Beaches Of South Walton TDC agrees to support customary use of beaches

Hells yeah McGee!!! That's how to get things done!

And how can we vote this guy out? :roll:
"Board member, Don McQuade, questioned individual property rights, versus allowing public access to all beaches. "I don't agree with McGee's position," McQuade said. "If I purchased a $5 million home on the beach I wouldn't want just anyone having a picnic on my beach."

That should stir some puddin'.

Hells yeah McGee!!! That's how to get things done!

And how can we vote this guy out? :roll:
"Board member, Don McQuade, questioned individual property rights, versus allowing public access to all beaches. "I don't agree with McGee's position," McQuade said. "If I purchased a $5 million home on the beach I wouldn't want just anyone having a picnic on my beach."

The nerve! It's jsut anyone.

Mr. McSpecial has a superiority complex that is not very becoming.

"I wouldn't want just anyone having a picnic on my beach."

Oh FTLOC!!!!!

Oh FTLOG!!!!!

Correction...FTLOC! What a tool. :roll:

Correction...FTLOC! What a tool. :roll:

OOOPPPSSS, fixed. ;-)

But you didn't Don, you didn't.

Wwjd?

There were people using our beaches before Jesus walked on water.

There were people using your property before then also but i bet if someone pitched a place on your lawn you would wont them off of it.

I belive that if they paid for the property then they have a RIGHT to not allow others on their property. If they are told they haft to let the public use their property free of charge then the county/state should purchase it. If not then the property owner should have a right to keep people off of his property that he pays taxes on. Now I would think that if the county would forgive the taxes on the "Beach" area that everyone wonts open to the public (which for some is ALOT of money) and provide the property owner a full release of liability then some might allow others on their property. In todays world it is all about Law suits and belive me if someone got hurt and found a lawer who said they could get them some money they would sue them.

Just beacuse the public has been using someones property free of charge does not allow them the rights to take it a public property with out paying the owner for it. (Just my opion i have no case law to back that up) But if this was the case lets all go find a home that is in forclosure and move in and claim ownership..

Why don't we just get a constitutional amendment similar to Hawaii's? Shall we start the leg work?

The headline is not exactly correct - the article says:

All members, except Don McQuade, voted to support efforts of defining customary use.

They aren't supporting customary use, not yet anyway. They support defining it.

People should know when they buy a beachfront lot, they're buying the view, not the beach. :roll:

Spring must be on the way. The use of the beach issue is raising its head once again. Obviously Creeklove was not here for last year's go around. SWGB has the right idea. If you get something going, let me know. I'm not too old to help but I don't feel like organizing it.

The headline is not exactly correct - the article says:

All members, except Don McQuade, voted to support efforts of defining customary use.

They aren't supporting customary use, not yet anyway. They support defining it.

For further clarification, the actual vote was two parts in one motion. The TDC recommended to the BCC to determine if their had been customary use of the beaches in Sowal, with examples of customary use listed that included walking, fishing, sunbathing, picnicing and others.

Then if it was determined that the customary use doctrine should be applied in Sowal, they requested that the BCC change the current Beach Activity Ordinance to acknowledge the principal of customary use of the shoreline.

There were people using your property before then also but i bet if someone pitched a place on your lawn you would wont them off of it.

I belive that if they paid for the property then they have a RIGHT to not allow others on their property. If they are told they haft to let the public use their property free of charge then the county/state should purchase it. If not then the property owner should have a right to keep people off of his property that he pays taxes on. Now I would think that if the county would forgive the taxes on the "Beach" area that everyone wonts open to the public (which for some is ALOT of money) and provide the property owner a full release of liability then some might allow others on their property. In todays world it is all about Law suits and belive me if someone got hurt and found a lawer who said they could get them some money they would sue them.

Just beacuse the public has been using someones property free of charge does not allow them the rights to take it a public property with out paying the owner for it. (Just my opion i have no case law to back that up) But if this was the case lets all go find a home that is in forclosure and move in and claim ownership..

Need some case law? Try Trepanier et al v. County of Volusia

In summary:
********************************

p30 from the linked Court Ruling:
"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.(22)

Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion."

