Led away in Handcuffs

On BMB, to the best of my knowlege, not one cent of public $ have yet been used for restoration, hurricane relief or any form of armoring. If you don't believe me on the armoring, you are welcome to take over my HELOC paymet for ours. By the way, the Florida Supreme Court is suppose to announce its decision on the Destin/Okaloosa beach renouishment program today, according to the NW Florida Daily News.

Andy A, even though we may disagree about the private/public thing, at least you speak the truth. Thanks for responding to Scooterbug and setting her straight. I know she wouldn't believe me if I were to have said it.

Hey BeachSiO2....you've been a little too quiet regarding a few of my posts that involved you.
1. You've made no comment about BMB being private (I don't believe). Or is the jury still out for margaritas?
2. Do we all really know each other? ;-)

Although not directed at you, but I know you are a MHWL expert (how can I ever forget your very informative MHWL lesson?).....
Can you PLEASE clarify Scooterbug's statement that she recently made as it applies to private beach? "Mean high water line" is just a geographic/survey term to accommodate the variations of a body of water. It has no legal rights or implications by itself.

And for the benefit of others, here's the link to the Destin Log article mentioned in the other post:
http://www.thedestinlog.com/articles/headline_articledisplay.php?a=4816&page=2

TIA.

It is just one of many points of how someone sitting on the beach could be considered to not be trespassing.

You're right.

AGAIN, property rights are not without limits.

You're right about that, also.

The FL Supreme Court notes that the sandy, lower beach elevations which are considered beach, have different rights associated with that portion of property, than the upland portion of that same parcel.

You're right about that, as well.

You're doing good SJ.

However, you haven't answered my question why one would worry about the MHWL when one insists the beach is public. If the beach is public, then one doesn't have to worry about the MHWL.

SJ, the only 2 possible answers I see are simple:
1. The beach is private and one needs to pay attention to the MHWL;
OR
2. The beach is public and it doesn't matter where the MHWL is.

It can't be both or some combination of, IMO.

Hey BeachSiO2....you've been a little too quiet regarding a few of my posts that involved you.
1. You've made no comment about BMB being private (I don't believe). Or is the jury still out for margaritas?
2. Do we all really know each other? ;-)

Although not directed at you, but I know you are a MHWL expert (how can I ever forget your very informative MHWL lesson?).....
Can you PLEASE clarify Scooterbug's statement that she recently made as it applies to private beach? "Mean high water line" is just a geographic/survey term to accommodate the variations of a body of water. It has no legal rights or implications by itself.

And for the benefit of others, here's the link to the Destin Log article mentioned in the other post:
http://www.thedestinlog.com/articles/headline_articledisplay.php?a=4816&page=2

TIA.

Actually I think I did address them when I said I wasn't a law student, attorney, land use attorney, or judge, but I will try again ;-)

I think that there are areas all along the Blue Mountain Beach area that are privately OWNED. It will be up to others to determine what is PRIVATE. Similar words with varied meanings since something can be privately-owned but not contain the entire bundle of rights another privately-owned piece of property might have. Uh-oh I sounded like an attorney there :leaving:

I think I know which condo/townhome you live in, but actually I wasn't referencing you in my post when I said people aren't as anonymous as they think they are.

I am no expert in the implications of the line. I just know how it is determined and the legal definition of it so you may want to ask SBug for a further explanation.

On a totally unrelated post but since you asked my "help" ;-) I thought I would remind you of public monies spent in Blue Mountain. I remember two specific examples. One was emergency beach scraping after Hurricane Ivan and Tropical Storm Arlene. Also, all the design, engineering, and permitting work that has been conducted as part of the Phase 2 Beach Project on the TDC's website. I would guess at least 2 million dollars have been spent on those efforts along the 30-A corridor, and Blue Mountain Beach has been included in those projects.

In the past I always assumed (dangerous word) the MHWL was established to understand the varying tide changes. If this is not the case why would you need to know the MHWL in areas such as state parks? If the MHWL was only to determine property lines why would we look at it everywhere?

