Okay, silly me, running for office, and here I am going to start a thread on a very controversial issue. Oh well, never been accused of being scared or smart for that matter. I would like to learn more about this though. So please, no attacking me for discussing things.
I was born in Florida, grew up on the beach, so it was never a big deal to me. Few people lived down there, and I always just went and did whatever I wanted so never really ran into the private/public issue. Now I am hearing so much.
I understand the point of the landowners. They purchased, in good faith, and were sold, what they felt is a private beach. They paid very good money for that land and continue to pay way too much money in taxes, if you ask me for the land. Now most of the beach has been sold to one concern or another and access is starting to be an issue. For most locals, I imagine it is not nearly that bad, most of you seem reasonable and I am sure just walk along or use the beach in a responsible way. What I keep hearing are the stories of people pitching tents up next to the dune lines and partying to all hours, leaving trash, and just generally making it where the landowner can not enjoy their property. And one bad experience does tend to cause people to react to the extreme. So landowners seem to be trying to take steps to protect their property.
I understand the point of the non-landowners. The beach is something that has been customarily enjoyed for years. And the vast majority are not doing anything to interfere with the landowners property, yet the public is being denied access to something that they have always used.
But this is where it gets confusing to me. If the government declares customary use is okay, does that not take the land from the private property owners? How does that affect the value of the land? I am sure private beach is worth quite a bit more than public beach. What about liability for that section of the beach? Do we just apply customary use to the beach itself and not other areas of the county?
Well this is something to discuss.
Replies
64
SoWal Insider
It sure is! 
If this is truly the main issue, and why battle lines are being drawn, I think it would be appropriate for owners of private beaches to post signs notifying beachgoers that they are on private property. Then saying
as long as you do the following:
-- pick up your trash
-- don't leave stuff overnight
-- if you are too loud you will be asked to leave.
Then enforce those rules!
Is it really that complicated? I agree that once granted, the county or state cannot easily take away the private ownership of the beach. But I also agree that beaches are meant to be enjoyed, and no one should be kicking off little kids for sitting on the dry sand.
In most cases the beach is low enough relative to the house and rest of the lot that it doesn't exactly feel like a "back yard." Common courtesy and common sense, and communication by the rental agencies would do a lot to make this mess go away!
What I keep hearing are the stories of people pitching tents up next to the dune lines and partying to all hours, leaving trash, and just generally making it where the landowner can not enjoy their property. And one bad experience does tend to cause people to react to the extreme.
If this is truly the main issue, and why battle lines are being drawn, I think it would be appropriate for owners of private beaches to post signs notifying beachgoers that they are on private property. Then saying
as long as you do the following: -- pick up your trash
-- don't leave stuff overnight
-- if you are too loud you will be asked to leave.
Then enforce those rules!
Is it really that complicated? I agree that once granted, the county or state cannot easily take away the private ownership of the beach. But I also agree that beaches are meant to be enjoyed, and no one should be kicking off little kids for sitting on the dry sand.
In most cases the beach is low enough relative to the house and rest of the lot that it doesn't exactly feel like a "back yard." Common courtesy and common sense, and communication by the rental agencies would do a lot to make this mess go away!
Beach FanaticAuthor
It sure is!
Is it really that complicated? I agree that once granted, the county or state cannot easily take away the private ownership of the beach. But I also agree that beaches are meant to be enjoyed, and no one should be kicking off little kids for sitting on the dry sand.
In most cases the beach is low enough relative to the house and rest of the lot that it doesn't exactly feel like a "back yard." Common courtesy and common sense, and communication by the rental agencies would do a lot to make this mess go away!
The government has allowed people to purchase the beach. The government and private developers have enjoyed significant monetary gain from this purchase over the years. Now that it appears that the people who sacrificed to make these purchases do not want people in their back yard, the government is going to take it away. I know I would not want anyone coming into my backyard and setting up camp to enjoy land that their ancestors had free roam of years ago.
And why that particular spot on the beach? Walton County has more miles of public owned beach than private owned. So why are we not concentrating on making those areas available to the public. Open up areas that are surrounded by nothing so the crowds would not have to go onto private beach. Would that be enough to take the stress out of the situation so we could just get back to neighbors using the beach in these areas?
It seems to me now that the developers and have made their dollars promoting private beaches, they now get the government to take those beaches, make them public, then they can start all over again working on the north side of the street.
