This graphic included all returns received thru 8-7-215.
The '% No" is the percentage of the total easements within a "reach" and the "% No of Returns" is the percentage of No's for those actually returned.
If you are interested in how the "easement process" on the HSDR (Beach Renourishment) project is moving below you will find the totals, percentages and remaining easements in the process.
This graphic included all returns received thru 8-7-215.
The '% No" is the percentage of the total easements within a "reach" and the "% No of Returns" is the percentage of No's for those actually returned.
This graphic included all returns received thru 8-7-215.
The '% No" is the percentage of the total easements within a "reach" and the "% No of Returns" is the percentage of No's for those actually returned.
Edited
Replies
51
Beach Fanatic
Is that like breaking wind?
Beach Fanatic
It would be interesting to see how the April general public numbers compare to the current returns of the actual owners.
Beach Fanatic
September 8th Walton County will hold open discussions on Spring Break 2016 ," NO Alcoholic beverages on the sandy beaches March 1-April 30"
Beach Fanatic
I am certainly not promoting drinking alcohol, but isn't that going a little far? Not to mention practically unenforceable.
Beach Fanatic
I am certainly not promoting drinking alcohol, but isn't that going a little far? Not to mention practically unenforceable.
Yes, but it is the flavor of the month. I would support banning Alcoholic Beverages on the sandy beach all year that way we are not being selective in the enforcement. I wonder how many parking tickets are issued during the tourist season or if there has ever been a ticket for parking in the handicap parking or fire lanes?
Beach Fanatic
During tourist season in Grayton the Sheriff is too busy directing drunk drivers around The Red Bar to worry where they're parking.
Beach Fanatic
You are correct. Glad someone else noticed this.Friend helping friends. Its the Walton County Way.
Beach Fanatic
I have little patience for illegally parking in handicap or fire lane spaces. I also do not have much patience with people parking on private property on what is clearly someone's yard or driveway.
Beach Fanatic
Yes, but it is the flavor of the month. I would support banning Alcoholic Beverages on the sandy beach all year that way we are not being selective in the enforcement. I wonder how many parking tickets are issued during the tourist season or if there has ever been a ticket for parking in the handicap parking or fire lanes?or for parking on the sidewalk
Beach Fanatic
Parking on the sidewalk or the bike path is unacceptable also. But it is our responsibility to fund better/more parking for our guests and citizens.
Beach Fanatic
These are the two direct incorporation questions.I wonder who the "community leaders" are. Wealth and politics have a way to stir up the winds so to speak.
These are the results within the 784 responses not broken down by Precinct or Age
Beach Fanatic
It is really too bad that those who have recently bought have no idea of what transpired before them regarding help for the beaches. They are so caught up with their wealth and property rights they have no conception of what can and might happen to their precious property if Mother Nature does not receive help. Just answer me one question. What "Private Property" owners can I sue the next time a Dennis comes along and destroys my property that could have been protected with beach renourishment? It is too bad we have so many stupid people suddenly moving into SoWal.
Andy A,
Your position on "Private Property" owners has been well documented with your many posts. And if your memory serves, you have constantly insisted that the beach should be public, even insisting that your gulf front association would agree with you.
Of course when I asked you to provide general access to the beach for the public via your private access (stairs and walkway), you never agreed with that idea.
I therefore believed and suggested that your posts were disingenuous when it really came to providing true public access to your isolated part of the beach. This is contrasted with those of us near public regional accesses and other high density accesses.
On one hand your position seems to be the beach should not be private - that the public should have full access.
On the other hand, it seems that your position regarding that the beach should be public, doesn't always suit you well as indicated from your post below from January, 2012:
Arkiehawg, my "chat" with FDEP was completely non productive. Their claim is that they only permitted construction, and have nothing to do with transportation of materials. The FDEP representative turned me back to the County. I called and talked to one Commissioner and informed one other. She said she would notify Code Enforcement and get back to me. That was only yesterday. I believe this is much worse, as far as our local situation is concerned, than the oil spill. Supposedly they received permission to transport the sand from someone in the County. It would seem that once again, money speaks the loudest.
In regard to the tents and blocking the path, <b>our beach is "private"</b> and I believe I can get our board of directors to go along with such a plan. Also, our beach is very narrow at this time. As I have stated previously, I do not understand how they at the Retreat feel they have the right to violate other's "private" beach in order to get to their posted "private" beach. They, as an association, should be ashamed!
