Led away in Handcuffs

lol. Caroling, my property has nothing to do with beach access. I own a piece of property on which the County built and maintained a single lane dirt road. The road was no more than 12 foot in width, and even though they had deeded property on the other side of my property, still recognized in the County records to be used for a road, they put the road on the property which I own. It was used for many years by others in the area. A few years ago, without requesting permission, the County decided to pave the roads, and in doing so, they widened the right of way to 60'ft , which now impacted more of the property. The County tells me that they had prescriptive easement for the road since it had been used for a long period of time. They never even had a legal taking of the increased right of way, paying for it, nor did they offer to exchange what they took for the adjacent property dedicated on plats for road, which is a smaller property than that which they took. I can understand parts of that. No big deal. However, if now, the County now changes their way of thinking, in this beach issue, saying that the beach hasn't been customarily used by the public, and no longer allows the public to sunbathe on the beach, they are not being consistent in their actions, and are showing favoritism to certain property owners. To show their inconsistency, I will do as Tim Pauls did, and barricade the road which was constructed on my property, not because I don't want people to use it, but to show the County that what they are doing with the beach is wrong. You can come sunbathe on my road anytime, but watch out for the cars and trucks.

lol. Caroling, my property has nothing to do with beach access. I own a piece of property on which the County built and maintained a single lane dirt road. The road was no more than 12 foot in width, and even though they had deeded property on the other side of my property, still recognized in the County records to be used for a road, they put the road on the property which I own. It was used for many years by others in the area. A few years ago, without requesting permission, the County decided to pave the roads, and in doing so, they widened the right of way to 60'ft , which now impacted more of the property. The County tells me that they had prescriptive easement for the road since it had been used for a long period of time. They never even had a legal taking of the increased right of way, paying for it, nor did they offer to exchange what they took for the adjacent property dedicated on plats for road, which is a smaller property than that which they took. I can understand parts of that. No big deal. However, if now, the County now changes their way of thinking, in this beach issue, saying that the beach hasn't been customarily used by the public, and no longer allows the public to sunbathe on the beach, they are not being consistent in their actions, and are showing favoritism to certain property owners. To show their inconsistency, I will do as Tim Pauls did, and barricade the road which was constructed on my property, not because I don't want people to use it, but to show the County that what they are doing with the beach is wrong. You can come sunbathe on my road anytime, but watch out for the cars and trucks.

Hey Jo,

I just got off the phone with a friend who has a friend who has a friend who's uncle Bubba is in the Walton County jail, He sent word back through these friends that He awaits your arrival and is "quivering with anticipation"..... :rofl:

Brahahahahahahaha

Amost reminds me of the Fla state Fla game.... What a laugher that was.. Have a wonderful day!

lol. ... The County tells me that they had prescriptive easement for the road since it had been used for a long period of time. They never even had a legal taking of the increased right of way, paying for it, nor did they offer to exchange what they took for the adjacent property dedicated on plats for road, which is a smaller property than that which they took. ... However, if now, the County now changes their way of thinking, in this beach issue, saying that the beach hasn't been customarily used by the public, and no longer allows the public to sunbathe on the beach, they are not being consistent in their actions, and are showing favoritism to certain property owners.

Ahh, thanks for s.p.e.l.l.i.n.g it out for me. Excellent point. I hope the BCC gets that message. In contemplating the blocked beach and the blocked road, I imagine that the property owners then can't get to their beach to privately use it. The beach is deserted. Then perhaps hovercraft will be developed so I could rent a flying beach chair/umbrella set and hover where ever I want, not touching dry sand. Or perhaps plant feet in the wet and cantilever back over dry sand. Or do the property rights include the airspace over the property? How far up in the sky has been deeded away?

Ahh, thanks for s.p.e.l.l.i.n.g it out for me. Excellent point. I hope the BCC gets that message. In contemplating the blocked beach and the blocked road, I imagine that the property owners then can't get to their beach to privately use it. The beach is deserted. Then perhaps hovercraft will be developed so I could rent a flying beach chair/umbrella set and hover where ever I want, not touching dry sand. Or perhaps plant feet in the wet and cantilever back over dry sand. Or do the property rights include the airspace over the property? How far up in the sky has been deeded away?

2 miles.

re: Two very important items are on this weeks BCC agenda which could significantly affect the public?s use of the beach.

One agenda item is a blatant attempt to take away the public?s rights to use the beach.