It seems real easy to get the government to take things, because the cost is spread out among a much larger group of people costing everyone just a very small amount, even those that do not use or intend to use the property.
Beach Fanatic
My lot line extends out into the road way. The road has always been used and enjoyed by people. I guess it is the same thing. It falls into customary use or should I put up a big sign saying private road? Kind of an odd issue but we all know the beaches have been used and enjoyed for years. I guess we will get to see what the courts decide.
SoWal Expert
But this is where it gets confusing to me. If the government declares customary use is okay, does that not take the land from the private property owners? How does that affect the value of the land? I am sure private beach is worth quite a bit more than public beach. What about liability for that section of the beach? Do we just apply customary use to the beach itself and not other areas of the county?
Well this is something to discuss.
If the Courts ruled in favor of the beach-going public, and someone holds the deed to the lower elevation of beach, nothing is any different than the last 100 years. The public would continue to use the beach as they had always done. The deed-holder cannot build a house on that beach, cannot erect a fence blocking others, etc. There are limitations that come with all real estate ownership. Easements are a prime example. Restrictions and Covenants are other examples. The deed holder isn't having anything taken from her or him if the Court rules in favor of the public.
Where does Customary Use stop? Good question. In my opinion, it stops where there hasn't been customary use of privately-owned property.
Regarding liability, that is one for a lawyer to give advice, but from my layman's understanding of liability, the deed holder is responsible. With this being the case, in my personal (non-legal), it would be a wise for any Gulf front owner to dedicate that lower elevation to the State to remove personal liability and reduce property taxes, likely by 50%. The property owner would actually gain value by reducing liability, IMO.
I'm still wondering who decided they owned the beach way back when. Did an upland land owner decide to take it from the State? It would be interesting to trace the deeds back to find out who first laid claim to the lower beach elevations.
SoWal Insider
WR,
From reading your comments I've got a pretty good idea as to whose side you're taking...it's a matter of "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."
There is a very simple solution to this "problem." Get the Coastal Vision 3000 Cabal to change their brand tagline to "THEIR™ Beach"...problem solved.
<PS: Developers' or Realtors' puffery doesn't make it so.>
.
From reading your comments I've got a pretty good idea as to whose side you're taking...it's a matter of "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."
There is a very simple solution to this "problem." Get the Coastal Vision 3000 Cabal to change their brand tagline to "THEIR™ Beach"...problem solved.
<PS: Developers' or Realtors' puffery doesn't make it so.>
.
Edited
beats on hood
I know of one development where the parcel maps for some of the beachfront lots go to the mean high-water line, yet the parcel maps for other beachfront lots indicate that these parcels end at the dunes and that the beach in front of their lots are for use by the non-beach-front owners in that development.
Beach FanaticAuthor
WR,
From reading your comments I've got a pretty good idea as to whose side you're taking...it's a matter of "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."
There is a very simple solution to this "problem." Get the Coastal Vision 3000 Cabal to change their brand tagline to "THEIR? Beach"...problem solved.
<PS: Developers' or Realtors' puffery doesn't make it so.>
.
Shelly,
I am not taking anyone's side on this issue. But I am putting forth the arguments that I hear against customary beach use to try to get a better understanding of the issue. What little bit of time I have spent at the beach lately has been taking pictures of signs telling me to stay off the beach. Which, to be honest, I do find a bit insulting. Especially when I see the TDC patrolling and cleaning something with public dollars that I am not suppose to be able to use.
Beach FanaticAuthor
I know of one development where the parcel maps for some of the beachfront lots go to the mean high-water line, yet the parcel maps for other beachfront lots indicate that these parcels end at the dunes and that the beach in front of their lots are for use by the non-beach-front owners in that development.
True. From what I hear some developers sold property to the mhw line and the same developers sold adjoining parcels to the dunes reserving the property for use by projects across the street. I think this occurred in Paradise by the Sea. So you take a huge project and give them a little piece of public land, surrounded by private land, and you wonder why they have problems.
Declaring customary use would probably solve a lot of problems. But how are you going to compensate people for the taking of private land. If they have a deed is that not all they need? Or do we just ignore that deed because we do not like what it says? And if you do the taking, where does the money come from to defend that taking? With revenue limits and SOH along with flat growth, what revenue source do you tap?