We need a surveyor or property attorney to explain this better.

MHWL is just like a Shoreline or Wetland Boundary - it exists as an independent entity and varies based on when you measure it & what the conditions are at that time. Think of it as "average high tide".

You can use it as a way of delineating a property the same way you can use a fence, building, stake, road etc. but it isn't just for property purposes.

Florida law says that the state owns below the MHWL, but it gets murky because they can choose to sell it to a private individual, but not at the expense of the public.

Actually I think I did address them when I said I wasn't a law student, attorney, land use attorney, or judge, but I will try again ;-)

I think that there are areas all along the Blue Mountain Beach area that are privately OWNED. It will be up to others to determine what is PRIVATE. Similar words with varied meanings since something can be privately-owned but not contain the entire bundle of rights another privately-owned piece of property might have. Uh-oh I sounded like an attorney there :leaving:

I think I know which condo/townhome you live in, but actually I wasn't referencing you in my post when I said people aren't as anonymous as they think they are.

I am no expert in the implications of the line. I just know how it is determined and the legal definition of it so you may want to ask SBug for a further explanation.

On a totally unrelated post but since you asked my "help" ;-) I thought I would remind you of public monies spent in Blue Mountain. I remember two specific examples. One was emergency beach scraping after Hurricane Ivan and Tropical Storm Arlene. Also, all the design, engineering, and permitting work that has been conducted as part of the Phase 2 Beach Project on the TDC's website. I would guess at least 2 million dollars have been spent on those efforts along the 30-A corridor, and Blue Mountain Beach has been included in those projects.

Thanks for the reply.

Regarding beach scraping, you're right, we did receive some benefit. How much do you think this truly cost the county per linear foot of beach? I could guesstimate and I'm sure it would not hold a candle to the private money spent on hauling sand in during Ivan and Dennis, not to mention everything else spent on walls and repairs. What's a tractor cost per hour and how many hours were spent per 100 feet of beach? Point is, this cost you describe is minimal in the scheme of things. Question: did that money come out of TDC's budget or the county's budget?

One more thing, we would have scraped the beach ourself at our cost if only we were allowed to.

The second and the most IMPORTANT part:
I (we) haven't asked for any help on beach renourishment yet. Rather than debate the pros and cons of beach renourishment at this time, I'd rather leave it alone until the supreme court makes a ruling since it seems that they will soon. Then we'll start another thread. This thread is sticky enough. Was it not the county's choice to spend the big bucks for the phase II study, not at the request of the majority of gulf-front owners from what I understand? Nobody ever asked us about it, I can assure you of that.

So in the end and practically speaking, I believe Andy A is still correct.

MHWL:

If you are still a little confused as to how the MHWL is established, take a look at post 904. This is clear and to the point.

But it seems that some of you are debating what a MHWL represents. At least for us, it represents the southern boundary of our gulf-front property.

You're right.


You're right about that, also.


You're right about that, as well.

You're doing good SJ.

However, you haven't answered my question why one would worry about the MHWL when one insists the beach is public. If the beach is public, then one doesn't have to worry about the MHWL.

SJ, the only 2 possible answers I see are simple:
1. The beach is private and one needs to pay attention to the MHWL;
OR
2. The beach is public and it doesn't matter where the MHWL is.

It can't be both or some combination of, IMO.

Here is where the circle of craziness, ask a question, get an answer, acknowledge the answer, then ask why no answer, comes to an end. AGAIN and final time, I never said worry, that is your word, but if you are claiming trespassing, without you proving you property boundaries, it is impossible for the charges to stick. That is a much easier, doesn't even require an attorney, to prove that hiring an attorney, getting testimony from many people for what they remember over the last 20 years. It ain't rocket science, but you sure make it sound as though it is.

Thanks for the reply.

