Public vs Private Beach

beachsi02, thanks for the thorough explanation on the scraping and post Katrina studies. I was thrown off on the dates. Without having years tagged onto the hurricane names, it's easy to forget which came first.

bmbvagrant
1. wrong: i support your legal right to have your private beach deeded to you by the county when you purchased. i support your right to prevent trespass equally as i would any other property owner.
2. wrong: government support IS tax, PUBLIC money. i gladly support the "free" fema $$$
like the $3000 or so the as emergency fund to protect life and limb and for food and shelter.

I do not support Citizens Insurance use of PUBLIC tax $$$ for PRIVATE property. Citizens makes the single mom in Defuniak who only buys car insurance and does not own a home, subsidize your beach front wind insurance. You should pay that private bill with your PRIVATE funds. i think once you have accepted Public funds to help pay for your Private insurance bill then just maybe your private beach just becomes "a little" more shall we say publically "funded." Normally when i help pay for something i kind of then own it.
Your are on sewer, as i said before BRAVO...you suggested to pay and impact fee for your walkovers(and seawall if you have 1) BRAVO...now just go ahead and actually cut the check and your PRIVATE stays even more so...

To say that Citizens Insurance has nothing to do with this thread....but that is the heart of the matter...PUBLIC $$$ supports your PRIVATE PROPERTY. And yes I'm against it across the board not just your Private property.

Lastly for now...I am totally against PUBLIC MONEY to be spent on sand or beach restoration except for the support of utilities such as roads water sewer etc. If your PRIVATE property has no beach i think you are deeded to rebuild with your PRIVATE $$$
on the area within your property lines after proper permitting and impact fees if doing so affects other PRIVATE or PUBLIC properties.

I think the beaches support themselves quite naturally and there are no emergency cases of needed restoration with PUBLIC funds just to "WIDEN" a place that used to be wide. As long as PRIVATE funds support PRIVATE beaches great. Without a public vote for restoration of public beaches i'm against...It's milliions of PUBLIC $$$$ to push sand around...

OK, we're closer in our opinions than it first appeared.

Regarding Citizens insurance IN GENERAL...I do see your concern of tax money being used to supplement wind insurance.

BUT why do you seem to want to single gulf front owners in regards to wind coverage? It all sounds a lot like Ecopal. Otherwise that is a entire topic unto itself for another thread as I just don't see that it has anything to do with private/public issues or beach restoration which affects private/public issues.

I still have visions of Hurricane Andrew leveling a swath in Florida from coast to coast. Neither gulf front owners or inland property owners were spared. See my point?

Regarding beach nourishment...we as private property owners can pay to put up our own retaining wall, but we as private property owners can not pay to renourish our own property; [edit... we cannot extend the beach past the new water line to where the old water line was.]

So the 60 million dollar question is (and try to answer it without too many other distractions)....

Do you think the "public" would get their money's worth if the beaches were renourished using tax money?

edit: I think you've answered no already but I'm throwing it out once more in a possible different light.

beachsi02, thanks for the thorough explanation on the scraping and post Katrina studies. I was thrown off on the dates. Without having years tagged onto the hurricane names, it's easy to forget which came first.

Good point. I will put dates with them in the future.

BMBV, are you seeing a lot of non-owners on the "private" beaches in BMB this spring break?

Hard to tell. Our armed-guard, who will check everyone's ID, isn't scheduled to start work until next week.:roll:

The majority of people you see on the beach are non-owners (touristas).

But I'm sure you mean uninvited guests on private beaches. Right? Yes I think I've noticed some "drifting" from the public access, only to get much worse when Redfish Village eventually really kicks in. Does that kid I saw climbing around the dunes establish "customary use"?

no sir bmbv i am against Citizens Insurance across the board for every property...there is a better and more fair way to do it.(i'm not sure what that is but we're working on it) hopefully before a cat 5 hits miami and we are all assessed about 30K each just cuz we also live in the state.

Now if you are asking do i think public money spent to restore beach in front of your private beach would give the Public a benefit...the answer is maybe...if your property has 2 GPS southerly corners clearly stating what is private and in front of that there is x yards are even feet of dry sand added for public use then there would be that obvious benefit for those crazy crowded days of summer and the people who plop there. In other words if adding more beach adds more public beach. If your deed says you own to the water line then obviously no cuz no public access was gained. Would the Public $$$ spent benefit the tourism industry probably, more room for more bodies on the beach might make it a more enjoyable experience. Is there another part of the public that does not benefit at all, yes.