Shelly-I will say that I am a big proponent of private property rights while I am thinking of it. I certainly would not want someone to come and take my land. And I am sure Native Americans could make an argument for customary use along the creeks that meander through my property.
SoWal Insider
Shelly,
I am not taking anyone's side on this issue. But I am putting forth the arguments that I hear against customary beach use to try to get a better understanding of the issue. What little bit of time I have spent at the beach lately has been taking pictures of signs telling me to stay off the beach. Which, to be honest, I do find a bit insulting. Especially when I see the TDC patrolling and cleaning something with public dollars that I am not suppose to be able to use.
Or adding to the property via beach restoration using public dollars. Seems like some property owners (but I would guess not a majority) want it both ways.
Beach Fanatic
Shelly,
I am not taking anyone's side on this issue. But I am putting forth the arguments that I hear against customary beach use to try to get a better understanding of the issue. What little bit of time I have spent at the beach lately has been taking pictures of signs telling me to stay off the beach. Which, to be honest, I do find a bit insulting. Especially when I see the TDC patrolling and cleaning something with public dollars that I am not suppose to be able to use.
While you are taking pictures and looking into it...take a look at the situation at Stallworth Lake public access. The sign clearly says the access was built, and is maintained, with public money; the 2 acre parcel to the West of the public access was purchased by Walton County through a grant from the Trust for Public Land...but now, the Stallworth Preserve has a "Private Beach" sign there. I am going to ask the Co. Commissioners for an explanation; just haven't gotten around to it yet. I just saw the sign last week. While you are looking into things perhaps this is a good one to explore. It has been my understanding that when public funds are used to either build or purchase property, one of the conditions is that the public must have access to it through a management plan executed by the County....so what's up with Stallworth?
Beach FanaticAuthor
Or adding to the property via beach restoration using public dollars. Seems like some property owners (but I would guess not a majority) want it both ways.
I totally agree with that. If public dollars are used to restore the beach then the restored portion is public. I see no way to argue any other way.
Beach FanaticAuthor
While you are taking pictures and looking into it...take a look at the situation at Stallworth Lake public access. The sign clearly says the access was built, and is maintained, with public money; the 2 acre parcel to the West of the public access was purchased by Walton County through a grant from the Trust for Public Land...but now, the Stallworth Preserve has a "Private Beach" sign there. I am going to ask the Co. Commissioners for an explanation; just haven't gotten around to it yet. I just saw the sign last week. While you are looking into things perhaps this is a good one to explore. It has been my understanding that when public funds are used to either build or purchase property, one of the conditions is that the public must have access to it through a management plan executed by the County....so what's up with Stallworth?
That is interesting. That purchase, I think, was initially made with excess dollars returned by the tax collector to the general fund. The BCC then sought a grant through the trust to reimburse the expenditure. I see no way that land could be private. The first thing the BCC should do is determine property lines and get code enforcement to remove all of these bogus signs people keep putting up to scare residents and visitors away.
SoWal Expert
My thoughts:
1) The beach is 100% public. If there is a legal/title/policy decision that has been made claiming any part of the beach as private, it needs to be changed immediately to correct an error and ensure the future.
2) There has not been a change in the use of the beach, there has been a change in how desirable the beach has become - people market real estate using the beach, overload access points, and found their developments on bad neighbor policies to get $$$.
3) A lack of manners and respect in sharing community space and disrespecting other people is what makes this such a contentious issue. Bad eggs on both sides of the issue are ruining it for others.
Just because you have the right to use the beach, doesn't mean you have the right to park anywhere, litter, cause noise pollution, or leave items on the beach when they are not in use.
Just because you live beachfront does not mean you control a natural resource.
4) Many communities have already solved this or similar issues - beaches, lakes, parks, wilderness areas - by making them public, using public funds to maintain them, and having strict and ENFORCED rules about their use.
1) The beach is 100% public. If there is a legal/title/policy decision that has been made claiming any part of the beach as private, it needs to be changed immediately to correct an error and ensure the future.
2) There has not been a change in the use of the beach, there has been a change in how desirable the beach has become - people market real estate using the beach, overload access points, and found their developments on bad neighbor policies to get $$$.
3) A lack of manners and respect in sharing community space and disrespecting other people is what makes this such a contentious issue. Bad eggs on both sides of the issue are ruining it for others.
