Customary Beach Use

In those cases where the county "gave" away the public accesses, I guess it will also be hashed out in court. For the beach property that was "government land" there seems to be some legal precedence for getting it back. Isn't there some clause that says once the land is public it is public in perpetuity?

In those cases where the county "gave" away the public accesses, I guess it will also be hashed out in court. For the beach property that was "government land" there seems to be some legal precedence for getting it back. Isn't there some clause that says once the land is public it is public in perpetuity?

That's a good question, but isn't abandoning a right of way the same thing as "giving away" public land. There seems to be requests for abandoning rights of way off the beach fairly regularly in BCC meetings from what I remember.

Here you go, an email response from the TDC to an inquiry about the policy du jour:

"The TDC is removing items left on public beaches over night. The SO is not tagging items on private beaches as they do not feel the current ordiance allows for that. It is my understanding the BCC is currently working on updateing the exsisting beach ordiance but untill that process is done the TDC will only remove items on public beach.
Thank you,
Dave Sell"

Raises a few questions in my mind. I guess y'all can think of some too. Have at it.

Oops, my bad.
I posted this in the thread about removing stuff from the beach, and then I hit the wrong button and reposted it here.
Still getting used to the new thread categories. :roll:

One issue that cannot be avoided is that there are private homes/condos immediately adjacent to public access points (Ed Walline & Gulfview Heights are good examples).

So, as an open question, how does all of this information relate to the new signs @ Seaside (The Seaside Times current Spring Issue airs this debate quite pointedly)? Sorry, but I don't have a picture of the new signs. Here comes my ignorance-I vaguely remember Seaside charging their property owners a large $ assessment for beach/dune repairs after the past hurricane damages. I beleive they did this because the County/State was going to take way too long to make the repairs @ their expense (not the property owners)? Assuming I'm correct, if Seaside owners previously had not thought they owned their beaches, I'm sure this financial assessment made them feel an immediate sense of ownership. Before I go on, I suppose it would wise of me to ask if this is indeed correct? Thanks in advance for your help!

One issue that cannot be avoided is that there are private homes/condos immediately adjacent to public access points (Ed Walline & Gulfview Heights are good examples).

So, as an open question, how does all of this information relate to the new signs @ Seaside (The Seaside Times current Spring Issue airs this debate quite pointedly)? Sorry, but I don't have a picture of the new signs. Here comes my ignorance-I vaguely remember Seaside charging their property owners a large $ assessment for beach/dune repairs after the past hurricane damages. I beleive they did this because the County/State was going to take way too long to make the repairs @ their expense (not the property owners)? Assuming I'm correct, if Seaside owners previously had not thought they owned their beaches, I'm sure this financial assessment made them feel an immediate sense of ownership. Before I go on, I suppose it would wise of me to ask if this is indeed correct? Thanks in advance for your help!

The areas immediately adjacent to the two accesses you mentioned, and in Seaside are privately-owned. This is not a statement in regards to uses for the public that may or may not exist.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but when we went to Silver Springs a couple of years ago, our boat pilot told us that the state of Florida had reevaluated the value of the springs because of the uniqueness of the resource and the importance of the water to the state, and had began taxing the property surrounding the springs accordingly. This forced many landowners around the springs to sell to the state. Silver Springs was desperately trying to hold out, but the boat pilot seemed to think the park wouldn't survive as a private enterprise.

Well, the beach is a major resource, and the tourism it generates is the lifeblood of this county. The storms a couple of years ago showed everyone that they are as delicate and in need of protection as the springs. If you value the beach appropriately, it's highly unlikely many of these people putting up their little signs and chasing families off the beach would be able to afford the taxes. The beach is simply too valuable for many people to afford the taxes, not even the very wealthy. If the customary use can't be honored, perhaps taxes that reflect the true value of that beautiful white sand would be the best way to see that land deeded back to the public.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but when we went to Silver Springs a couple of years ago, our boat pilot told us that the state of Florida had reevaluated the value of the springs because of the uniqueness of the resource and the importance of the water to the state, and had began taxing the property surrounding the springs accordingly. This forced many landowners around the springs to sell to the state. Silver Springs was desperately trying to hold out, but the boat pilot seemed to think the park wouldn't survive as a private enterprise.