Do i support the idea of nourishing any beach(not for infrastructure of roads and utilities), no, unless there is a county vote and majority rules. Or if state money is used a state vote and so on. There are millions of miles of coastline to enjoy. I like what nature has done without us starting to push sand around on our little pieces (public or private).

Hard to tell. Our armed-guard, who will check everyone's ID, isn't scheduled to start work until next week.:roll:

The majority of people you see on the beach are non-owners (touristas).

But I'm sure you mean uninvited guests on private beaches. Right? Yes I think I've noticed some "drifting" from the public access, only to get much worse when Redfish Village eventually really kicks in. Does that kid I saw climbing around the dunes establish "customary use"?

BMBV you mention Redfish village is that because you believe the beach access for them will not be enough once all of the units are occupied?

Regarding beach nourishment...we as private property owners can pay to put up our own retaining wall, but we as private property owners can not pay to renourish our own property; [edit... we cannot extend the beach past the new water line to where the old water line was.]

I'm curious to know how your particular deed reads regarding the southern boundary. If it, like many others, states, "to the water's edge," it is my belief that you don't own beyond that, regardless of where that happens to be at any given time. Therefore, adding sand to extend your property to where it was at some historical point in time, is not allowed.

Good point. I will put dates with them in the future.

That would be helpful. I was really referring to no one, including myself using dates with the storm names. We had so many in 04 and 05, that the farther we get down the road, the more likely we will forget which came first.

Hard to tell. Our armed-guard, who will check everyone's ID, isn't scheduled to start work until next week.:roll:

The majority of people you see on the beach are non-owners (touristas).

But I'm sure you mean uninvited guests on private beaches. Right? Yes I think I've noticed some "drifting" from the public access, only to get much worse when Redfish Village eventually really kicks in. Does that kid I saw climbing around the dunes establish "customary use"?

You laugh, but not defending that which you call your own property, allowing other people to use it without complaint, builds customary use cases. That is why everyone will tell you that it matters not what your deed reads, but what you allow to happen.

no sir bmbv i am against Citizens Insurance across the board for every property...there is a better and more fair way to do it.(i'm not sure what that is but we're working on it) hopefully before a cat 5 hits miami and we are all assessed about 30K each just cuz we also live in the state.

Now if you are asking do i think public money spent to restore beach in front of your private beach would give the Public a benefit...the answer is maybe...if your property has 2 GPS southerly corners clearly stating what is private and in front of that there is x yards are even feet of dry sand added for public use then there would be that obvious benefit for those crazy crowded days of summer and the people who plop there. In other words if adding more beach adds more public beach. If your deed says you own to the water line then obviously no cuz no public access was gained. Would the Public $$$ spent benefit the tourism industry probably, more room for more bodies on the beach might make it a more enjoyable experience. Is there another part of the public that does not benefit at all, yes.

Do i support the idea of nourishing any beach(not for infrastructure of roads and utilities), no, unless there is a county vote and majority rules. Or if state money is used a state vote and so on. There are millions of miles of coastline to enjoy. I like what nature has done without us starting to push sand around on our little pieces (public or private).

Well alrighty then! I think we finally understand each other.

So basically your position is ....
Yes to private property rights (as long as I buy my own sand for my own sandbox and clean up after myself)
and
No to Citizens Insurance
and
Maybe to beach nourishment.

Fair enough?

BMBV you mention Redfish village is that because you believe the beach access for them will not be enough once all of the units are occupied?

As Rod Serling would say....
"Imagine you have an 8000 square foot home. Now imagine you invited over 300 guests. Now imagine each guest brings their own chair and a total of around 50 umbrellas. Now imagine just 10 kids playing frisbee in the middle of this assembly......"

I think you probably already know the answer to your question.

BTW, do you have an interest in the RFV? The only other post you've made was to find out the result of the initial "meeting" such as it was.

I'm curious to know how your particular deed reads regarding the southern boundary. If it, like many others, states, "to the water's edge," it is my belief that you don't own beyond that, regardless of where that happens to be at any given time. Therefore, adding sand to extend your property to where it was at some historical point in time, is not allowed.

I'm well aware of that aspect, that is why I immediately edited my post and CLEARLY stated "we cannot extend the beach past the new water line to where the old water line was".

You laugh, but not defending that which you call your own property, allowing other people to use it without complaint, builds customary use cases. That is why everyone will tell you that it matters not what your deed reads, but what you allow to happen.

:funn:
Guess what? I'm still laughing! I guess I should have deployed my new 100,000 watt ray gun and just stung that kid on the sand dune a few times. The Army ain't got nothing on me! Would that be better for my private property rights in your eyes?

SJ, like I've said in the past, I try to keep things in perspective. But you are just itching for me to go out there and have someone thrown off our beach.