Footnote 22:
"22 In his dissent in Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach, Justice Scalia suggests that a takings claim is not foreclosed if the private land owner can establish that the state's post-hoc announcement of a customary right is "pretextual." 114 S. Ct. at 1334. Justice Scalia appears to be of the view that the Hay court in Oregon so completely failed to adhere to the required elements of the common law of custom that it essentially concocted a made-up law of "custom" whose purpose was to secure public access to private property without compensation. Although the Tona-Rama court cited to Hay, the Florida court recognized the requirements to establish a customary right to use private
property, and with the possible exception of "ancient use" ? an awkward concept in a new world society ? the Tona-Rama court appears to have followed the common law rule. The Tona-Rama court relied on an extensive, fact-intensive record of the nature and extent of the public's customary use of a defined area of beach. Florida may, therefore, avoid the "pretext" problem if this issue arises again with the change in composition of the current United States Supreme Court."

I have tried for years what my opinion on beach use is. On the one hand tax money is used to renourish when necessary. On the other hand there were some folks who did not want the beach behind/ front of their homes renourished. Then we have the government writing insurance/ FEMA grants for folks who own homes on the beach. I guess my mind is made up, if you have none of my sand on your beach, and your home is not rebuilt with my money then I will stay off your beach. Come to think of it I might have an interest in some beach front homes.

People should know when they buy a beachfront lot, they're buying the view, not the beach. :roll:

Now that is an interesting statement. If the deed reads mean high water mark as the boundary, they ARE buying the beach, but not necessarily with exclusive use. The reason I bring this up is because as I understand it, if a beach goer is injured on that "privately owned" property, the owner of the property may be paying damages if taken to court.

That is what is so crazy for me to understand. The property owners claiming rights to the beach, have been allowing the public to use the beach, without objection for years, though if the public is injured on that property, the owner may be liable. Also, the property owner is going to pay taxes based on the assessed taxable value, which is usually directly tied to the size of the parcel. I see at least two very big ways a Gulf front owner could benefit by quit claiming the lower beach elevation of the property, and it seems that they are essentially not losing anything, since the public has always been using that property anyway. I really don't understand their side, and would love to hear an objection to the above thought.

If the property owner IS sued for damages resulting from an accident on that beach property, I bet the property owner's attorney argues that the beach property is really the public's, due to case law, as the one I previously posted. That is the irony -- the private Gulf front property owners may be the biggest proponent of public beach, if they are sued for damages. Can you imagine a top notch professional football player, stepping into a deep hole on the beach, snapping his leg in two, never again able to play football? With an annual salary of $10 million, and 15 more years of playing time, that is going to be one hefty lawsuit of damages.

The bottom line is that the public has used the beaches for decades and thus a reasonable person who is considering a purchase of beachfront property would see that the public in fact is using the beach for recreation purposes. Most of the owners used the property themselves prior to their purchase. SWGB has the right idea, amend the constitution to address the issue once and for all. If pregnant pigs deserve protection, those who have always enjoyed the beach do as well.

The bottom line is that the public has used the beaches for decades and thus a reasonable person who is considering a purchase of beachfront property would see that the public in fact is using the beach for recreation purposes. Most of the owners used the property themselves prior to their purchase. SWGB has the right idea, amend the constitution to address the issue once and for all. If pregnant pigs deserve protection, those who have always enjoyed the beach do as well.

If the property is taken from the owner and not paid for it then i see more law suites and more wasted money. Why don't we just take that money and buy more beach property for the public.

I think in SOWAL that there is plenty of pubilc property owned by the TDC, BCC or State for the public to enjoy. Why does someone need to go and pitch their beach equipment behind somesones home where the homeowner ownes the beach property. When they can stay on the public beach.

That property owner pays taxes and does not receive a credit for the public use of it so he should have a right to not allow anyone on his propertyif he does not wont them there.

Yes i was here last year and read and heard about the people who WCSO arrested for tresspassing on a privet beach when the people who set up camp was informed to move and did not. I am glad to see that WCSO did their job. Just like the noise complaints now.

If you do not like what the law says then get it changed..


Maybe we could try and get something like the state did with Mr. Davis in the Freeport area and buy a easement over the beach property where the public has access to the property and it can not be developed it made Mr. Davis alot of money to allow this green way over his property so maybe they could do something for the beach the same way?????

If the property is taken from the owner and not paid for it then i see more law suites and more wasted money. Why don't we just take that money and buy more beach property for the public.

I think in SOWAL that there is plenty of pubilc property owned by the TDC, BCC or State for the public to enjoy. Why does someone need to go and pitch their beach equipment behind somesones home where the homeowner ownes the beach property. When they can stay on the public beach.

That property owner pays taxes and does not receive a credit for the public use of it so he should have a right to not allow anyone on his propertyif he does not wont them there.

Yes i was here last year and read and heard about the people who WCSO arrested for tresspassing on a privet beach when the people who set up camp was informed to move and did not. I am glad to see that WCSO did their job. Just like the noise complaints now.

