Public vs Private Beach [threads merged]

Yes, but our elected officials actively SOUGHT his assistance at that meeting!!!

I don't know what I'm doing
D ont care what you think
I still don't care...
O h, you're offended, to bad...
T hought, we run the show, not you.
S tick it where beach sand is difficult to remove

IDIOTS...

You made the comment, I just thought you were unawares, not sure what this last rant is about.

Yeah, it's getting difficult to keep track of the rants. It kind of seems lame to ridicule the board for seeking some intelligent input from a person who has been at the forefront of this problem for some time. I guess if you just going to rant, and not seek sensible answers, that's the style to go with.

Doesn't live in Walton, unless he recently moved. Ran for Destin City Council.

You probably already know this but for everyone else (and I just found out), it looks like he just lost by a real squeaker. So there's nothing politically for him to do in Destin for now - I guess keep one's feet wet in Walton County for whatever reason? On public beach of course!! Oh come on, that deserves a chuckle.

But as a former Destin City Councilor, he has roots there. He used to be prior to taking the TDC position the City Manager of Rosemary Beach, at least I think that was his title.

You cannot find spooks under every rock. Eventually people tune you out. Just because you do not agree with someone or their actions does not mean it is not smart to listen to them and understand their principles and motives. Who knows, you may be wrong and they may be right?

Letter from the Walton Sun:
LETTER: Customary use must prevail

I believe that the doctrine of customary use of the beach and public beach access must prevail. This subject cannot be watered down and shoved under the rug any longer. It cannot be postponed as a tactic to stop customary use of the beaches from being a right by law. We shouldn’t have to be defending a right that already exists, but we are.

The opposition has already stated we should prepare for a battle. Every day wasted is a day the opposition of the rich and few beachfront owners has to prepare and win their war on shutting down all beach accesses and making them private, taking it from the local people, as well as visitors, that have used it for recreational purposes for years. It is the local people who have lived here and possibly sacrificed making higher wages in order to enjoy the serenity of this area. It is these same people who kept things going when it was not as popular of a place as now.

Now a few rich owners want to come in here and deny these many fine people the right of their customary use just so they can have their own private, isolated beach regardless of the joy they steal from so many. It will destroy the economy. It is a right of all the people of South Walton County to enjoy these beaches.

It is the local people who work here that take care of the needs of the new development and guests and new local residents. The economy is at stake here as well.

With some proper planning from TDC, the commissioners making the beach public through customary use and having plenty of public beach access, and making some responsible ordinances that will help support the respect for the beach and it’s preservation, will help to ensure that South Walton beaches will be a preferred destination for locals and visitors for many years to come.

- LIZ GOOD, Santa Rosa Beach

Where was this Customary Use Doctrine 500 years ago? My, how different our country would look!

Keep in mind that Public Property does not mean Accessible to Locals. The bays and creeks have Private Property restricting access to the water too.

One look at the ungodly amount of trash found every morning off Public Beach Accesses will serve to explain the Private Property signs. The locals that work the beach don't like the signs either, but the public doesn't see how many shattered bottles and poopy tampons and loaded up bloody condoms we pick up before it's even breakfast time so that your kids can focus on building sand castles.

Since we don't seem to want to pay for Grayton or Topsail, perhaps a free-to-enter county park with adequate parking like Morrison Springs would be worth campaigning for.

Most accesses are not trashed. The TDC is responsible for picking up trash at containers. Perhaps bed tax should go toward doing a more comprehensive, better job if needed.

Most accesses are not trashed. The TDC is responsible for picking up trash at containers. Perhaps bed tax should go toward doing a more comprehensive, better job if needed.

I bring a trash bag every time I go on morning walks along Grayton Beach.
In the Spring and Summer, it's full by the time I finish my walk, and I pick
it up from the public and private parts of the beach.

I bring a trash bag every time I go on morning walks along Grayton Beach.
In the Spring and Summer, it's full by the time I finish my walk, and I pick
it up from the public and private parts of the beach.

Yes Grayton Beach access is one of the worst ones. I used to be able to clean the whole beach by myself about 15 years ago. It became too much for me.

Is Walton County "Ground Zero"?

Coastline — 1,197 Statute Miles

Tidal Shoreline — 2,276 Statute Miles

Beaches — 663 Miles

Are we to believe that only SOWAL has this problem...Seems that with this much shoreline and all the retired land owners with nothing better to do, similar cases have already been heard and judicated...Hence the law should have already been spoken..just sayin..

Part of the problem in SOWAL is that we have a very high proportion of property owners that are investors and/or part time residents who are largely unaware of the quiet title and other actions by beach front owners that are compromising current and future beach access.

More specifically, the quiet title actions used to acquire beach front were pretty much one sided legal actions that slid under the neighborhood's and public's radar. Not anymore.