Again damn if I do. I become a mean greedy beach front owner as it seems you want me to be.

Damn if I don't. I lose my property because of customary use as you think it should be.

Just damn.

BMBV: the only yes to nourishment without a majority rule vote would be for the emergency protection of life and limb or for roads or other necessary infrastructure.

Now may we move together amicably to the laws of property deeds. If your gulf front deed states that you have the specific land in between say 4 GPS points there is really no discussion needed. You own what you own period like any other interior lot.

If however somehow the county was dumb enough to give you a deed that states you own it to the gulf, i can only think that they owe you an apoligy and some compensation if they have to "take" that back sometime in the future.

If they say you own it to the mean high water mark well that is just stupid cuz the future mean high water mark may be 50 feet north of you in the near future, God forbid. Does Florida Law littoral or riparian, state that you lose it completely if you go completely under water and the water line is north of your property?

It is my opinion that your deed and all gulf front deeds need to be amended to 4 specific GPS points if that is not the case already( i guess that is obviously NOT the case)

So here we sit with the courts to undo what the county has done with the help of the state and feds and a bunch of PUBLIC $$$...all without the consent of the public for use of those Public $$$...Lawyers REJOICE!!!

Any thoughts?

BMBV: the only yes to nourishment without a majority rule vote would be for the emergency protection of life and limb or for roads or other necessary infrastructure.

Now may we move together amicably to the laws of property deeds. If your gulf front deed states that you have the specific land in between say 4 GPS points there is really no discussion needed. You own what you own period like any other interior lot.

If however somehow the county was dumb enough to give you a deed that states you own it to the gulf, i can only think that they owe you an apoligy and some compensation if they have to "take" that back sometime in the future.

If they say you own it to the mean high water mark well that is just stupid cuz the future mean high water mark may be 50 feet north of you in the near future, God forbid.

It is my opinion that your deed and all gulf front deeds need to be amended to 4 specific GPS points if that is not the case already( i guess that is obviously NOT the case)

So here we sit with the courts to undo what the county has done with the help of the state and feds and a bunch of PUBLIC $$$...all without the consent of the public for use of those Public $$$...Lawyers REJOICE!!!

Any thoughts?

Regarding voting on beach nourishment: Is that somthing that was voted on before my time for Western Walton County and Okaloosa? I don't think so but I'm not 100% sure.


The laws are very clear that the state owns any submerged lands bordering the gulf (navigable waters). They have defined the "border" as the MHWL which has a very exact definition associated with it. I have no problem with this aspect.

And you are right...if we lose beach, we lose property. If we gain beach, we gain property.

What's interesting is the amount of tidal change on the Atlantic coast. Where there are private beaches, the public can "time" the tide and have somtimes hundreds of feet of beach available to them. The difference on the gulf, as you know, is the tide doesn't change much. And as it is highest during the summer, the wet sand concept provides a reasonable means to delineate the beach. I'll even throw in a foot or two of beach (low tide vs. high tide) for all the SJs out there.

Did you know a kid digging a big hole at water's edge could actually be changing our legal boundary. OK SJ, now go get your shovel and let the games begin.

BeachSiO2 is an expert on this topic as he set me straight a while back.

Edit: Forgot to address your important question: "If they say you own it to the mean high water mark well that is just stupid cuz the future mean high water mark may be 50 feet north of you in the near future, God forbid. Does Florida Law littoral or riparian, state that you lose it completely if you go completely under water and the water line is north of your property?"
I can only hope that I don't have to address this in my lifetime. All the seawalls in Walton County would certainly and admittedly throw a kink into the analysis (at least for the walls still standing).

...
Guess what? I'm still laughing! I guess I should have deployed my new 100,000 watt ray gun and just stung that kid on the sand dune a few times. The Army ain't got nothing on me! Would that be better for my private property rights in your eyes?

SJ, like I've said in the past, I try to keep things in perspective. But you are just itching for me to go out there and have someone thrown off our beach.

Again damn if I do. I become a mean greedy beach front owner as it seems you want me to be.

Damn if I don't. I lose my property because of customary use as you think it should be.

Just damn.

From a private property owner's perspective, according to the private property laws, you would have been better defending the property a long time ago. In reality, the first owners who had the property deeded should have been defending the property, to establish their boundary. Since none of the previous owners consistently stopped the public from using the beach for sunbathing or other recreation, they have essentially given up some rights to the property.