Another item regards the beach armoring which was installed illegally on a designated public beach. The county proposal is to allow the armoring to stay on the public beach. The county plans to ?lease? the public property to private beach front owners for only $500 a year.

Many feel that this low fee does not adequately compensate the county for the risks it is assuming. Coastal scientists have pointed out the potential harm armoring could do to the beach. Beach armoring can significantly contribute to beach erosion and affect neighboring properties that do not have armoring. There is also the expense of cleaning up what is left of the armoring after a major storm.

Below is a fan out from SWCC-the South Walton county public advocacy group.

"Dear SWCC Member,

Here is the revised agenda for the county commission meeting this Tuesday, December *11 at the courthouse in DeFuniak. (There have been complaints about the meeting being in DeFuniak again. The meetings are supposed to alternate and have been alternating with one meeting in DeFuniak and the subsequent meeting in the South Walton Annex. The last meeting was in DeFuniak. It is unfortunate that this meeting is in Defuniak again *as it has several important south Walton items on the agenda. Please attend if you can.)

Items of Interest:

1. Proposed Resolution on Private Property Rights to the Beach. Matthew Burns, the attorney for several gulf front property owners is proposing a resolution for the Board to adopt. Basically, the property owners are asking the county commissioners to acknowledge that their ?governmental interest? is to protect private property interests from legislation that would ?inordinately burden? private property rights;
? that *the enactment of any ordinance giving a non-owner the right to use private property imposes an ?inordinate burden? on the private property owner and that the ?customary use? of privately owned beaches is a ?private civil? matter that must be settled between those who desire to use the beach and the owners of the affected private beach property. In essence, *the impact of the resolution is to ask the county commissioners to acknowledge that the enactment of any ordinance that would recognize the public?s customary use of the beach would inordinately burden the private property rights of beachfront property.
? SWCC opposes the adoption of this proposed resolution. We encourage the commissioners to continue their more deliberative approach to this issue and to provide a special public hearing before any action is taken.
?
? 2. **Office of the County Attorney. License Agreement for Seawalls and Tubes on the Public Beach. This is the second hearing on a proposed licensing agreement for coastal armoring structures which were placed by private individuals on the public beach. This was not voted on at the last meeting as the agreement was not placed in the public file for review by the public. In essence, for an annual fee of $500, the beach front property owners will be allowed to keep their walls and/or Protectubes on public property under the terms and conditions in the agreement. Generally, the agreement requires that the walls be kept covered with white sand and otherwise maintained. The county has the right to terminate the agreement at any time. I will forward a copy of the license agreement to anyone interested in the details.

;-)

re: Two very important items are on this weeks BCC agenda which could significantly affect the public?s use of the beach.

One agenda item is a blatant attempt to take away the public?s rights to use the beach.

Another item regards the beach armoring which was installed illegally on a designated public beach. The county proposal is to allow the armoring to stay on the public beach. The county plans to ?lease? the public property to private beach front owners for only $500 a year.

Many feel that this low fee does not adequately compensate the county for the risks it is assuming. Coastal scientists have pointed out the potential harm armoring could do to the beach. Beach armoring can significantly contribute to beach erosion and affect neighboring properties that do not have armoring. There is also the expense of cleaning up what is left of the armoring after a major storm.

Below is a fan out from SWCC-the South Walton county public advocacy group.

Hi hi, Thanks for a very informitive post, Non attacking, non threatening, and packed with useful information. Thanks for an excellent communication ....of course this is only my opinion...





"Dear SWCC Member,

Here is the revised agenda for the county commission meeting this Tuesday, December *11 at the courthouse in DeFuniak. (There have been complaints about the meeting being in DeFuniak again. The meetings are supposed to alternate and have been alternating with one meeting in DeFuniak and the subsequent meeting in the South Walton Annex. The last meeting was in DeFuniak. It is unfortunate that this meeting is in Defuniak again *as it has several important south Walton items on the agenda. Please attend if you can.)