Regarding beach scraping, you're right, we did receive some benefit. How much do you think this truly cost the county per linear foot of beach? I could guesstimate and I'm sure it would not hold a candle to the private money spent on hauling sand in during Ivan and Dennis, not to mention everything else spent on walls and repairs. What's a tractor cost per hour and how many hours were spent per 100 feet of beach? Point is, this cost you describe is minimal in the scheme of things. Question: did that money come out of TDC's budget or the county's budget?

One more thing, we would have scraped the beach ourself at our cost if only we were allowed to.

The second and the most IMPORTANT part:
I (we) haven't asked for any help on beach renourishment yet. Rather than debate the pros and cons of beach renourishment at this time, I'd rather leave it alone until the supreme court makes a ruling since it seems that they will soon. Then we'll start another thread. This thread is sticky enough. Was it not the county's choice to spend the big bucks for the phase II study, not at the request of the majority of gulf-front owners from what I understand? Nobody ever asked us about it, I can assure you of that.

So in the end and practically speaking, I believe Andy A is still correct.

When a major hurricane puts the MHWL next to your living room, you may one day be on your knees asking the very public you wish to exclude from the beach to come to your rescue.

Thanks for the reply.

Regarding beach scraping, you're right, we did receive some benefit. How much do you think this truly cost the county per linear foot of beach? I could guesstimate and I'm sure it would not hold a candle to the private money spent on hauling sand in during Ivan and Dennis, not to mention everything else spent on walls and repairs. What's a tractor cost per hour and how many hours were spent per 100 feet of beach? Point is, this cost you describe is minimal in the scheme of things. Question: did that money come out of TDC's budget or the county's budget?

One more thing, we would have scraped the beach ourself at our cost if only we were allowed to.

The second and the most IMPORTANT part:
I (we) haven't asked for any help on beach renourishment yet. Rather than debate the pros and cons of beach renourishment at this time, I'd rather leave it alone until the supreme court makes a ruling since it seems that they will soon. Then we'll start another thread. This thread is sticky enough. Was it not the county's choice to spend the big bucks for the phase II study, not at the request of the majority of gulf-front owners from what I understand? Nobody ever asked us about it, I can assure you of that.

So in the end and practically speaking, I believe Andy A is still correct.

First, I read from Andy A that no public money was spent on the beaches in BMB. Then, BeachSiO2 reminds us of the scraping. I will add that public funds were also used to pile a crap load of sand on the beach at BMB public access which also went onto the adjacent property. I have photos. Seems like I recall some equipment using that for access to the beach. I wonder if that was Comm. Ro Cuchens? Anyhoo, you follow up BeachSiO2's reminder of the public funds being used for restoration, with a comment about it not being much compared to what the property owners spent. You are correct, but if one penny of public money is used to benefit particular private property owners, it makes no difference how much a landowner spent. All that matters then is that public funds were used for private gain. Still, the public has been using that beach for a long time, without complaints from the property owners. If the property to the east of Hwy 83 access has been privately owned since at least 1973, and the deed showing ownership was recorded only on Sept 20, 2007, and during that time, the public has customarily used the beach in that area (I have many photos, as do other people) during that stretch of time, the FL Supreme Court's rule of the use being twenty years or more, is met.

Regarding your second paragraph, please remember that you do not speak for all Gulf front owners in BMB, as it sounds like you are saying. I am guessing that you are referring only to your condo assoc, but we've been talking generically about BMB. It would be interesting for those property owners to have even built seawalls after 2004 and 2005 storms, because the deed for the beach part of the property wasn't even recorded until Sept 20, 2007. That's a shocker I know, but it is true from what I read at the Clerk of Courts.

Just a point, it sounds like the Gulf Front owners are saying that the beach is their private property and not to be trespassed upon. How is it that people are legally allowed to walk across the beach part of the property if the property owners say that it is private? On an interior lot, like my own, I can have you arrested for walking across my property, unless you are on the road or right of way which happens to be on my property. If this is so, how do Gulf front owners have a right to claim exclusivity to the property?