FYI Quiet Titles
A quiet title action is a lawsuit that is brought in circuit court to clear a party’s title to real property. The purpose of a quiet title action is to eliminate all claims to title, which might stand in the way of a title insurance company issuing a clear title insurance policy. Liens, claims by prior owners, and other matters affecting title are called “clouds” on title. The purpose of a quiet title action is to eliminate any of these “clouds” on title.


In short, quiet title actions help to clarify title issues involving real property. All parties who might claim an interest in the real property are notified of the lawsuit and given a chance to assert their interest in the real property. If nobody ( or County)comes forward, then the court can issue a judgment quieting title in the Plaintiff’s favor. This is the ultimate goal!!! of the quiet title action. However, if someone ( or county) does come forward, then the court must determine the interests of the parties in the real property and enter a judgment accordingly.

FYI Quiet Titles
A quiet title action is a lawsuit that is brought in circuit court to clear a party’s title to real property. The purpose of a quiet title action is to eliminate all claims to title, which might stand in the way of a title insurance company issuing a clear title insurance policy. Liens, claims by prior owners, and other matters affecting title are called “clouds” on title. The purpose of a quiet title action is to eliminate any of these “clouds” on title.


In short, quiet title actions help to clarify title issues involving real property. All parties who might claim an interest in the real property are notified of the lawsuit and given a chance to assert their interest in the real property. If nobody ( or County)comes forward, then the court can issue a judgment quieting title in the Plaintiff’s favor. This is the ultimate goal!!! of the quiet title action. However, if someone ( or county) does come forward, then the court must determine the interests of the parties in the real property and enter a judgment accordingly.

Are you saying the county was notified about the quiet title and did nothing?

My take on quiet title is that it only addresses the potential cloud on a title as it relates to the party identified in the lawsuit. In the case of Beach Highlands and Old Blue Mountain Beach, the suits were directed at the now dissolved corporations that developed those subdivisions. These suits did not "quiet" any potential claim to title by other parties.

One other point to be made is that the beach front owners in the aforementioned cases never had title to the beach or white sand area; and therefore did not have any clouded title issues on "their" property.

They acquired title to the beach or white sand area property by taking advantage of the fact that the beach ownership was never clarified by the original developers; probably because the developer's believed it was to be used by the whole neighborhood.

Letter from the Walton Sun:
LETTER: Customary use must prevail

Jimmy, since you posted the link of the letter, can you please share your opinion of its content?

One other point to be made is that the beach front owners in the aforementioned cases never had title to the beach or white sand area; and therefore did not have any clouded title issues on "their" property.

They acquired title to the beach or white sand area property by taking advantage of the fact that the beach ownership was never clarified by the original developers; probably because the developer's believed it was to be used by the whole neighborhood.

jkmason, nobody has disagreed with your evaluation of the situation at Beach Highlands. I personally have acknowledged as much.

Regarding Old Blue Mountain Beach, you are without a doubt "barking up the wrong tree". Even Mark Davis (county attorney) acknowledges this. There's no sense to continually harp on this particular situation.

The perpetuation of the image that beach front owners are "stealing" beach front property through quiet title action needs to be restrained. Not all readers are as informed as you.

I presented a question to all a little while back if anyone knew of any other quiet title situations but haven't heard anything new. So far I only have heard of Beach Highlands and of course, Old BMB which is clearly the transfer of title from one entity to another.

Now, admittedly, this has nothing to do with possible customary use. And again Mark Davis states this as well.

Jimmy, since you posted the link of the letter, can you please share your opinion of its content?

I posted it because it was pertinent to this topic and yet another opinion on the matter.

As for my opinion on its content, I don't like how the author has made it an us-against-them
issue and there is no mention of any sort of compromise. And I'm not sure I agree with the
author's claims about the economy either.

But as for customary use, folks who have used these beaches for years (even the "private" parts)
feel like they are being denied access to them when gulf front owners put signs, chains, fences,
etc. all the way down to the water line. I don't like seeing all this junk on the beach and I don't
like being harassed for walking down the beach or sitting on the beach respectfully enjoying
myself away from private structures.

On the other hand, I also understand why gulf front owners might want to put up the signs, fences,
etc. like this. All it takes are a couple of rotten apples behaving badly and lack of enforcement. I
really don't like how some folks leave their garbage all over the place and disrespect our environment.

IMO, we don't have to take a sledgehammer to this problem. But we do need to start doing
some simple and easy things to correct it, otherwise it's going to keep festering and get worse.

Jimmy T, thank you for a very fair analysis of the article and your opinion. I do hope things can be worked out - this I believe, we can all agree on.

I posted it because it was pertinent to this topic and yet another opinion on the matter.

As for my opinion on its content, I don't like how the author has made it an us-against-them
issue and there is no mention of any sort of compromise. And I'm not sure I agree with the
author's claims about the economy either.