I don't want you to become a greedy beach front owner. I am just telling you about the real estate law as it relates to customary use of private property. IMO, it is too late to start defending it now, as The Retreat and others are doing.

one other thought is that now that the beaches are so "short" and properties are armored up you may find that more and more GULF beaches go under water at high tide in the future...that is the natural progression around armored properties without continuous nourishment. As mentioned before you have to swim around the bottom of the stairs already between redfish and 83 with the slightest wind driven surf.

As far as i know there were never public votes on any of these issues.
Perhaps the experts can chime in again on that.

BMBV: the only yes to nourishment without a majority rule vote would be for the emergency protection of life and limb or for roads or other necessary infrastructure.

Now may we move together amicably to the laws of property deeds. If your gulf front deed states that you have the specific land in between say 4 GPS points there is really no discussion needed. You own what you own period like any other interior lot.

If however somehow the county was dumb enough to give you a deed that states you own it to the gulf, i can only think that they owe you an apoligy and some compensation if they have to "take" that back sometime in the future.

If they say you own it to the mean high water mark well that is just stupid cuz the future mean high water mark may be 50 feet north of you in the near future, God forbid. Does Florida Law littoral or riparian, state that you lose it completely if you go completely under water and the water line is north of your property?

It is my opinion that your deed and all gulf front deeds need to be amended to 4 specific GPS points if that is not the case already( i guess that is obviously NOT the case)

So here we sit with the courts to undo what the county has done with the help of the state and feds and a bunch of PUBLIC $$$...all without the consent of the public for use of those Public $$$...Lawyers REJOICE!!!

Any thoughts?

I have a few. You make some good points, but as a Realtor, I'm sure you are aware of easements on property. I've stated numerous times, that having a deed to a property does not give one full rights to the property. That is a huge misconception. There are plenty of things which could limit one's full rights to a property. Zoning, easements, encroachments, customary use, building height codes, restrictions, covenants, property taxes, liens, etc. Holding a deed to a property may give rights to the property, but full rights are not guaranteed. In the cases of the beach, the public has been using the beach for many years, without interference by the property holders of the deed. This, IMO, establishes customary use.

In regards to the County taking the property for compensation, I believe that eminent domain isn't a tool which can be used for taking property for recreational use. Sunbathing is a recreational use. Why would the gov't want to pay for something which has been used by the public for decades, anyway?

BTW, do you have an interest in the RFV? The only other post you've made was to find out the result of the initial "meeting" such as it was.

Be careful jmschill, before you know it, you'll be labeled a RFV supporter, and once the BMB crew have made up their minds, it's a done deal.

As far as i know there were never public votes on any of these issues.
Perhaps the experts can chime in again on that.

The only area that has been built is Western Walton County after 7 workshops, numerous TDC meetings, about 50 monthly beach nourishment committee meetings, numerous BCC meetings, and other one-on-one and group meetings. As a matter of fact, I think Brad Pickel of the TDC got the 2006 Person of the Year Award by the Northwest Chapter of the Florida Public Relations Association for his efforts on spreading the word.

For the Phase 2 project for 30A, there have been two workshops, 30 plus beach nourishment meetings, at least two BCC meetings, and numerous one-on-one and group meetings- once with SJ in attendance. Unfortunately, no more than 50 people have attended any workshop but the first one in 2000 and they are typically the same 50 people who want it.

There have been at least two votes (maybe 3) so far on moving forward with 30A restoration by the BCC. As of now, Phase 2 restoration for 30A is in permitting and I would expect another workshop to be held on that in the next couple of months. I expect to meet all of you there because last time there was a workshop and the audience was asked if anyone had heard about the meeting on sowal.com where it was also publicized, you could have heard crickets chirping.... but then again they weren't there either. Also, there is a monthly beach management meeting held at the TDC at 8:30 on April 10th where it will be discussed again.

For the record, I attended more than one, but thanks for noticing my interest in the matter.

BSIO2...So no public voted other than commissioners. I guess a referendum where the issue was voted on by all the registered public that care to vote is the legal terms of what i would like to happen on the issue of beach renourishment. By the way i thought you were b.p. i did not know there were others around with such knowledge of beach science. That's good to know.
And yes i know it has been litigated to the hilt as well as discussed! Maybe 1 of these cyber nerds...sorry web masters can start another poll cuz we all can't show up for meetings or already know how we would vote if given the chance. I in no way suggest that any decisions have been made without plenty of public opportunity for KNOWLEDGE or COMMENTS. I have an idea that at least 1000 people would vote on a sowal poll. WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY.