Thanks for the reply.

Regarding beach scraping, you're right, we did receive some benefit. How much do you think this truly cost the county per linear foot of beach? I could guesstimate and I'm sure it would not hold a candle to the private money spent on hauling sand in during Ivan and Dennis, not to mention everything else spent on walls and repairs. What's a tractor cost per hour and how many hours were spent per 100 feet of beach? Point is, this cost you describe is minimal in the scheme of things. Question: did that money come out of TDC's budget or the county's budget?

One more thing, we would have scraped the beach ourself at our cost if only we were allowed to.

The second and the most IMPORTANT part:
I (we) haven't asked for any help on beach renourishment yet. Rather than debate the pros and cons of beach renourishment at this time, I'd rather leave it alone until the supreme court makes a ruling since it seems that they will soon. Then we'll start another thread. This thread is sticky enough. Was it not the county's choice to spend the big bucks for the phase II study, not at the request of the majority of gulf-front owners from what I understand? Nobody ever asked us about it, I can assure you of that.

So in the end and practically speaking, I believe Andy A is still correct.

My understanding was that the beach scraping was paid for by FEMA, the state and Walton County through the TDC.

As for your second part, I remember a tremendous number of people "adamantly" stating that beach nourishment had to be done and should be done now after the storms hit. Maybe its died down some since 2005 but that's only because 2006 and 2007 were sans hurricanes. I don't believe a poll was taken but I am pretty sure that some of the MOST VOCAL proponents live in Blue Mountain :scratch:I think the gulf-front property owners throughout the 30A area made it extremely clear that in their eyes, it wasn't a "choice" for the County it was a "responsibility" of the County to help them.

This is probably the last post on this for me in the near future so if you have a question and I don't respond, please don't take it personally I'm just over it. Here's to a great Holiday Season.

My understanding was that the beach scraping was paid for by FEMA, the state and Walton County through the TDC.

As for your second part, I remember a tremendous number of people "adamantly" stating that beach nourishment had to be done and should be done now after the storms hit. Maybe its died down some since 2005 but that's only because 2006 and 2007 were sans hurricanes. I don't believe a poll was taken but I am pretty sure that some of the MOST VOCAL proponents live in Blue Mountain :scratch:I think the gulf-front property owners throughout the 30A area made it extremely clear that in their eyes, it wasn't a "choice" for the County it was a "responsibility" of the County to help them.

This is probably the last post on this for me in the near future so if you have a question and I don't respond, please don't take it personally I'm just over it. Here's to a great Holiday Season.

Points taken.

Merry Christmas to you!

When a major hurricane puts the MHWL next to your living room, you may one day be on your knees asking the very public you wish to exclude from the beach to come to your rescue.

You also make a good point and are probably right IF what you say happens.

You also make a good point and are probably right IF what you say happens.

If armoring had not been constructed on public property in some cases, the MHWL might be past some people's living rooms and into their bedrooms in the future.

...... It would be interesting for those property owners to have even built seawalls after 2004 and 2005 storms, because the deed for the beach part of the property wasn't even recorded until Sept 20, 2007. That's a shocker I know, but it is true from what I read at the Clerk of Courts.

Real shocker!!;-)

In the summer I said I wasn't sure. Now I'm sure.

SJ, assuming it never belonged to the county, it doesn't concern you or me. It becomes a private civil matter if there is any problem in the first place with the seawalls. Why do you insist on re-inventing the legal wheel on every subject you disagree with?

You also won't grasp the concept of MHWL saying that it has to be proven each time. You should be taking this up with the sheriff and his boss. They somehow figured it out when the person refused to leave the private beach. And I imagine they were flexible and reasonable in their interpretation of the MHWL that favored the "trespasser".

FWIW, yes, I would have a problem running someone off if their towel or chair was innocently only a foot or two from the wet sand line. An obvious differentiation would be an 8x8 foot tent spread out over private beach and the like.

I think its all been said now.