But as for customary use, folks who have used these beaches for years (even the "private" parts)
feel like they are being denied access to them when gulf front owners put signs, chains, fences,
etc. all the way down to the water line. I don't like seeing all this junk on the beach and I don't
like being harassed for walking down the beach or sitting on the beach respectfully enjoying
myself away from private structures.

On the other hand, I also understand why gulf front owners might want to put up the signs, fences,
etc. like this. All it takes are a couple of rotten apples behaving badly and lack of enforcement. I
really don't like how some folks leave their garbage all over the place and disrespect our environment.

IMO, we don't have to take a sledgehammer to this problem. But we do need to start doing
some simple and easy things to correct it, otherwise it's going to keep festering and get worse.

J T, you have hit the mark with your review.

I agree about the US vs. Them and that is not the way to go. Unfortunately, the misinformation being speed only fuels that.

I liked your comments about the "bad apples" and I'd add to that, it's not a few but more like a small orchard (grown over the past several years).

No surprise, I agree with the Lack of Enforcement piece as well. I've spouted off on that in numerous posts on both Sheriff Mike and the TDC code enforcement.

Instead a blaming each other, the source of the problem, which you've identified, should be addressed.

1). Enforcement

2). Quality of Visitor to our area

Had those two things not drastically changed, we would not have 14 pages of posts on this and everyone would be happy in SoWal...

Instead we sit poised to repeat the sins of the past and get lawyers involved.

Regarding quiet title in old blue mountain beach subdivision: I am simply not confident that all parties to the quiet title lawsuit were properly included. At a very minimum the other homeowners should have been included. Just my opinion. As I look into it further, perhaps I will come to a different conclusion.

From Memoirs of a Title Examiner:

"A “Quiet Title Action” is just that. It is an action, brought by a plaintiff, or plaintiffs, for the purpose of determining, with certainty, title to a specific parcel of land. The final judgment allows the prevailing party to move forward, free from the interest of the defendant(s). A proper quiet title action will present all necessary parties before the court. If a necessary party is left out of the lawsuit, such party will not be bound by its final adjudication. The plaintiff’s attorney will diligently determine all parties with a legal interest in order to properly join them in the suit."

I'm getting teary-eyed with all the good will that is emanating from this thread, but just pronouncing the word enforcement doesn't make it magically happen. The truth is neither the TDC nor the WCSO feel this is their job, and without a clear, unambiguous definition of the law pertaining to customary use, they would be hard pressed to adjudicate every situation that arises. The BCC has punted it until after the elections, so it is up to each and every one of us to ask every BCC member and candidate one simple question: do you or don't you support the people's right to customary use of the beaches, and then have them define it.

Regarding quiet title in old blue mountain beach subdivision: I am simply not confident that all parties to the quiet title lawsuit were properly included. At a very minimum the other homeowners should have been included. Just my opinion. As I look into it further, perhaps I will come to a different conclusion.

Why?

I'm getting teary-eyed with all the good will that is emanating from this thread, but just pronouncing the word enforcement doesn't make it magically happen.

Degummit! If things get a little rough you call me hostile ("calling a lie a lie"). If the exchange appears to be going civilly, you start to cry! Is there a middle of road where we need to be to keep you happy?

The truth is neither the TDC nor the WCSO feel this is their job, and without a clear, unambiguous definition of the law pertaining to customary use, they would be hard pressed to adjudicate every situation that arises. The BCC has punted it until after the elections, so it is up to each and every one of us to ask every BCC member and candidate one simple question: do you or don't you support the people's right to customary use of the beaches, and then have them define it.

First, regarding no trespassing enforcement, that's not a TDC job. Maybe John G is talking about other "illegal" activities that need enforcement. But since you are mentioning customary use, I assume you're discussing trespassing as far as "adjudicating every situation that arises".

Second, WCSO must enforce valid no trespassing claims as part of their duty, whether you live in Defuniak Springs or in South Walton. Private property rights don't just disappear just because the beach happens to be involved.

You need to keep in mind, the claim of customary use is just that, a claim, for now. And in the end (whenever that will be), customary use certainly will not be applied across the entire 20+ miles of beach.

Previously I asked everyone, how is one to protect their property from trespassers if the southern boundary is in dispute because of the MHWL? Nobody really addressed it - no surprise. Without the ability to REASONABLY use the MHWL as the southern boundary, then a gulf front lot whose southern boundary is the MHWL has NO BOUNDARY. Anybody can go anywhere on the property. Again, the only LEGAL southern boundary defined on our deed is the MHWL.

Perhaps our title should have included this highly legal and specific language:
"And if the WCSO does not enforce the MHWL boundary, God be with you because there is no other legal fallback southern boundary for your private property."