Items of Interest:

1. Proposed Resolution on Private Property Rights to the Beach. Matthew Burns, the attorney for several gulf front property owners is proposing a resolution for the Board to adopt. Basically, the property owners are asking the county commissioners to acknowledge that their ?governmental interest? is to protect private property interests from legislation that would ?inordinately burden? private property rights;
? that *the enactment of any ordinance giving a non-owner the right to use private property imposes an ?inordinate burden? on the private property owner and that the ?customary use? of privately owned beaches is a ?private civil? matter that must be settled between those who desire to use the beach and the owners of the affected private beach property. In essence, *the impact of the resolution is to ask the county commissioners to acknowledge that the enactment of any ordinance that would recognize the public?s customary use of the beach would inordinately burden the private property rights of beachfront property.
? SWCC opposes the adoption of this proposed resolution. We encourage the commissioners to continue their more deliberative approach to this issue and to provide a special public hearing before any action is taken.
?
? 2. **Office of the County Attorney. License Agreement for Seawalls and Tubes on the Public Beach. This is the second hearing on a proposed licensing agreement for coastal armoring structures which were placed by private individuals on the public beach. This was not voted on at the last meeting as the agreement was not placed in the public file for review by the public. In essence, for an annual fee of $500, the beach front property owners will be allowed to keep their walls and/or Protectubes on public property under the terms and conditions in the agreement. Generally, the agreement requires that the walls be kept covered with white sand and otherwise maintained. The county has the right to terminate the agreement at any time. I will forward a copy of the license agreement to anyone interested in the details.

and if the BCC tries to stop the public from sunbathing on the beach in Walton County, I will barricade the road which was built on my property, and tell the BCC to shove it. Maybe I'll even hire an excavator to remove it.

SJ, you've repeatedly moaned and groaned about your easement and the county. But that's OK. I do think its worth repeating over and over. Really. It sounds like you were screwed.

BUT, it sure looks like you're trying to imply that two wrongs will make a right....and that's plain WRONG. And you know that.

Listen up:

[Most] of the county commissioners are thoroughly inoculated for the dreaded "biitch-biitch-biitch" virus.


You complain about your easement situation but I NEVER read in any of your posts where you said anything about hiring an attorney to fight the county regarding your personal situation.

The point is, as I have repeatedly said (like you about yours) that Sun Seekers had to hire 2 separate attorneys to FIGHT the county (and prevail) at a cost of over $50,000 for an easement situation. If we didn't FIGHT, we would not have prevailed and the county would have had their way with us. Biitching alone gets you nowhere with the county and I think, at a minimum, you could agree to that.

They don't seem to give a flying freak how much money they spend of the taxpayer's money persuing lawsuits like this. Again I'm sure they spent more than we did on this case. So at least $100,000 minimum went down the drain (unless you were the attorneys involved of course). In reality, it didn't personally cost the commissioners a nickel.

If this county finds themselves wanting to get involved with more lawsuits regarding the "taking" of private beach without reparations, they should get ready for an all-out assault from the gulf-front owners. Believe me, I am just one tiny voice out there.

We did not hesitate to spend $50,000 defending a 3 foot easement on our 50+ foot wide lot. How many feet of private beach do you think is out there in Walton County? 10 miles maybe?...no idea. Do the math. This might give you an idea of how much money could possibly be pissed away by both sides and then in the end, nothing may change.

Moral of the story? Hire a GOOD attorney if you need one and you feel the fight is worth the expense.

The ONLY times I have mentioned the road on my property are in these threads regarding the beach. I understand that the road, being there for such a long time, and used by many people living at points beyond my property, gives them prescriptive easement to continue to do so. I really don't have a problem with that. I simply bring it up because it is IMO no different that the beach issue. Now you claim that people need specific proof of continued use. I would bet you money that people who live beyond my property, have nothing other than testimony to prove their use of the road on my property, and, since traffic isn't continuously bumper to bumper, I could say that it isn't continuously used. However, I am not an @sshole about the issue, and I allow my neighbors to enter their driveway from my property, and I allow the general public to drive on the road which is on my deeded land. If you want to set up a chair and drink your beer on the roadside, go right ahead, but I will ask you dispose of your garbage. (note that the TDC doesn't have any trashcans, nor any restrooms, so pack your sh_t out with your garbage.)

