Public vs Private Beach

...just thought I'd ask. At least when those things are covered by sand, we can pretend they are not there.

Would you ever come to BMB to see those walls since you're in Watercolor? Aren't we low rent compared to you guys?;-) We do share one thing however...we're both private beaches. Maybe you can carry Andy's torch in your neck of the woods.
back atya (even more SoWal etiquette).

Would you ever come to BMB to see those walls since you're in Watercolor? Aren't we low rent compared to you guys?;-) We do share one thing however...we're both private beaches. Maybe you can carry Andy's torch in your neck of the woods.
back atya (even more SoWal etiquette).

"Private beaches" that I personally haved surfed on and at for about 30 years. I am amazed at how this has become an issue over the past few years. I wish someone would answer my earlier questions regarding buying property that has folks playing out back and then complaining about them being there once they purchase. I guess the supposed "private" declaration overrides common sense? Help me understand.

"Private beaches" that I personally haved surfed on and at for about 30 years. I am amazed at how this has become an issue over the past few years. I wish someone would answer my earlier questions regarding buying property that has folks playing out back and then complaining about them being there once they purchase. I guess the supposed "private" declaration overrides common sense? Help me understand.

I thought you surfed in the water, not on the sand.

Does that help?

- the tradition of SoWal etiquette continued.

I thought you surfed in the water, not on the sand.

Does that help?

- the tradition of SoWal etiquette continued.

My post says on and at the beach. In order to get into the surf one must walk on the sand. This is another "common sense" thing that seems to be overlooked like my earlier question.

I am through arguing this point with you, BMBV. Obviously, you don't think I have any "property rights" as a townhouse owner. And our 5 member board's business is none of your business. We will all have to wait and see what happens this summer. With not neighborly property owners like you and the retreat, it ought to get interesting.

I am through arguing this point with you, BMBV. Obviously, you don't think I have any "property rights" as a townhouse owner. And our 5 member board's business is none of your business. We will all have to wait and see what happens this summer. With not neighborly property owners like you and the retreat, it ought to get interesting.

Andy, if you've read my posts, you would not compare me with the Retreat on a personal basis. You're a little quick to pull the trigger.

And if your board's business is none of my business, why did you bring it up in the first place? I thought I was asking you some legitmate questions as to the actions you said they took.

It is obvious that you're taking this all very personally. I am impassioned about this topic as much on one side as you are the other. I fear big government. I fear what they can do and have done. I fear the very people that allow big government to have their power.

I have researched this topic every which way I can think of as a layman. Everything points to the beach being private and staying that way unless the impending supreme court decision regarding nourishment goes in favor of the county.

Regardless of our differences, we are neighbors. If you don't like my position or questions, that's fine. Don't take it personally.

My post says on and at the beach. In order to get into the surf one must walk on the sand. This is another "common sense" thing that seems to be overlooked like my earlier question.

Bobby J, is this not what I was sharing in my earlier post? I believe that's what I was driving at when I referred to Surfrider.

Damn if I agree with Surfrider and damn if don't.

Bobby J, is this not what I was sharing in my earlier post? I believe that's what I was driving at when I referred to Surfrider.

Damn if I agree with Surfrider and damn if don't.

Not sure what you are talking about? You seem to be avoiding my question. What up?

"Private beaches" that I personally haved surfed on and at for about 30 years. I am amazed at how this has become an issue over the past few years. I wish someone would answer my earlier questions regarding buying property that has folks playing out back and then complaining about them being there once they purchase. I guess the supposed "private" declaration overrides common sense? Help me understand.

First you ask "someone" to answer your question (such as it is).

Not sure what you are talking about? You seem to be avoiding my question. What up?

Then you state that I am avoiding your question.

I'll take a stab since "nobody" else will and since you've called me out at sundown.;-)

At the risk of being repetitive, since this issue has been dissected down to the molecular level, I'll speak from my personal perspective (and I'll try to make it brief). When we purchased the beach front property in Blue Mountain Beach, we did so because it was not Panama City; it was not Destin; it was not Fort Walton Beach; it was Blue Mountain Beach, a very low key, uncrowded beach that happens to be private.

If you followed the Redfish Village, as an example, you would understand how developers tried to benefit by developing a large upland condominium project and then use the beach to "enhance" their value...any resulting profits go into their pockets with no benefit to beachfront owners...just an increase of problems associated with more people in a confined area: parking, trash, noise, overcrowding, etc.

As you know, the problem is that the majority of the beach where these extra 80 units will dump into via "their" 80 ft wide beach access, is right in the middle of residential property whose beach is private.

What makes matters WORSE is that the county gave their BLESSINGS to this concept (sans Sara Comander). Ms. Comander voted against this for a reason. It is not that she desires to deprive people of the beach. It is because there is a much bigger issue...and that is private property rights. I and others applaud her for clearly recognizing that.

Bobby, this is the problem...not you or your buddies that desire to occasionally use the beach. It is not about enforcing trespassing to the letter of the law. It is about sending a CLEAR SIGNAL to the county that the trampling of private property rights won't be tolerated. It is about discouraging inappropriate runaway growth fueled by developers looking for a dollar and certain commissioners assisting in their endeavor.

