not contrary to the public interest. History.--Am. H.J.R. 792, 1970; adopted 1970.

I am no lawyer, but I would venture a guess that a State Constitution would take precedence over any County regulation or jurisdiction.

First regarding the 20 year comment:

"In Florida, the statute of limitations is seven years for adverse​

possession, while the statute of limitations for prescriptive easements is twenty years." See this and search for the above text.

Second regarding a quote above: "...including beaches below mean high water lines.."
I and nobody else is disputing this so why bring it up?

Very easy when the RE market went to hell to point fingers at agents. When the beaches get crowded, point fingers at the agents. He may be spot on but pointing fingers at myself and SJ is out of line. He has no clue what we do or who we sell to. I sign my name on these boards as Bobby J and am wide open and as honest as my threads to my clients. Funny how these type of comments come from someone who would never disclose who they are.

That is not why he is "pointing fingers". It's because there are agents out there who know full well that much of the beach is private even though there are "beach accesses" that lead to nowhere except approximately 5 to 10 feet of available beach surrounded by private beach.

You and SJ share the fact that you're agents. You and SJ continue to state your opinions against the current private property rights that all private property owners enjoy.

Then when someone gets arrested, you can't believe it. It must therefore be wrong. How can they be considered trespassers? How could one consider "you" (real estate agents) as complicit in this whole debacle?

Do "you" disclose this? I doubt it, exactly like 1st in '59 stated. Even you "joked" about future disclosuere requirements. Will "you" disclose this issue from now on? "You" could pretend ignorance in the past but not now, not with all the press going on.

What if the guy arrested was a person who bought a house across the street and had one of those "private accesses to nowhere" and thus assumed he had full "beach access". Are the parties involved going to get off because because it "depends on the meaning of the words beach access"?

Aren't real estate agents held to a higher standard? Isn't that why they study for the real estate exam? Isn't that why they initially report to a broker who "watches" over them before they can become a broker themselves? Isn't that why disclosure forms were created...to indicate to a perspective buyer anything that might be detrimental to their side of the deal? I would think a questionable beach access would be one of them.

BTW, in that light, would you consider Redfish's beach access questionable?

Which reminds me. I asked you, after you asked me, what would happen to the value of my property if the beach became public and I lost my current private property rights as you are the RE expert?


OK SJ, time to post the "beat the dead horse" pic again.

What you are missing is something no one can teach you. It's your attitude, and it's one prevelant with alpha type beachfront owners who look down from their dune-top residences at the great unwashed.

At least you're consistent! From earlier this year you called me the same thing.
"As an oceanfront alpha-male, you, among all people, know it's all about money. Even the rule of law is tainted by money. You'll never know if envelopes went under the door late at night. Best thing to do is enjoy the beach as it is today, because it's only going to become more crowded."

I did not know there was goat on the AFLAC commercial? I thought it was a duck?

Bobby, you really can learn some new things on SoWal. Take a look...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtBirwSpLJY"]YouTube - Aflac Goat[/ame]

First regarding the 20 year comment:

"In Florida, the statute of limitations is seven years for adverse​

possession, while the statute of limitations for prescriptive easements is twenty years." See this and search for the above text.

Second regarding a quote above: "...including beaches below mean high water lines.."
I and nobody else is disputing this so why bring it up?

My bad, got confused with wet sand, dry sand, high water, low water, mean lines............
This is almost as complicated as the butt coverage laws.

However, I did find your link interesting in that author states that Florida needs to dip their toes in the rough surf and revisit the Public Trust doctrine, the obvious.

My bad, got confused with wet sand, dry sand, high water, low water, mean lines............

However, but I did find your link interesting in that author states that Florida needs to dip their toes in the rough surf and revisit the Public Trust doctrine.

Not a problem. And that's the whole point, we can beat each other up here on SoWal all day (and all night;-) ) long and nothing will change (except maybe feelings). It must be decided in court ONE WAY or ANOTHER based on case law and based on ACTUAL facts, not what people think or feel.