I'm with BeachSiO2. Let's let this all rest for now. Deal? You can have the last word.

We'll start another thread when the Supreme Court ruling is handed down.

Happy Holidays.

Last word!

Nice new avatar SJ they are giving birth to beach front property owners brains.Nice edit Mr Kurt, I bet BMBV slept with the night light on!!!!

Private Beach

From instrument # 1011222 filed in September, 2007: "....will not interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of said beach area by any owner of property in Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision No. 1."






EDIT: "You stand corrected" because you found the snapshot of the above instrument in my photo files and just had to post it before I could finish the above post. Just so everyone understands who is correcting who or whom or whomever or whatever.

I'm not sure if I can ask an "innocent and sincere" question on this thread,but here goes...

I heard recently (last week maybe) on the local news "fill-in" portion of the NPR morning news that the US Army Corps of Engineers was working on a feasibility study (with input from Walton Co TDC) for beach re-nourishment for Walton County beaches between Topsail Preserve and Seagrove (I think) due to beach erosion. IF this is true AND they actually spend the $40 to $60 million that they are currently planning what affect does this have on the Public vs. Private dilemma? I know how this was addressed in Okaloosa Co and Walton Co up to Topsail, at least I think I know. Does that represent legal precedence?

As a matter of disclaimer: I live in Blue Mountain Beach and frequented the contested area this past Summer, we moved here June 1, 2007. I didn't hear of the Public vs. Private debate until October, and after hearing of it I was always respectful of the wet sand line as I would jog from the Co Rd 83 access to the East to the Redfish Lake outflow. No one ever seemed overly interested that I was there and I usually said good morning to those that I saw - if I wasn't out of breath.

I have a conflicting opinion on this issue. A) I have strong Libertarian beliefs that lead me to advocate for private property rights and see a very narrow window for eminent domain seizures if any window at all. B) The concept of owning THE (emphasis added in sarcasm) Beach has never occurred to me previous to moving here. I guess (maybe) I can see a difference in owning lake front real estate that has limited movement in the water/land line (discounting the recent drought conditions in many areas) and the Gulf/Ocean front real estate that is in a constant state of movement. For example, in my beach jogging excursions this Summer and Fall I noticed that the "white sand" area of the beach moved more than 25 feet inland in some areas due to erosion. I can also find many examples of the courts finding "abandonment" with similar scenarios of long term usage by the public. How many times has the property owner added sand? How many times has the government? Whose sand is there now? It's all too ambiguous.

All that said I truly am an "innocent" bystander... at least I was.

And I really want the thoughts of others on what happens if the COE and TDC re-nourish THE Beach.

Bob, if I remember correctly and can add confusion, Walton County was waiting on 30A due to all of the issues around renourishment. Permitting, legal challenges for "private beaches", turtles, etc.

As for jogging, that has never been the issue. Anyone is free to walk down the beach. Provided they keep moving. Stop and try to set up camp and the men in green come down to get you.

Not to even get into the privatization issue-

Hasn't the beach pretty much renourished itself by now? Sure looks that way down here by Eastern Lake. Why waste the $60M on dredging?

Why not spend the bucks on 4-laning the 331 bridge? Or some other large-scale project that's truly in the public interest.

Yeah, I know, different programs, different agencies, different funding.

But still...

Bob, very good insight and questions. There may be some spirited discussion from both sides, but ultimately as BMBV has indicated previously(I think), it will be up to the courts.