Personally, I think the BCC should keep out of this situation as I believe they do not have the authority to do anything. The only County office which I think needs to make some decisions on this issue is the Sheriff's Office. We've seen what they do. If people have a problem with it, sit on the beach, get arrested and fight it. Life is too short, not to enjoy sunbathing on the beautiful beaches of Walton County, and I mean all of the beaches. Go ahead. Arrest me. You might not want to open that can of worms. Even if someone were to lose a case for sitting on the beach, I think they would get tired of the court costs if everyone continued to do the same thing, and sooner or later, the Sheriff's office has to draw the line, or hire additional Deputies to patrol the beach for trespassers. I'm still waiting to see one current survey of a beach front property which owns deeded property to the MHWM, which changes very often. Most property owners do not have one, and without it, knowing that the MHWM changes frequently, I'd like to see a property owner prove in a court of law, that I was sitting on property deeded to them. That alone might get it thrown out, but I'd be betting that there are plenty of other things like customary use, which would also make it official that everyone could use the beach.

If this county finds themselves wanting to get involved with more lawsuits regarding the "taking" of private beach without reparations, they should get ready for an all-out assault from the gulf-front owners. Believe me, I am just one tiny voice out there.

We did not hesitate to spend $50,000 defending a 3 foot easement on our 50+ foot wide lot. How many feet of private beach do you think is out there in Walton County? 10 miles maybe?...no idea. Do the math. This might give you an idea of how much money could possibly be pissed away by both sides and then in the end, nothing may change.

Moral of the story? Hire a GOOD attorney if you need one and you feel the fight is worth the expense.

Do you not feel the county will have an all out assault from joe public? Either way you are screwed. This issue is starting to get national attention and Joe public has a good attorney too. This could get real costly. Not to mention, if joe public loses people will still come and plop on the beach where ever they want. It seems like a battle that can't be won.
My good friend Dave R once said, "Trying to own the beach is like trying to own the sky". You simply can't.

edit: personal attacks or threats are not allowed on SoWal.com

I still say I will plop my a** anywhere on the beach. I welcome someone to come over and ask me to move it...

Bobby J, doesn't the real estate company that you're affiliated with, represent properties in the following areas....

Rosemary Beach
Seaside
Watercolor
Blue Mountain Beach and others?

You should know exactly why I ask.

Seems like you still want your cake and eat it too. And now you're resorting to intimidation.

Just seems to me that you are showing a very unprofessional side of yourself. I'm really sorry things are degrading to this when I sincerely hoped in a previous post from me to you that "we" could get along during this "evolutionary" process.

The lawyers will fight this out...not you or me. Try to understand this.

If the lawyers are the ones who will decide this, why do you bring up the south Florida case about driving on the beach? You have previously stated several times that this issue in SoWal will be decided on a case by case basis. If that is so, cases pertaining to south Florida about driving on the beach have absolutely nothing to do with this thread regarding SoWal. You telling Bobby J to stop fighting it is rather silly when you have restarted this thread with posts about south Florida.

Bobby J, doesn't the real estate company that you're affiliated with, represent properties in the following areas....

Rosemary Beach
Seaside
Watercolor
Blue Mountain Beach and others?

You should know exactly why I ask.

Seems like you still want your cake and eat it too. And now you're resorting to intimidation.

Just seems to me that you are showing a very unprofessional side of yourself. I'm really sorry things are degrading to this when I sincerely hoped in a previous post from me to you that "we" could get along during this "evolutionary" process.

The lawyers will fight this out...not you or me. Try to understand this.

I am not trying to intimidate anyone. I feel the process will work its way out. It will just work its way out a lot faster if someone comes over and ask me to move. Try to understand this. My cake and eat it too...? Do we only get along if I agree with you? Do you feel I have a lot to lose posting on an open forum? Why would I do such a thing? You say unprofessional. I say passionate. I am protecting something far more important then my RE license.

Not sure why you want to bring up my work? I simply believe the beaches are for all to enjoy and there is no such thing as a "private beach". My office may disagree with me. I have never asked. They invited me to come work with them because I offer a little different angle on the market then they do. I have no ideal what their position on "private beaches" is.

I will say that I do not mean to direct the plopping my a** comment at you personally. It is a comment to anyone that ask me to leave a spot on my beach.

The fellow is trying to intimidate you Bobby J, a bit of a low blow imo. Eff 'em and keep standing up for what you believe in.

Bobby J, doesn't the real estate company that you're affiliated with, represent properties in the following areas....

Rosemary Beach
Seaside
Watercolor
Blue Mountain Beach and others?

You should know exactly why I ask.

Seems like you still want your cake and eat it too. And now you're resorting to intimidation.

Just seems to me that you are showing a very unprofessional side of yourself. I'm really sorry things are degrading to this when I sincerely hoped in a previous post from me to you that "we" could get along during this "evolutionary" process.