So it is very apparent that you are a fair weather friend when it comes to the "beach being public for all to use", except where it includes necessary construction issues along the beach (Retreat geotubes).
I believe hypocritical would be an accurate description of your posts regarding this issue.
As I have mentioned in the past and now here, there is no convenient way for the public to access YOUR part of the beach. Your neighbors will not "pushed" out by the general public.
Perhaps your posts from 2012 reflect an emotionally distressed situation that we ALL endured at that time relative to the many trucks that traversed the beach. Did you forget how many trucks traversed other private beaches to build your seawall?
I suggest that you come clean and be consistent regarding this issue.
Beach Fanatic
I think the access is different than the beach. There are liability issues with maintenance of the access. As for as accessing the beach well he has been pretty clear that you can sit there.
Beach Fanatic
Bob, yes he has been clear that you can sit on his beach. But what good is that invitation when one has to walk about 1000 feet to reach it? It's all disingenuous without access.
Since you brought up the subject of liability, private beach owners carry liability insurance for injury that could possibly take place on their private beach - no different than one's front yard, beach walkover, etc.
Theoretically, one could attempt to sue the private beach owner for negligence resulting in an injury.
Since you brought up the subject of liability, private beach owners carry liability insurance for injury that could possibly take place on their private beach - no different than one's front yard, beach walkover, etc.
Theoretically, one could attempt to sue the private beach owner for negligence resulting in an injury.
Beach Fanatic
Bob, yes he has been clear that you can sit on his beach. But what good is that invitation when one has to walk about 1000 feet to reach it? It's all disingenuous without access.
Since you brought up the subject of liability, private beach owners carry liability insurance for injury that could possibly take place on their private beach - no different than one's front yard, beach walkover, etc.
Theoretically, one could attempt to sue the private beach owner for negligence resulting in an injury.
Beach Fanatic
No one ever suggested using private beach entrances to access the beach. You wouldn't let anyone trapes throgh your house to access your back yard, would you? The point is, the beaches, from the toe of the dune or from a private property line marking the beginning of the beach, should be public. Yes, people would have to walk to reach our beach but they are welcome to use it respectfully. Our pristine beaches are our gift from God. No individual should have the right to deny the use of them to another human being.
Beach Fanatic
No one ever suggested using private beach entrances to access the beach.I never said that anyone else suggested that using private beach entrances to access the beach. I was the one who suggested that you should open your private access.
Yes, people would have to walk to reach our beach but they are welcome to use it respectfully.Have your association by-laws been modified that converts your private beach to public? If not, your open invitation to the public wouldn't be fair to your fellow association members who disagree with your position.
Our pristine beaches are our gift from God. No individual should have the right to deny the use of them to another human being.My wife is a gift from God......
Beach Fanatic
You and I will never agree on beach usage. I see you and all of your ilk as greedy and, usually wealthy, people who could care less for the U.S. populace in general. The solution does not lie with you or me. It will be up to the Supreme Court of Florida to decide just as they did in California. Beach usage is for all to enjoy.
Beach Fanatic
Andy A, you never stated why you thought it was ok that your beach was conveniently your private property when dump trucks were traversing and you wanted to put an end to it.
You never responded to the idea of the public using your private access to reach the beach that you think everyone has a right to, whether public or private. Your response was "You wouldn't let anyone trapes throgh your house to access your back yard, would you?" That clearly speaks for itself when it comes to protecting one's private property. By the way, people walk across our beach all the time.
You never responded whether or not you were being very generous with your neighbor's property. In other words, does your association's by-laws state whether your beach is public or private?
And now we have "greed" from "usually wealthy people". It's sad to pigeon hole people you don't really know.
I expected more.
You never responded to the idea of the public using your private access to reach the beach that you think everyone has a right to, whether public or private. Your response was "You wouldn't let anyone trapes throgh your house to access your back yard, would you?" That clearly speaks for itself when it comes to protecting one's private property. By the way, people walk across our beach all the time.
You never responded whether or not you were being very generous with your neighbor's property. In other words, does your association's by-laws state whether your beach is public or private?
And now we have "greed" from "usually wealthy people". It's sad to pigeon hole people you don't really know.
I expected more.
Beach Fanatic
Andy, beach renourishment is dead, over, not going to happen.
Private property rights prevail.
Private property rights prevail.