This has been pretty extensively covered in the papers. The Beach Breeze has had the most comprehensive coverage, but many here do not read it. To make a long story short, the state draws a line in the sand, called the Erosion Control Line or ECL. After renourishment the "new" beach seaward of the ECL becomes public. I would not call it a precedence - it is a statutory requirement. In addition to bed tax money, other public funds are spent on renourishment and so the state has decided it must be public, otherwise it becomes a case of spending huge amounts of tax dollars on private property. Unfortunately in the Miramar Beach area this is being ignored, specifically by Surfside, which has placed two great big signs on the beach, identifying it as private and citing a bogus Florida statute. I spoke to the DEP about this and they agreed there is no question the renourished beach at Surfside is public, but they have no enforcement mechanism to get the signs removed. They have been there since last summer. And I doubt that most people understand the legalities of renourishment, they are probably just intimidated. Also you cannot tell exactly where the ECL is, it is not marked or anything like that.
Furthermore, there is a case before the courts right now in which a few property owners are challenging the whole deal because they do not want a new public beach in front of their private beach. Whatever ruling comes out of that could change the whole ball game.
Which areas exactly would be renourished is pretty much up to the DEP - they have to deem it "critically eroded" and there is criteria for that, hence all the studies and such. It's a long permitting process.
Hope this helps.

One further thought - I think the TDC and the county have been hoping renourishment would solve the public vs private dilemma, it the court case doesn't derail the whole thing or produce some new rules. But IMHO they have dropped the ball by allowing those Surfside signs to remain there.

POW!!

That's the sound of your hammer hitting the nail on the head.

Your question, "Why not spend the bucks on 4-laning the 331 bridge?" is a great one. The answer is that our bridges don't attract touristas.

How else is one going to "grow" the tourist industry in SoWal if a sginificant amount of the beaches are private?

Hey I know...throw some grains of sand out there and confiscate it.

"But Mr.and Ms. County Comissioner, we've got a beach out here. They seem to be recovering" says the beach front owner. "Can't we wait to do all this renourishment when we REALLY need it?".

Commissioner: "Nope, we need the beach to be public now. Trespassing arrests are bad for business, don't ya know. How else are we going to get away with approving the future Redfish Villages and Nature Walks and other large developments that need your private beach?"

"But Commissioner, I bought into the peace, tranquility and beauty of the area which I thought were protected by my private property rights."

"We don't care. Business is business. How are we going to increase passenger flow to justify a 330 million dollar airport to the federal and state authorities? ......and BTW my biggest "campaign contributor" is a developer who needs work."

Even if the beach is nourished by pumping sand from the Gulf by machine, why would you think that their would be no more charges of Trespass? Nourishment will not stop people from trying to run people off the beach.

Maybe the push has more to do with getting "FREE" money from FEMA, for future renourishment.

Re: Private Beach

Even if the beach is nourished by pumping sand from the Gulf by machine, why would you think that their would be no more charges of Trespass?...

Call me crazy. And like I said, the Florida Supreme Court will decide that aspect.

Maybe the push has more to do with getting "FREE" money from FEMA, for future renourishment.

Now you're getting somewhere..."FREE" money to assist in the ongoing confiscation (after future erosion) of private property after the initial confiscation to make sure the beach continually extends past the initial Erosion Control Line all in an effort to support upland beach tourism.

Can you imagine 10 years from now? Growth beyond our wildest expectations and then the beaches (beyond the Erosion Control Line) are suddenly wiped out from a hurricane. All of a sudden, the public beaches become private again until they are renourished.

How long will it take the beaches to get renoursihed? Where do the thousands of upland tourists go until then? How much money will it cost then to renourish? What quality of sand will be available? Are we going to settle for off-quality sand for the sake of tourism? Will private property owners get compensated if they were to allow tourists to use the beach north of the ECL until then?

Lots of questions - a little like Pandora's box.

Just a guess, but the tourists will likely continue using the same beach which they have for years.

Here are some new changes in enforcement. I like those apples. Finally, they decided to listen to my idea. It should be up to the person filing the complaint to prove that a trespass exists, prior to someone being arrested, locked in jail. Otherwise, anyone could charge anyone else with trespassing just to have the other person arrested and locked in jail.