I was thinking about a question SJ asked me earlier: Why I haven't posted signs and run people off yet. I dodged the question somewhat and answered that it is an association issue (which it is).

But in reality, we have more problems with the people across the street coming through our property and parking lot and walkover than with the general public making their way down to our area of the beach (decent hike when loaded). So gates were put up which stopped the traffic from across the street.

It hasn't been a real issue for us YET as very few, if any, people on the beach don't belong to the condos other than people walking along the beach.

Redfish Village will change that eventually and our signs will probably go up then. Then it will become similar to the Retreat / Inn at Blue Mountain Beach situation.

Night night!

Kingdom Law Rules ;-) !!!!!!!!!!!

Take a look at my new video on YOUTUBE at
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEA7IwiJf98"]YouTube - Fighting to keep Florida beaches Public[/ame]

The voice is the best for now, maybe with some suggestions presentations will improve

I don't check this blof often so please email me with questions or concerns through my website at
www.publicshore.com

Kingdom Law Rules ;-) !!!!!!!!!!!

I agree!!

Speaking as a tourist who will NEVER own ocean/gulf front property, I would much rather spend my hard earned dollars visiting a state that goes to great lengths to let me know I am welcome on any beach in the state (including beaches that front 5 star resorts and homes worth millions) than a state that warns me to stay on the wet sand or face being arrested!!

Like I said earlier BMBV If I had a listing that said "private beach" I would remove the remarks right away. I would also be concerned if I had sold a peice and made a claim of a private beach. I see allot more liability there then selling property to people and showing them there deeded beach access conncected to supposed "private" beaches.

BMBV,
The SELLERS are the one who need to be disclosing material facts for the sale of their property, in the Real Property Disclosure Statements.

You can bet that I will be pointing out the craziness of the two thoughts of the beach ownership to anyone and everyone I can, including those who are buying property, and I might even encourage them to peacefully sit on the beach and enjoy a sunset, if they are willing to make a stand and possibly be arrested and taken to court, or face a lawsuit for damages by the property owner.

In answer to your question BlueMtBeach Vagrant, I have owned #8 at Sea Bluff since 1991. Our board, has never taken a direct position on use of our beach but NOBODY has been asked EVER to move. We do frown on the use of our walkover to access the beach, however, because of liabilty and other issues. The beach at the bottom of the bluff should be for EVERYONE as long as they are courteous and respectful. It is my opion, since I served to protect everyone's freedoms and rights, that the beach should be available to all. You can't build on it, you can't farm it and you can't do anything but sit on it and play on it. All should be able to do that.

Take a look at my new video on YOUTUBE at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEA7IwiJf98

The voice is the best for now, maybe with some suggestions presentations will improve

I don't check this blof often so please email me with questions or concerns through my website at
www.publicshore.com

Well that was so enlightening! Gosh I learned all kinds of things...I had no idea. And what a crap production (John R, someone desperately needs your services!!!!) for somthing as IMPORTANT as this!

Folks, don't waste 4 minutes and 29 seconds of your life looking at this. It's ALL been said before. I know everyone will now look at it since I criticize it. So if you do, all I can say is "I told you so".

Constructively speaking, Bobby, you really need to align yourself with someone more effective if you want to move your view along.

Like I said earlier BMBV If I had a listing that said "private beach" I would remove the remarks right away. I would also be concerned if I had sold a peice and made a claim of a private beach. I see allot more liability there then selling property to people and showing them there deeded beach access conncected to supposed "private" beaches.

BTW, See the goat?

Bobby, do you really mean to say "private beach access" rather than "private beach" above?

Edited: OK I see your point...nevermind. But I have not seen a gulf front owner market their property as "private beach". I have seen hundreds if not thousands of properties marketed with "private beach access". So while we're on it, would you remove that as well if the situation is similar to the Retreat area?