The lawyers will fight this out...not you or me. Try to understand this.

What has this to do with anything? Have you played all your cards already? This appears to be the graspings of someone who's logic has left the room. Go to sleep now... The nurse will be up later with your rice pudding.

What has this to do with anything? Have you played all your cards already? This appears to be the graspings of someone who's logic has left the room. Go to sleep now... The nurse will be up later with your rice pudding.

Very funny.

Commissioner Jones was on the news a minute ago, and he stated that they were just trying to do the right thing and keep what has historically been used by the public open to the public. That isn't verbatim, but close to it. Keep in mind that this same attorney who is now presenting a potential ordinance, was basically told two meetings ago to chill out and that the County was just beginning to look at their options of any actions which they might want to consider. I think they will quickly shut him down again. Just my guess. Please feel free to send some emails to all five County Commissioners before their meeting tomorrow. If you want to keep the beach public, let the Commissioners clearly understand that.

Edit: update on the 6 O'Clock news:They also interviewed another property owner in Blue Mtn Beach (I have no idea if she owns Gulf Front), who stated that she used to be a tourist and that she now lives here. She just wants the tourists to clean up after themselves. Amen, sister! ...but you don't have to own Gulf front to think like that. I'm guessing that she just happened to be in the yard when the news truck drove by, and doesn't represent the people who are wanting to suddenly make the beaches private.

Also on this clip is Commissioner Larry Jones stating something along the lines of:

Just because you have a deed, doesn't make you entitled to the rights you might have with another deed.

********
I don't always agree with Commissioner Larry Jones, but I can say that I do think he has a genuine concern for all areas of Walton County, even though he lives in NoBay (North of the Bay). He was also the Commissioner who pushed for the dark imported dirt to be removed from the beach, replaced with whiter sand. I certainly hope the other Commissioners are in agreement with him in this case.

I am not trying to intimidate anyone. I feel the process will work its way out. It will just work its way out a lot faster if someone comes over and ask me to move. Try to understand this. My cake and eat it too...? Do we only get along if I agree with you? Do you feel I have a lot to lose posting on an open forum? Why would I do such a thing? You say unprofessional. I say passionate. I am protecting something far more important then my RE license.

Not sure why you want to bring up my work? I simply believe the beaches are for all to enjoy and there is no such thing as a "private beach". My office may disagree with me. I have never asked. They invited me to come work with them because I offer a little different angle on the market then they do. I have no ideal what their position on "private beaches" is.

I will say that I do not mean to direct the plopping my a** comment at you personally. It is a comment to anyone that ask me to leave a spot on my beach.

Bobby, I think you did miss on what I was trying to get across. It had nothing to do with your RE license. Nothing you are doing here would jeopardize it, IMO.

You clearly define yourself as one who makes a living selling real estate. Again, I remind you that your organization explicitly claims that they sell property in many of the well known "private" beaches including, notably, Rosemary and Seaside.

It is now well known that Rosemary and Seaside (among others) have established no trespassing signs on their beach.

If you're so "passionate" as one reader commented, then why do you continue to be affiliated with any organization that profits on anything or anyone that promotes the idea of private beaches?

Now this would be a low blow if I were to say to you, "Is it all about the money?", as someone asked me in the past regarding private property rights.

Commissioner Jones was on the news a minute ago, and he stated that they were just trying to do the right thing and keep what has historically been used by the public open to the public. That isn't verbatim, but close to it. Keep in mind that this same attorney who is now presenting a potential ordinance, was basically told two meetings ago to chill out and that the County was just beginning to look at their options of any actions which they might want to consider. I think they will quickly shut him down again. Just my guess. Please feel free to send some emails to all five County Commissioners before their meeting tomorrow. If you want to keep the beach public, let the Commissioners clearly understand that.

Edit: update on the 6 O'Clock news:They also interviewed another property owner in Blue Mtn Beach (I have no idea if she owns Gulf Front), who stated that she used to be a tourist and that she now lives here. She just wants the tourists to clean up after themselves. Amen, sister! ...but you don't have to own Gulf front to think like that. I'm guessing that she just happened to be in the yard when the news truck drove by, and doesn't represent the people who are wanting to suddenly make the beaches private.

Also on this clip is Commissioner Larry Jones stating something along the lines of:

Just because you have a deed, doesn't make you entitled to the rights you might have with another deed.