I hope this helps you understand my thinking as well as many, many other beachfront private property owners'. You can try to single me out (divide and conquer stuff) but it it really won't matter. Again, I expect nothing less from you and others, as I am one of the very few who speak up in defense of private property rights here on SoWal.

...

I have researched this topic every which way I can think of as a layman. Everything points to the beach being private and staying that way unless the impending supreme court decision regarding nourishment goes in favor of the county.
...

What did your research on Customary Use teach you?

First you ask "someone" to answer your question (such as it is).



Then you state that I am avoiding your question.

I'll take a stab since "nobody" else will and since you've called me out at sundown.;-)

At the risk of being repetitive, since this issue has been dissected down to the molecular level, I'll speak from my personal perspective (and I'll try to make it brief). When we purchased the beach front property in Blue Mountain Beach, we did so because it was not Panama City; it was not Destin; it was not Fort Walton Beach; it was Blue Mountain Beach, a very low key, uncrowded beach that happens to be private.

If you followed the Redfish Village, as an example, you would understand how developers tried to benefit by developing a large upland condominium project and then use the beach to "enhance" their value...any resulting profits go into their pockets with no benefit to beachfront owners...just an increase of problems associated with more people in a confined area: parking, trash, noise, overcrowding, etc.

As you know, the problem is that the majority of the beach where these extra 80 units will dump into via "their" 80 ft wide beach access, is right in the middle of residential property whose beach is private.

What makes matters WORSE is that the county gave their BLESSINGS to this concept (sans Sara Comander). Ms. Comander voted against this for a reason. It is not that she desires to deprive people of the beach. It is because there is a much bigger issue...and that is private property rights. I and others applaud her for clearly recognizing that.

Bobby, this is the problem...not you or your buddies that desire to occasionally use the beach. It is not about enforcing trespassing to the letter of the law. It is about sending a CLEAR SIGNAL to the county that the trampling of private property rights won't be tolerated. It is about discouraging inappropriate runaway growth fueled by developers looking for a dollar and certain commissioners assisting in their endeavor.

I hope this helps you understand my thinking as well as many, many other beachfront private property owners'. You can try to single me out (divide and conquer stuff) but it it really won't matter. Again, I expect nothing less from you and others, as I am one of the very few who speak up in defense of private property rights here on SoWal.

Everyone building south of 98 is using the beach to enhance the value of their property. The beach is for the public to use, and opposition to that use will bring an end to arresting beachgoers, by forcing court decision. Perhaps Molokai would be a better venue for you.

... When we purchased the beach front property in Blue Mountain Beach, we did so because it was not Panama City; it was not Destin; it was not Fort Walton Beach; it was Blue Mountain Beach, a very low key, uncrowded beach that happens to be private....[/quote]
I'm just curious to know what you thought about the general public using the beach which you call private, when you decided to purchase, and I am also curious to why the "private" beach owners have allowed the public to use the beach up until last year. The law says that one has to defend their property. If one fails to do so, he or she may give up some rights to that property. I keep hearing you talk about Private Property Rights and no big gov't. However, if you go back to the beginning of private property rights history in this country, you will see that it includes defending your property, and this homesteading was done by fencing of the property to show the boundary to others. So, if you are going to talk about property rights, please be sure to include the historical parts, and the Customary Use Doctrine.;-)

From BMBV's post in the beach restoration thread:

"Under Florida law, waterfront landowners? title extends to the ordinary high water mark and includes several rights such as access and view of the water, title to accretions, and the right to have the property remain in contact with the water. These rights are protected property rights under Florida case law."

I read this as "beachfront property owners have access rights, not full control or the right to run others off."

This sounds identical to the lake shore issue I grew up with - technically it's your property, but you can't prevent the public from using the shoreline or water. There is the area that is "your yard" and then there is the shoreline area where you cannot erect fences or gates and impede passage in any way.

I definitely agree that this is an issue because of poorly planned (and approved, so make sure those chickens come home to roost at election time) developments, but that doesn't change the reality that the beach is still a public resource.

From BMBV's post in the beach restoration thread:

"Under Florida law, waterfront landowners? title extends to the ordinary high water mark and includes several rights such as access and view of the water, title to accretions, and the right to have the property remain in contact with the water. These rights are protected property rights under Florida case law."

I read this as "beachfront property owners have access rights, not full control or the right to run others off."

I am sure that was the original intent. Greed changes perception. I think the courts will look at the intent and customary use. History has proven beach goer will win.

BMBV, thanks for your comments

Hey - if I lived in Blue Mountain and could get my coffee everyday at PJ's in Redfish Village, I would call that a benefit to the Blue Mountain folks.

I am sure that was the original intent. Greed changes perception.

Gosh I'm surprised Shelley didn't jump all over you for that comment coming from a real estate professional!! (granite counter tops and all).;-)

Today, I believe it is the other way...

Perception changes greed (c)2008 BMBV

I think the courts will look at the intent and customary use. History has proven beach goer will win.

Would one not consider the victory of Save Our Beaches (vs. Walton County) as part of history?