Well, the beach is a major resource, and the tourism it generates is the lifeblood of this county. The storms a couple of years ago showed everyone that they are as delicate and in need of protection as the springs. If you value the beach appropriately, it's highly unlikely many of these people putting up their little signs and chasing families off the beach would be able to afford the taxes. The beach is simply too valuable for many people to afford the taxes, not even the very wealthy. If the customary use can't be honored, perhaps taxes that reflect the true value of that beautiful white sand would be the best way to see that land deeded back to the public.

I have seen values of beach property relative to the "attached" upland areas and they are typically very low. As BMBV pointed out, the owners in Blue Mountain could but it for $100 in Sept 2007.

I have seen values of beach property relative to the "attached" upland areas and they are typically very low. As BMBV pointed out, the owners in Blue Mountain could but it for $100 in Sept 2007.

Here's my formula --

Tourism $ spent in Walton County / 137,280 (26 miles*5280 feet per mile) = tax per foot

Jacking up the taxes on oceanfront property to drive people out of their homes is a stupid idea! The cost of living in this area has already skyrocketed and taxing the hell out of your neighbors to drive them out isn't going to make it any cheaper or solve any problems!

Follow the lead of Oregon and make the beaches a public and protected natural resource. To avoid compensation issues or boundary disputes, just make the disputed area an easement - no changes in lot lines or ownership. Easements are already common for roads, utilities, drainage, and landscape buffers.

Jacking up the taxes on oceanfront property to drive people out of their homes is a stupid idea! The cost of living in this area has already skyrocketed and taxing the hell out of your neighbors to drive them out isn't going to make it any cheaper or solve any problems!

Follow the lead of Oregon and make the beaches a public and protected natural resource. To avoid compensation issues or boundary disputes, just make the disputed area an easement - no changes in lot lines or ownership. Easements are already common for roads, utilities, drainage, and landscape buffers.

Not drive them out of their homes, silly. No one has a home on the beach. The adjoining land should have the rate lowered, but the taxes should reflect the value if land, and if the private beach owners want to keep people from using the beach adjoining their homes, then they are depriving the county of revenue by limiting the number of tourist who can visit.

How is that not reasonable? Without tourist dollars, we'll all have to pay more in taxes so that they can enjoy a beach free of playing children.

But please understand, I think the preferable solution is to uphold customary use. I'm throwing the tax idea out as a logical next step.

The areas immediately adjacent to the two accesses you mentioned, and in Seaside are privately-owned. This is not a statement in regards to uses for the public that may or may not exist.

Thank you-as this is what I thought. Indeed-these areas have always been privately owned. However, the costs associated with the impact of the recent hurricanes has obviously brought these access/use issues to the forefront (along with the massive over-development/subsequent increased tourism along 30a). Not to mention the recent hugely inflated carrying costs of beach front ownership. In my opinion, many of these private beach front owners have become ultra-sensitive to "their beach" after being forced to spend very large $ amounts for restoration, insurance, etc... In addition, there are many more people who now tread on "their beach." As recently as 10 years ago, these issues were virtually non-existent. Bobby j previously mentioned his lot line extended into the roadway. This is a common occurrence, but imagine if you put Baytown adjacent to his neighborhood (which I'm sure as recently as 2-3 years ago, some developer had plans and pre-con contracts ready to roll!!). Forgive my assumptions, but I assume Bobby or any of us would re-evaluate that private road sign? My long winded point is can't we all get along? Forget any future court rulings. With proper planning and fore-thought, these issues could have been thwarted long ago. But the cat is already out of the bag. Thank goodness for sowal.com and the responsible locals and tourists who love these beaches. If we see idiots on the beach, we have to take action. I have to say, I rarely see people who don't respect the beach and their fellow beach go-ers. Same goes for the private beach owners. All of the owners that I know and have seen on the beach are great people who don't worry about signage and deeded ownership. I believe it is each of our responsibility to deal with this issue on the beach each day. If the rare beach owner wants me to move away from his property-I don't want to be there anyway. And if the rare person dis-respects the beach or fellow beach go-er, I will definitely take appropriate, responsible action. Besides, look where waiting for vision, guidance, and leadership, from elected/appointed others got us-stuck in the middle between government and what we really needed.

drivingtheview, as I recall, Seaside didn't directly add sand to the lower elevation to the beaches in front of Seaside. They did, however, add sand to the dunes, which probably blew around down to the beaches. I may be wrong on that, but I have many photos of them doing this.

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)