From www.waltonsun.com


County looks to dodge beach privatization bullet

By Sean Boone sean_boone@link.freedom.com




In July 2007, a visitor from Atlanta was arrested for not leaving a private beach property near The Retreat subdivision in Blue Mountain Beach. That arrest sparked controversy over what and where is deemed off limits to the public on South Walton beaches.
At the time of the incident, the Walton County Sheriff’s Office was enforcing the wet sand line as to where a person could legally sit or loiter in front of a private beach. But since the incident, the WCSO is now enforcing a state attorney’s code that requires proof of representative authority.
According to a state attorney’s document sent to the WCSO in August 2007, a representative of the property or property owner must obtain a sworn statement from the complainant that includes the exact latitude/longitude of the trespass and have proper photographs to show landmarks around where the trespass took place.
Captain Eddie Farris of the WCSO said their enforcement would continue to adhere to what the state attorney asks of them.
“As long as we meet the state attorney’s request,” he said. “We will go by what they say.”
Under the new code, the wet sand enforcement would also be changed requiring an owner to provide the plot of the mean-high-tide area over a 19-year period.
The 1974 City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama Inc. case brought beach privatization into full light, ruling that property that historically had been used as public access, could not be deemed private.
But many gray areas remain as to what is historic public access in the state of Florida.
Recently, Walton and Okaloosa County beach renourishment efforts have raised questions over what is the private beach owner’s rightful land and what is part of public beach after additional sand is added that extends property.
A lawsuit from three homeowners challenging the state’s erosion control permit was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2007, but a decision in the matter has not yet been tendered.
South Walton Tourist Development Beach Maintenance Manager David Sell said in a recent e-mail that the Remove It Or Lose It program, which removes items left on county beaches overnight, would not be able to patrol renourished beaches in the western end of the county until the Supreme Court ruling is made to determine if the area of beach is private or public.
“It is the county position that it should be public from the CCL (Coastal Construction Line) to the water,” he said. “However, we must wait to hear how the courts rule on it.”
Last year, Edgewater Condominiums in Miramar Beach fi led suit against Walton County after threats were made to remove their volleyball net, which was seen as a removable item under the TDC’s program.
“Since the code said chairs, tents, toys etc., Edgewater management thought the county had over-stepped its authority,” said Edgewater President Suzanne Harris. “Edgewater thought it was selective enforcement because an investigation by our attorney found there were many volleyball nets that had not been tagged, such as the one at the Whale’s Tail restaurant that was (on) public beach.”
BEACH SAFETY
LOOPHOLE
The South Walton Fire District’s Beach Safety program currently patrols more than 26 miles of beaches in South Walton. Much of the patrolling is done by roving (vehicles) below the high tide mark of private beaches.
“The majority of our responses are on private beaches,” said SWFD Beach Safety Director Gary Wise. “Without roving patrol west of Pompano Joe’s there would be no response (on west end of county beaches).”
Walton County currently has eight public beach accesses with lifeguard towers, but according to Wise many of the private beach areas have the worst rip currents.
“Two of the worst rip current areas are in Miramar Beach (on private property),” he said. “There are 26 miles of beach. Divide that by eight and you don’t have an ideal mathematical equation.”
Wise said his lifeguards were involved with 45 rescues and more than 50 assists (helped from the water) during Memorial Day weekend – many of who were swimming in front of private beach properties.

Private beach property creates a tricky legal situation for Walton County authorities. (Sean Boone/ The Sun)

sos......

Seems symptomatic of the larger inquisition we're all paying for.
When somebody washes up on a surf board & points a finger North of where they bumped their ride; it's like: "Well I surely don't own the gulf....(today)
dirty crayloa fingered local

God put that beach here for all of us to unwind, forget about the troubles of the world and relax. The rich want to own (and rarely get out to ENJOY it) the poor and middle class want to enjoy it. This is a ridiculous issue. Thank goodness the S.O. and the S.A.O. are now appying strict guidelines for complainants. After all, the burden of proof has ALWAYS been on those that prosecute. Defendants are ALWAYS assumed innocent until PROVEN guilty.

**Note: opinions expressed herein are my own and not those of anyone associated with the WCSO...**