SJ i'm sure you know even though you are not a lawyer that in some court decisions by jury and in some cases by judges that facts don't matter and opinions matter less. Also your interpretation of customary use may be correct and ignored. Or your interpretation is just wrong as far as the judicial ruling, when that occurs. Why would the government pay for something already used by the public? Because they know they screwed up somewhere along the line when they deeded the beach as private to an individual. And as usual when new precedents are set it may not even be called eminent domain. Right now the law is on BMBV's side or at least the interpretation of the law is. Also my customary use of the beach for almost a century has been to sit and enjoy everywhere i please, and i have never been asked to leave so far. Happy St. Patty's day everyone.

.....from page 26

"Although "customary use" may form the basis for a right of beach access, there are several issues concerning its potential appicabilityin Florida. First it is not clear in Florida what character of customary use will allow an assertion that the public has rights to perpendicular or lateral access to beach areas landward of MHWL. The numbers of people required to have exercised such customary use, and over what period of time, have not been addressed by Florida courts. The doctrine is problematic in that, at least according to the Tona-Rama decision, it does not limit the owner's development of the land, consistent with the customary uses. This raises unanswered questions concerning what types of development would be considered consistent with the public's use of beaches for recreational purposes. The geographic applicability of the doctrine is also not clear, and it may require application on a case-by-case basis, raising the potential for litigation in each instance."

Once again this is clear. Once again this is written by people with a better handle on the issue than you. Once again this is what the Florida Attorney General has stated.​

​

SJ, I'll casually remind you of this reference each time you continue to bring up customary use. As it mentions above, "The numbers of people required to have exercised such customary use, and over what period of time, have not been addressed". ​

I never have received a straight answer from you or anyone else for that matter when I directly and repeatedly asked you the very same question. And again, if the courts can't figure out, what makes you think you can? ​

​

You at least acknowledge you're not a lawyer. So Judge Joe, its your turn. I'll chase your tail if you chase mine.​

just because they have not been specifically addressed on each particular property, doesn't mean anything other than as people are arrested for sitting quietly on the beach, the courts will have to decide. What is new about that? I have not argued that, and until the Courts decide, I'll continue to sit quietly on the beach. I may even continue after the courts make a determination. No biggy to me. Go ahead and call the Sheriff on me.

From a private property owner's perspective, according to the private property laws, you would have been better defending the property a long time ago. In reality, the first owners who had the property deeded should have been defending the property, to establish their boundary. Since none of the previous owners consistently stopped the public from using the beach for sunbathing or other recreation, they have essentially given up some rights to the property.

I don't want you to become a greedy beach front owner. I am just telling you about the real estate law as it relates to customary use of private property. IMO, it is too late to start defending it now, as The Retreat and others are doing.

Your quote goes with my reply above.

And aren't you are JUST a real estate agent, not a real estate attorney? Don't tell me about (your interpretation of) real estate law.

And regarding "defending it now", I'll defend my property anytime I see fit. Don't you worry yourself.

... people are arrested for sitting quietly on the beach...

You don't hear too good or your memory is awful. Again, nobody ever got arrested for JUST sitting quietly on a beach. You're picking up on REV Jeremiah's tactics.

I was speaking of people being arrested in the future.

Just curious, have you read Trepanier et al v. County of Volusia?
It's an interesting 30 pages of reading. Here are a couple of snip-its.

The circuit court turned effective title of much of the lots to the County, ruling that (quoting from the 5th District Court of Appeals opinion):

"This court declares that the defendant, COUNTY OF VOLUSIA, on behalf of the
public, holds a superior claim to possession and use of the beach landward of
the mean low water mark of the Atlantic Ocean to the place where there is marked change in material or physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation in accordance with the definition set forth in Fla. Stat. section 161.54(3) (2004).

Plaintiffs are permanently enjoined from impeding public access to the beach or from acting in any manner inconsistent with the free use of the beach by the public,
including access by motor vehicle, subject to the regulatory power of the County of Volusia."
**********
From the District Court hearing the appeal:
"Finally, we agree with the trial court's analysis of the "takings" issue. If the law
recognizes that the public has a customary right to drive and park on Appellants'
property as an adjunct of its right to other recreational uses of that property, as
recognized in Tona-Rama, then no takings claim can be made out."

How about this one:
"Under Downing v. Bird, 100 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1958), the activity giving rise to the
prescriptive easement must be both on the property of another and inconsistent with the
owner?s use and enjoyment of the land. Id. at 64. As explained by the court in Tona-
Rama, ?f the use of an alleged easement is not exclusive and not inconsistent with the
rights of the owner of the land to its use and enjoyment, it would be presumed that such
use is permissive rather than adverse. Hence, such use will neve r ripen into easement.?
Tona-Rama, 294 So. 2d at 76-77. The burden is on the claimant to prove that the
public?s use of the owner?s property was adverse. Id. at 76."