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

based on the above quoted law, it seems that's already happened.

based on the above quoted law, it seems that's already happened.

Well I know just the guy's Burnt Pine bayfront property I'll be setting up my beach chair on this summer with my amigo's.

Something that I haven't seen come out in this thread yet is walking the shoreline versus setting up camp. I understand that there are folks that are attempting to make it illegal to even walk the shoreline for exercise where it crosses "their" property.
I personally understand the plight of those with liabilities concerned about people setting up in front of their home.

I have a big issue with someone thinking that each beachfront owner can use their own property to get down to their beach and do what they please. These same people should not be able to go for a walk anymore because 100' into their walk, they are now trespassing on their neighbors adjoining property.

Is this really what anyone wants? I pray not.

I didn't mention it, because I don't think there is a difference - either you have the right to be there or you don't.................................not to mention the idiotic level of nuance we would then delve into.

Does one need to be in continuous motion, how long is an acceptable time to pause, what is the definition of walking etc. :roll:

We already have rules about littering, public intoxication, items left overnight, lights on the beach, fires, nudity - so if people are misbehaving, there are already ways to deal w/ their rude behavior.

Something that I haven't seen come out in this thread yet is walking the shoreline versus setting up camp. I understand that there are folks that are attempting to make it illegal to even walk the shoreline for exercise where it crosses "their" property.
I personally understand the plight of those with liabilities concerned about people setting up in front of their home.

I have a big issue with someone thinking that each beachfront owner can use their own property to get down to their beach and do what they please. These same people should not be able to go for a walk anymore because 100' into their walk, they are now trespassing on their neighbors adjoining property.

Is this really what anyone wants? I pray not.

I didn't mention it, because I don't think there is a difference - either you have the right to be there or you don't.................................not to mention the idiotic level of nuance we would then delve into.

Does one need to be in continuous motion, how long is an acceptable time to pause, what is the definition of walking etc. :roll:

We already have rules about littering, public intoxication, items left overnight, lights on the beach, fires, nudity - so if people are misbehaving, there are already ways to deal w/ their rude behavior.

Who wants to help me haul a treadmill down to the beach in front of the Retreat?

Officer I'm walking!

Something that I haven't seen come out in this thread yet is walking the shoreline versus setting up camp. I understand that there are folks that are attempting to make it illegal to even walk the shoreline for exercise where it crosses "their" property.
I personally understand the plight of those with liabilities concerned about people setting up in front of their home.

I have a big issue with someone thinking that each beachfront owner can use their own property to get down to their beach and do what they please. These same people should not be able to go for a walk anymore because 100' into their walk, they are now trespassing on their neighbors adjoining property.

Is this really what anyone wants? I pray not.

There is a huge difference between walking the shoreline and camping out. Is anyone advocating that people cannot walk the shoreline in front of a property they don't own? I hope not.

There is a huge difference between walking the shoreline and camping out. Is anyone advocating that people cannot walk the shoreline in front of a property they don't own? I hope not.

I'm with you on that. When I lived on the bay people would gig flounder at midnight just 10 feet off the shoreline with their water lights and it's natural. I'm having a hard time squaring up that ScooterBug is advocating that people should be able to set up their blankets, chairs and picnic in someone's backyard just because they live on the water. She's not being hypocritical though in saying gulf or bay is the same rules so I have to give props for that much.

I feel pretty sure that most people think the access rules should be different for gulf front landowners than the bay and bayou properties.

There is a huge difference between walking the shoreline and camping out. Is anyone advocating that people cannot walk the shoreline in front of a property they don't own? I hope not.

I'm with you on that. When I lived on the bay people would gig flounder at midnight just 10 feet off the shoreline with their water lights and it's natural. I'm having a hard time squaring up that ScooterBug is advocating that people should be able to set up their blankets, chairs and picnic in someone's backyard just because they live on the water. She's not being hypocritical though in saying gulf or bay is the same rules so I have to give props for that much.

I feel pretty sure that most people think the access rules should be different for gulf front landowners than the bay and bayou properties.

No ones saying that yet, however if we start setting in stone that certain beach is private then you are going to empower the "property rights" people to move onto the next step until they have completed the ultimate task of keeping those who aren't fortunate enough to own or rent gulf front off the beaches all together.

I'm with you on that. When I lived on the bay people would gig flounder at midnight just 10 feet off the shoreline with their water lights and it's natural. I'm having a hard time squaring up that ScooterBug is advocating that people should be able to set up their blankets, chairs and picnic in someone's backyard just because they live on the water. She's not being hypocritical though in saying gulf or bay is the same rules so I have to give props for that much.