Hey - if I lived in Blue Mountain and could get my coffee everyday at PJ's in Redfish Village, I would call that a benefit to the Blue Mountain folks.

Now that's just plain MEAN!

Would one not consider the victory of Save Our Beaches (vs. Walton County) as part of history?

That's a good question. I would say not yet since the Supreme Court has taken it up to see whether it is a valid decision since the lower court decided with the County and the appeals sided with SOB. Plus, the Supreme Court did not issue a stay like the SOB's wanted and the project was allowed to be completed.

That's a good question. I would say not yet since the Supreme Court has taken it up to see whether it is a valid decision since the lower court decided with the County and the appeals sided with SOB. Plus, the Supreme Court did not issue a stay like the SOB's wanted and the project was allowed to be completed.

Coincidentally, that is funny!

But on the thread subject, even if Save Our Beaches does win the rights to accretion argument, that does not mean the beach is off limits to the public.

Hey - if I lived in Blue Mountain and could get my coffee everyday at PJ's in Redfish Village, I would call that a benefit to the Blue Mountain folks.

if one lived next door to the RV beach access, one could just hop on the shuttle to go get coffee. how easy is that?

That's a good question. I would say not yet since the Supreme Court has taken it up to see whether it is a valid decision since the lower court decided with the County and the appeals sided with SOB. Plus, the Supreme Court did not issue a stay like the SOB's wanted and the project was allowed to be completed.

So what's your take as to the hold-up on their decision?

Question: Regardless of who prevails in the State Supreme Court, could this thing go to Federal Supreme Court?

So what's your take as to the hold-up on their decision?

Question: Regardless of who prevails in the State Supreme Court, could this thing go to Federal Supreme Court?

As for part 1, I think it is because they also see public/private OWNERSHIP vs public/private USE is a huge issue for the state. Also, the ECL requirement is a state requirement and if it is invalidated then the state could either be subject to statewide takings claims (their are over 375 miles of restored beaches with ECL's) or have to deed land.

As for part 2, my understanding was "no" due to the "type" of lawsuit it was it would stay at the state level but I don't know all the details.

As for part 1, I think it is because they also see public/private OWNERSHIP vs public/private USE is a huge issue for the state. Also, the ECL requirement is a state requirement and if it is invalidated then the state could either be subject to statewide takings claims (their are over 375 miles of restored beaches with ECL's) or have to deed land.

As for part 2, my understanding was "no" due to the "type" of lawsuit it was it would stay at the state level but I don't know all the details.

Wow! That is a lot of restored beach. I am certain a good chunk of those areas were in dire need of (re)nourishment. It obviously would not be good for the state if there was a reversal on the ECLs.

I see a possible dilema:
Walton County has already expended public funds to nourish private beaches with the "expectation" that they will prevail in court. However a negative decision can and will affect the entire state as well as just Walton County.

Do you think that if Walton County just folded up their case and walked away before the Supreme Court ruled, that the existing decision (in favor of SOB) from the District Court of Appeals would affect the rest of the state regarding ECLs assuming no more cases were filed in those areas? I really don't have any idea on this.

Regarding part 2, I've wondered why the situation in Oregon, for example, didn't rise to the Federal Supreme Court. So I think you're right; there seems to be a reason that it's held back at the state level. Thanks.

Wow! That is a lot of restored beach. I am certain a good chunk of those areas were in dire need of (re)nourishment. It obviously would not be good for the state if there was a reversal on the ECLs.

I see a possible dilema:
Walton County has already expended public funds to nourish private beaches with the "expectation" that they will prevail in court. However a negative decision can and will affect the entire state as well as just Walton County.

Do you think that if Walton County just folded up their case and walked away before the Supreme Court ruled, that the existing decision (in favor of SOB) from the District Court of Appeals would affect the rest of the state regarding ECLs assuming no more cases were filed in those areas? I really don't have any idea on this.

Regarding part 2, I've wondered why the situation in Oregon, for example, didn't rise to the Federal Supreme Court. So I think you're right; there seems to be a reason that it's held back at the state level. Thanks.

Actually in this case Walton County is only one party to the lawsuit and is actually the more minor party. The state of Florida is the more major party because the appeals court ruling invalidated a state statute. So whether or not Walton Cty wanted to continue the state would still have to defend their state statute. As for public funds, from a legal standpoint that is irrelevant, the material issue is that the state statute requires an ECL line and that ECL line is required no matter who pays.

One quick note as far as nourished beaches in Florida, you would be hard pressed to find many sandy beach areas in Florida that are not a state park, or federal land that has not been restored or is in some phase of planning for restoration.

One quick note as far as nourished beaches in Florida, you would be hard pressed to find many sandy beach areas in Florida that are not a state park, or federal land that has not been restored or is in some phase of planning for restoration.[/quote]

Please clarify that statement for me. I thought the state parks in our area - South Walton - had prevailed in keeping any unnatural restoration from intruding on their pristine condition. Observing them before and after the past years storms, due to their lack of buildings on or near the dunes, they seemed to have faired quite well. We are fortunate to have so many of our beaches as parks that are open to the public and not blighted with seawalls etc.