If you do not like what the law says then get it changed..


Maybe we could try and get something like the state did with Mr. Davis in the Freeport area and buy a easement over the beach property where the public has access to the property and it can not be developed it made Mr. Davis alot of money to allow this green way over his property so maybe they could do something for the beach the same way?????

I'm actually looking into this. The amendment can include a clause that states the land was always public land. This only creates headaches for surveryors, real estate agents, and title companies.

If those people who are truly all about private beaches don't like it, they can sell their property and move to a state that allows private beaches. I'm not exactly thrilled that people with that mindset live in our community.

Creeklover,

I read your thoughts on following the law, but did you actually read the Court's opinion which I presented above?

If those people who are truly all about private beaches don't like it, they can sell their property and move to a state that allows private beaches. I'm not exactly thrilled that people with that mindset live in our community.

AH HA! Finally you admit to being a NIMBY elitist. I knew it. Giving enough time you liberals will always tip your hand.

From August 13, 2002 BCC minutes, available on the internet:

"Commissioner Pauls brought up the issue of the public?s right to traverse the beach due to a recent incident between a member of the public and a beachfront homeowner. He stated that after review of the legal documentation provided, his conclusion would be that the public has a right to use and traverse the beach, including the white sandy area of the beach. However, there is still uncertainty as to what that area is. He stated that he has spoken with Deputy Gray from the Sheriff?s Department who agrees that there is a problem. He suggested scheduling public workshops to discuss this issue further supporting the public?s right to use and traverse the beach.
Mr. Wilde stated that there a more deeds that show ownership to the mean high water line than first thought. He explained that Judge Green has declined to accept a criminal trespass citation and immediately wrote an opinion suggesting the property owner have the mean high water line surveyed. Mr. Wilde stated that several people have assured him that the mean high water line is in the water, but they are unsure how far into the water. He stated that the most important issue is the safety and welfare of the citizens and visitors to Walton County. A policy needs to be developed for the Code Enforcement Officers and the Sheriff?s Department to follow. (Tape 3)
Mr. Mark Austin stated that the Board needs to stand on the side of the people in order to protect funding that comes from the property owners. If the beach is taken away from the public then visitors will no longer visit the beach areas or spend their money in Walton County. He stated that one issue needing to be addressed is "Florida?s Sovereign Land", that part of the beach that is hit by water at any time; this is public land.
Commissioner Walker stated that this is a decision that needs to be addressed by the courts. Commissioner Pauls stated that a policy is needed that can be followed. Attorney Vorbeck stated that an ordinance needs to be adopted stating basically what the Tony Rama case stands for and recognizing the fact that this issue will go to court.
Commissioner Ryan stated that an ordinance needs to be drafted to allow the public free use of the beach. He also suggested contacting other counties who have had to deal with this issue. Attorney Vorbeck requested the Board acknowledge that they are willing to spend the money it will take to go to court once an ordinance is drafted. Commissioner Walker stated that the Board of County Commissioners has always stipulated that the white sand areas of the beaches are public. Commissioner Ryan agreed.
Mr. Bill Higgins, property owner of beachfront property, stated that his deed shows that he owns his property to the mean high water line. Mr. Higgins stated that he favors the public?s use of the beach. He stated that an ordinance needs to be adopted to deal with inappropriate behavior, trash, and structures left on the beach.
Mr. Ed Goodwin, resident and property owner, previously provided a copy of an opinion that was issued regarding an Okaloosa County case. Mr. Vorbeck stated that the case being referred to is a Supreme Court Case, the City of Daytona Beach vs. Tony Rama.
The Board gave their consent for Attorney Vorbeck to prepare a beach ordinance to determine the public?s right to use the beach. A public hearing will be held regarding the use of the beach."


As it happens, I was at this meeting, and I remember it a little bit differently than what is stated in these BCC minutes, which do not reflect the lively discussion that took place, nor the consensus that seemed to be reached following the discussion. As I remember it, the BCC was in agreement that language supporting customary use of the beach by the public would be placed in the preamble of the Beach Ordinance and defended by the county, all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Until the private beach rights people got wind of it, anyway, it sure seemed like that BCC, which is of course different from this BCC, was in agreement that the public's use of the county's beaches was essential for tourism.
While I certainly do support Tom's efforts, I also wonder why the result will be any different this time around.

AH HA! Finally you admit to being a NIMBY elitist. I knew it. Giving enough time you liberals will always tip your hand.

How is this NIMBY elitism?