I feel pretty sure that most people think the access rules should be different for gulf front landowners than the bay and bayou properties.

It is all about customary use. I used to be a part-time bayfront dweller and I never saw anyone make the silty banks a final destination. The same can't be said about the beach, however-the simple fact is that our community is tourist dollar driven, and tourists come here to go to the beach, not the bay, museums, restaurants or Club LaVela. Tourists on the beach are our lifeblood. The TDC recognizes that screwing up this nucleus will result in dire consequences for the area. Rent-a-cops, rickety 'GO AWAY' signs and hypervigilant beach 'owners' are an afront to the nucleus. In the end, customary beach use will prevail.

I am not advocating that people can set up camp in someone's backyard, I'm saying I don't see the need for a hissy fit when someone puts a towel and their butt down on the beach just as people have been doing for decades.

In the scenario I referenced earlier, fisherman had the right to sit down w/ their lunch, tackle box, etc. and fish for hours along the shoreline.

This crazy behavior where people amicably shared community resources went on for years and amazingly we all survived to tell about it. :roll:

So we are all talking about the same thing then, whatever freedoms to recreate on the beach we are granting we are also going to grant the public for bays, bayous, lakes, etc.

That is indeed, already the case. You are arguing something that already exists.

I didn't mention it, because I don't think there is a difference - either you have the right to be there or you don't.................................not to mention the idiotic level of nuance we would then delve into.

Does one need to be in continuous motion, how long is an acceptable time to pause, what is the definition of walking etc. :roll:

We already have rules about littering, public intoxication, items left overnight, lights on the beach, fires, nudity - so if people are misbehaving, there are already ways to deal w/ their rude behavior.

Actually, I believe that in the State of Florida, camping is illegal on public property, unless the area is specifically designated as a camping area. You cannot just camp a small stretch of beach along the Bay, legally, nor can you on the beach along the Gulf, nor along the road side, in the State Forest, etc. Each state varies a bit.

Camping is different from using the beach for an activity during the daytime - camping is an overnight (or longer) activity. Since you can't leave items on the beach overnight and it is specifically stated that you cannot sleep on the beach (Okaloosa Sheriff has moved me along), it's a non-issue thread derailer that allowing people access means they can "camp" on the beach.

That is indeed, already the case. You are arguing something that already exists.

Who's arguing. I'm pointing out that it's not constitutional to grant the public access to beach front private property without granting it to all other Florida water bodies. I know Scooter and you said that the public can engage in beach activities on the beach and any other Florida bay, river or lake shoreline, but I haven't heard that. I'm not sure that it's correct.

That Navigable Waters post from above doesn't seem to fit the spirit of what the public is doing on the beach.