Just because you have the right to use the beach, doesn't mean you have the right to park anywhere, litter, cause noise pollution, or leave items on the beach when they are not in use.
Just because you live beachfront does not mean you control a natural resource.
4) Many communities have already solved this or similar issues - beaches, lakes, parks, wilderness areas - by making them public, using public funds to maintain them, and having strict and ENFORCED rules about their use.
Beach FanaticAuthor
4) Many communities have already solved this or similar issues - beaches, lakes, parks, wilderness areas - by making them public, using public funds to maintain them, and having strict and ENFORCED rules about their use.
I have been unable to locate anything specific here. Do you have examples or maybe names of communities so I can search further? I want to see how they handle the taking. In Florida the Bert Harris Act would seem to get in the way, but not sure. Of course these would have to be Florida communities since this issue has not been resolved nationally yet.
Edited
Beach Fanatic
I totally agree with that. If public dollars are used to restore the beach then the restored portion is public. I see no way to argue any other way.
There are private beach signs in Miramar where beach restoration has already been done. So I would say some are arguing the other way quite effectively.
Walton County Code Enforcement says they can't do anything about the signs because the signs reference a Florida statute. DEP doesn't seem to have any jurisdiction over sign content.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Walton County Code Enforcement says they can't do anything about the signs because the signs reference a Florida statute. DEP doesn't seem to have any jurisdiction over sign content.
Code enforcement copping out. If the signs are wrong, and we all know they are, and we all know that the TDC got agreements that the land would be public if restored, they could go take them down. If they did take them down, who would the people complain to anyway? I remember in the old days when people would put signs in the right of way, the county district road foreman would chainsaw them in half then cut them at the legs. Having that done to a very expensive sign, even back then, stopped the problem rather quickly. But he was not afraid to take action. He had a job to do and he did it.
beats on hood
Okay, wrobert, thanks for commenting on my other question. Makes sense -- the developer needs to have some beach space for his non-beach-front owners.
Beach Fanatic
There are private beach signs in Miramar where beach restoration has already been done. So I would say some are arguing the other way quite effectively.
Walton County Code Enforcement says they can't do anything about the signs because the signs reference a Florida statute. DEP doesn't seem to have any jurisdiction over sign content.
Pretty sure the one at Stallworth Preserve does not reference a F. S. I will verify tomorrow.
Beach Fanatic
Pretty sure the one at Stallworth Preserve does not reference a F. S. I will verify tomorrow.
Nope, it doesn't. You might see us down there.
Beach Fanatic
Checking signs is a good idea. IMO heat was relieved by enforcing "the remove it or lose it" policy. Tents, and all their related junk, less frequently litters the beach, public or private. Most don't mind anyone walking, visiting or using the space around their homes. But, when individuals recently started erecting tents and leaving them up for indefinite periods, conflicts increased.
Beach Fanatic
I have been unable to locate anything specific here. Do you have examples or maybe names of communities so I can search further? I want to see how they handle the taking. In Florida the Bert Harris Act would seem to get in the way, but not sure. Of course these would have to be Florida communities since this issue has not been resolved nationally yet.
I think what has been/is being done with the springs is a good example of how a past mistake can be undone. Lest we forget, Florida has always been filled with land speculators, and they sold the springs for a premium back in the days before dog fly planes and air-conditioning. The state has been very aggressive in acquiring the springs and keeping them in public trust.
I'm glad the days of local sheriffs blowing up the entrances to spring caves is over. It just saddens me that seawalls are still going up.
As for my thoughts on beach access, I think it is a short-sighted approach to deal with the real issues -- http://http://www.sowal.com/bb/showpost.php?p=311484&postcount=23
Beach Fanatic
Declaring customary use would probably solve a lot of problems. But how are you going to compensate people for the taking of private land. If they have a deed is that not all they need? Or do we just ignore that deed because we do not like what it says? And if you do the taking, where does the money come from to defend that taking? With revenue limits and SOH along with flat growth, what revenue source do you tap?