Beach Fanatic
John G, I agree beach renourishment for our eroded beaches is over, thanks to thoughtless, uninformed individuals that have never indured any results of a hurricane. Too bad we lost Brad Pickle. He had vision and the right answers. As for you, BMB Vagrant, I don't owe you an explaination for anything. I think I know who you are, and consider your attitude toward beach usage appalling. If I am correct as to who you are, you and your wife don't even want people to use the public access to BMB. If I am wrong in this assumption, please say so and I'll apologize. Nuf said.
Beach Fanatic
John G, I agree beach renourishment for our eroded beaches is over, thanks to thoughtless, uninformed individuals that have never indured any results of a hurricane.
Though this comment is not directed directly at me, I consider myself very well informed. And believe me, we've endured the "results" of hurricanes, with the majority of money expended directly from our pockets for seawalls and sand - just like you.
As for you, BMB Vagrant, I don't owe you an explaination for anything.
No you don't. But if you're trying to win over the opinions of others regarding private vs. public as well other issues, and you project mixed signals, I think I'm doing you a favor pointing out the flaws in your arguments.
I think I know who you are, and consider your attitude toward beach usage appalling. If I am correct as to who you are, you and your wife don't even want people to use the public access to BMB. If I am wrong in this assumption, please say so and I'll apologize. Nuf said.
I don't have any idea what you're talking about. No apology is necessary.
We all have our opinions. Hopefully they're simply founded with factual information.
Beach Fanatic
During the December 1st, 2015 TDC meeting, Duncan Greer of Taylor Engineering spoke in front of the TDC. He stated that as of November 25th, based on numbers provided by the county, that 513 property owners are not granting easements for beach nourishment and that 47 owners have granted easements to the Army Corps of Engineers.
But then he said, "We're still at ...approximately 10% is a yes and 90% is a no." He stated that a total of 560 easement request forms have been returned to the county.
In no uncertain terms, a non-returned easement form is counted as a "no". 47 of 1100 is only about 4% yes. So how can that be "10% is a yes"?
I would like to think that Taylor Engineering is presenting hard facts and not playing with numbers in front of a TDC meeting, especially at this late stage of the game. Of course I understand his numbers are based on the actual "yes" forms vs. "no" forms returned. But to be intellectually honest, he should of stated the percentages calculated both ways, not just the high side.
I subsequently found this in a recent Taylor Engineering report :
Easement Acquisition On-Going
Total Easements: 1,100 +/-
Received “Yes’”: 43 (3% of total)
Received “No’s”: 334 (28% of total)
~69% Still Outstanding
At least the report itself is calculating the proper percentages (only 3% truly yes at that time).
By the way, he mentioned the last day to tabulate these forms is the end of January. Perhaps at that time they will officially count a non-responsive property owner as a "no" vote and we'll see the real percentages.
Yea, I know, beach nourishment is dead (based on current easement approval numbers and color of sand). Well it certainly seems to be.........
for now.
But then he said, "We're still at ...approximately 10% is a yes and 90% is a no." He stated that a total of 560 easement request forms have been returned to the county.
In no uncertain terms, a non-returned easement form is counted as a "no". 47 of 1100 is only about 4% yes. So how can that be "10% is a yes"?
I would like to think that Taylor Engineering is presenting hard facts and not playing with numbers in front of a TDC meeting, especially at this late stage of the game. Of course I understand his numbers are based on the actual "yes" forms vs. "no" forms returned. But to be intellectually honest, he should of stated the percentages calculated both ways, not just the high side.
I subsequently found this in a recent Taylor Engineering report :
Easement Acquisition On-Going
Total Easements: 1,100 +/-
Received “Yes’”: 43 (3% of total)
Received “No’s”: 334 (28% of total)
~69% Still Outstanding
At least the report itself is calculating the proper percentages (only 3% truly yes at that time).
By the way, he mentioned the last day to tabulate these forms is the end of January. Perhaps at that time they will officially count a non-responsive property owner as a "no" vote and we'll see the real percentages.
Yea, I know, beach nourishment is dead (based on current easement approval numbers and color of sand). Well it certainly seems to be.........
for now.
Beach Fanatic
So there really are 514 Stupid beach property owners in SOWAL..can't wait for the next big storm and these guys on 6:00 news whining about there lost beach. As they ask ,"who is going to fix this?"
Beach Fanatic
The Walton BCC has "tabled" the project. Meaning it is dead and would have to start all over again.
Meanwhile, millions were wasted and $17 million in county funds designated for nourishment project (meant to be matched) is now free but not free?
Meanwhile, millions were wasted and $17 million in county funds designated for nourishment project (meant to be matched) is now free but not free?
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.