? COMMISSIONERS MAKE “FIRST SCRATCH” FOR CUSTOMARY USE


By DOTTY NIST

The issue of public right to customary use of the beach is not a new one in Walton County, but county commissioners agreed last week that the time to begin to address it is now.
Customary use came to the forefront on Jan. 27, with a recommendation to the Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on behalf of the South Walton Tourist Development Council (TDC).
On Jan. 14, the TDC had approved the recommendation, which reads, “The TDC recommends to the Board of County Commissioners it ascertain the ancient customary uses the public has made of the beaches of Walton County which have been without interruption, reasonable, free from dispute, certain, obligatory and consistent with other customary uses and laws. It is further recommended that the Board of County Commissioners amend the Beach Activities Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan to recognize the public’s right of customary use and describing the areas of the beaches where the uses may be enjoyed.”
Along with the recommendation was the note: “Examples of typical Customary Uses of the Beaches: Swimming, fishing, walking, sunbathing with or without removable shade devices, playing games, picnicking, photographing, reading books and relaxing. All these uses must be done in accordance with the other provisions of the Beach Activities Ordinance and any other applicable local ordinances and state and federal statutes.”
Sonny Mares, TDC executive director, presented the TDC recommendation to the commissioners at their Jan. 27 meeting.
Mares told the commissioners that the request was in reaction to a ” very intrusive” trend along the beaches, of beachfront property owners putting up “private beach” signs prohibiting residents and visitors from coming onto some areas of the beach. He added that some of these owners have hired private security agencies to turn away people seeking to use the beach.
Mares warned that this beach privatization trend would harm tourism, especially since visitors renting non-beachfront accommodations depend on being able to access the beach for recreation.
Calling the matter “a very important issue,” District 3 Commissioner Larry Jones was of the opinion that the appropriate action would be to begin the investigative process for information to support a claim of customary use of the beach.
Mike Burke, county legal counsel, agreed that the place to start would be with the first part of the TDC recommendation, evaluating what claim the county could make to customary use of the beach and in what sections the claim could be made. This would likely be a lengthly process, he noted.
Not mentioned was a recent decision by the Florida Supreme Court in favor of the public’s right to the use of portions of the beach that have been reclaimed in large-scale beach nourishment projects. More than five miles of beach on the west end of Walton County fall within this category.
Jones made a motion to allow staff to work with the TDC to determine what evidence was available to support the right of customary use.
The motion was approved unanimously.
“You’re just asking us to gather evidence?’” Burke asked for purposes of clarification, with Jones responding in the affirmative.
“We’ve just made the first scratch,” District 4 Commissioner and Commission Chairwoman Sara Comander commented.
Nevertheless, Blue Mountain Beach beachfront homeowner Emmett Hildreth was livid about the decision, which he branded “premature.”
“Customary use has been clearly defined by the Supreme Court of Florida,” Hildreth complained. “It should not involve the county or the TDC,” he argued.
“Customary use goes absolutely against private property rights,” Hildreth continued, warning that establishing such use would devalue beachfront property and deter investors. When a beach house has title to the mean high water line, not only homebuyers but renters expect “a private beach,” Hildreth argued.
“It is evil and the cancer of socialism,” he said of the commission decision.
The Herald-Breeze consulted with Walton County Property Appraiser Patrick Pilcher on Jan. 28 regarding the argument that establishing the public right to customary use of the beach would devalue beachfront property.
Pilcher’s first reaction was that such a contention was “highly speculative.”
He explained that property appraisers are “historians, not forecasters,” and that property values are set through the appraisal method, by evaluating the selling price of comparable properties. The question, he said, would be whether a “marked decrease” in sales prices occurred in connection with properties upon which the right to customary use had been established. He was not aware of any areas where such an action by a local government had devalued property.
Pilcher brought up another aspect of beachfront property ownership that may have a bearing on the question. In Walton County, some beachfront lots are deeded to the mean high water line or the Gulf of Mexico, but in many instances deeding extends only to the bluff or dune line, he noted.
“I’ve never seen a difference in sales prices from one to the other;” Pilcher said, “people typically don’t worry about that.”

?It is evil and the cancer of socialism,? :funn:

PuuuuuuuuuuuuLeeeeeeeeeeeeaze! :roll:

Seriously - owners and vacationers alike enjoy taking a walk down the beach and I've never seen someone come out of the water after a swim in the exact location they went in.

Few people are going to refuse to rent because the beach in front of the house isn't private ...................... many will if our area gets a reputation for chasing people off beaches and arresting little kids for building sand castles.

Who's arguing. I'm pointing out that it's not constitutional to grant the public access to beach front private property without granting it to all other Florida water bodies. I know Scooter and you said that the public can engage in beach activities on the beach and any other Florida bay, river or lake shoreline, but I haven't heard that. I'm not sure that it's correct.

That Navigable Waters post from above doesn't seem to fit the spirit of what the public is doing on the beach.

We aren't talking about the public walking through people's yards to access the beach. That is a separate issue.

What the people are doing on the beach is exactly what the public has done for many years, and that relates to Customary Use.

We aren't talking about the public walking through people's yards to access the beach. That is a separate issue.

What the people are doing on the beach is exactly what the public has done for many years, and that relates to Customary Use.

That has nothing to do with the navagable waters rule then. This is a movement that is seperate and distinct from the other waters of the State and only affects the property rights of a select and dictinct class of landowners.

I believe you are on the wrong page. We are talking about customary use, and that has nothing to do with navigable waterways. It could also apply to non-waterfront property, like a property where the County, without payment, paved a road which had been used by the public for many years, but it is on privately-deeded property. There are plenty of those examples in Walton County.

PuuuuuuuuuuuuLeeeeeeeeeeeeaze! :roll:

beachhouse25? is that you?

Video of the BCC Discussion now available

We aren't talking about the public walking through people's yards to access the beach. That is a separate issue.

What the people are doing on the beach is exactly what the public has done for many years, and that relates to Customary Use.

In case you couldn't attend the County Commission meeting where Customary Use was discussed, go to this link to access the video of that particular agenda item. (Brought to you courtesy of the Walton County Democratic Party)

1/27/09 BCC Tourist Dev. Council Issues | Welcome to the Democratic Party of Walton County