I think there is a great deal of confusion between what people call ?private property rights? and what I call land ownership. Ownership of a particular piece of land comes with what is commonly referred to as a ?bundle of rights.? What is contained within the bundle may be and often is restricted to some degree. Examples of this include zoning restrictions, easements that cannot be built on, conservation easements, restrictions that come from local ordinances such as light, noise, tree, sign and height restrictions and so on, and deed restrictions that specify all kinds of particulars about the type and size of allowable construction. I see people using the term ?private property rights? when they resist various restrictions on the use of their land, when historically ?private property rights? had more to do with the right to actually own the land and to buy and sell land between private parties, as opposed to some form of collective ownership of land.
I do not agree that a deed is all they need because the deed has to do with the ownership, whereas the restrictions vary. Along the beaches rights are already restricted in a unique way by the DEP which regulates construction seaward of the CCCL. What we are talking about here is one ?stick? from the ?bundle of rights,? namely the right to exclude. Declaring customary use would certainly affect that stick, but not the entire bundle. I do not consider this to be a ?taking,? frankly. It may diminish the value, and it may certainly not be what the buyer expected when he purchased the property so I suppose in that respect some compensation may be called for, but I don?t really see why it has to be other than a reduction in assesed value. Nobody is coming and taking the land, they are just affirming an historical usage of it that predates the purchase by the current owner.
The county has dug themselves a hole with the tents and stuff left on the beach overnight. Their latest attempt at signage, Smiling Joe?s current avatar, begs the question of which beaches are public and therefore subject to the prohibition about leaving things on the beach. They have put themselves in the position of making case by case judgments as they ride along removing or tagging tents, and so I think they will simply not enforce it.
A few more big hurricanes and some more sea level rise and it will all be moot.
FYI, Oregon settled this long ago:
"In 1911, Gov. Oswald West, a populist reformer, persuaded the Oregon Legislature to pass a bill declaring Oregon beaches a public highway. Up through the early 1900s the beach was the only way to travel between coastal communities without long detours inland. Oregonians became so accustomed to this open access they believed the public ?owned? the beaches, including the dry sand above high tide.
A Cannon Beach motel owner challenged this folk wisdom in 1966. Bill Hay roped off a section of beach in front of his motel, excluding the public from his ?private? beach. House Majority Leader Bob Smith, R-Burns tried to give away the public?s claim to the dry sand portions of Oregon?s beaches. Smith?s maneuvering rained a rare firestorm of public indignation on Salem. A wobbly Legislature produced a compromise plan that was immediately challenged in court.
The Oregon Supreme Court eventually ruled that unrestricted public use of beaches since aboriginal times granted the public a ?prescriptive right? of access to the ?dry sand? beaches above high tide line regardless of what title documents said. That 1967 decision still guarantees public use of Oregon?s beaches today."
Beach Fanatic
Walton County Code Enforcement says they can't do anything about the signs because the signs reference a Florida statute.
So?? Have they even bothered to look up that statute? It does not exist.
I have the hardest time with this as an excuse.
Beach Fanatic
Walton County has more miles of public owned beach than private owned. So why are we not concentrating on making those areas available to the public.
I had a question about this comment as I happen to be more familiar than most on what is publicly-OWNED and I can't get to more than 13 miles being publicly-OWNED as there is 26 miles total. I also saw on Bob Hudson's thread that he stated 16 miles were public. I am assuming that he also meant publicly-owned.
When I do the math I know of the 6 miles of the state parks, add in the 5 miles that were part of the restoration project and thus now there is an ECL there that only brings us up to 11 miles. Any thoughts on where those other 2+ miles would be, or the 5 miles that Bob referenced if that is where you got your numbers. I can tell you that if you add up the land at the County accesses you will not reach 5 miles of publicly-owned land.
Beach FanaticAuthor
I had a question about this comment as I happen to be more familiar than most on what is publicly-OWNED and I can't get to more than 13 miles being publicly-OWNED as there is 26 miles total. I also saw on Bob Hudson's thread that he stated 16 miles were public. I am assuming that he also meant publicly-owned.
When I do the math I know of the 6 miles of the state parks, add in the 5 miles that were part of the restoration project and thus now there is an ECL there that only brings us up to 11 miles. Any thoughts on where those other 2+ miles would be, or the 5 miles that Bob referenced if that is where you got your numbers. I can tell you that if you add up the land at the County accesses you will not reach 5 miles of publicly-owned land.
Just a number I keep hearing at meetings and such. Thanks for the correction. So we have 13 miles of public land. I guess that does tend to change the whole dynamic then.
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.