********
I don't always agree with Commissioner Larry Jones, but I can say that I do think he has a genuine concern for all areas of Walton County, even though he lives in NoBay (North of the Bay). He was also the Commissioner who pushed for the dark imported dirt to be removed from the beach, replaced with whiter sand. I certainly hope the other Commissioners are in agreement with him in this case.

Just wonderful. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

SJ, remember when Jones said he didn't see any problem with a single gulf front lot owner who continuously invited over 300 people on to their property regardless of what affect or impact it would have on the neighborhood...all this during a heated BCC meeting early this year? Parking, noise, trash, etc. didn't seem to phase Mr. Jones.

And so it was with this comment that he justified the approval of Redfish Village's use of a single lot in a residential neighborhood.

Didn't you think this whole RFV thing was a bad move on the BCC's part? If so, why do you think Jones' true interest in the beach now parallels yours?

Bobby, I think you did miss on what I was trying to get across. It had nothing to do with your RE license. Nothing you are doing here would jeopardize it, IMO.

You clearly define yourself as one who makes a living selling real estate. Again, I remind you that your organization explicitly claims that they sell property in many of the well known "private" beaches including, notably, Rosemary and Seaside.

It is now well known that Rosemary and Seaside (among others) have established no trespassing signs on their beach.

If you're so "passionate" as one reader commented, then why do you continue to be affiliated with any organization that profits on anything or anyone that promotes the idea of private beaches?

Now this would be a low blow if I were to say to you, "Is it all about the money?", as someone asked me in the past regarding private property rights.

Are you stalking me? Maybe you could recommend where I should sell RE. I promise you it is not all about the money for me. You?

Just wonderful. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

SJ, remember when Jones said he didn't see any problem with a single gulf front lot owner who continuously invited over 300 people on to their property regardless of what affect or impact it would have on the neighborhood...all this during a heated BCC meeting early this year? Parking, noise, trash, etc. didn't seem to phase Mr. Jones.

And so it was with this comment that he justified the approval of Redfish Village's use of a single lot in a residential neighborhood.

Didn't you think this whole RFV thing was a bad move on the BCC's part? If so, why do you think Jones' true interest in the beach now parallels yours?

I don't recall specifically what Comm Jones said about Redfish Village. Let's say that he did say what you write above. Do you disagree with Comm Jones' comment, and think that a private property owner shouldn't be allowed to invite 300 people to his or her property as often as he or she likes? It sounds to me like the statement would actually align with your thoughts of protection of private property.

If you go back four prior posts and read my comments, you will note that I said that I don't always agree with Comm. Jones. I'm not sure what kind of mini-movies you are creating in your mind, nor if you ever bothered to read what I wrote about the approval of four major developments in Blue Mtn Beach, one with a Gulf front bathroom lot within a residentially-zoned subdivision.

BMBV, you may not know this, but Realtors work as independent contractors, in most cases. Just because someone else in a company where Bobby chooses to hang his license, decides to sell properties in WC, Rosemary, Seaside, etc, doesn't mean that Bobby J has the same beliefs and philosophies as the other agents. If that were the case, everyone in my office would be identical, and that is far from reality.

FLORIDA CONSTITUTION:
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.

So, wouldn't the State of Florida have a say in the ownership of the lands? Not the County?

FLORIDA CONSTITUTION:
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.

So, wouldn't the State of Florida have a say in the ownership of the lands? Not the County?

The key here are the words "mean high water lines". Try as I might, I can't find a definitive definition of the "mean high water line". It varies from day to day. I also believe there are some "rights" that supersede those set forth in a real estate deed. At least I hope so, or my 21 years of service to my country, at least in my case, was based totally on false premises.

BMBV, you may not know this, but Realtors work as independent contractors, in most cases. Just because someone else in a company where Bobby chooses to hang his license, decides to sell properties in WC, Rosemary, Seaside, etc, doesn't mean that Bobby J has the same beliefs and philosophies as the other agents. If that were the case, everyone in my office would be identical, and that is far from reality.

SJ, since you feel the need to speak for Bobby (and all the other "Realtors" in SoWal) , let's clarify something here:

We're not talk about individuality, philosophy and all that feel good stuff that you suggest. I'm simply and directly pointing out that Bobby's organization is profiting from the sale of private beach property in areas that are now notorious for posting "no trespassing" signs.

Two things I truly hate in this world....
Obstruction and/or confiscation of private property rights and hypocrisy.