Public vs Private Beach [threads merged]

Ok, thanks. I looked it up. I would like to see the deed that says the dissolved corporation owned below the dune line. I realize the complaint in the quiet title action says they owned it, but where is the deed to prove it.

Look at the attachment jkmason's Post #346 . Read paragraphs 5 and 6. It provides the references you're looking for, I believe. Keep in mind, this document was prepared by Mark Davis at that time, who happens to be the current county attorney.

Is this just a "jab" or are you serious?

No jab intention here! There are a few other characters on the forum that enjoy the occasional jab.

Do you live in "Old Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision 1" or did I miss something? I was hoping it was a jab.

BTW, I actually found the "bay-grunt" (vagrant) jab by my favorite "factual" poster (not you of course) to be humorously and poetically clever. I give credit where credit is due.

FWIW, in case anyone missed it, hippiechick posted this a couple of months ago: Click here

Referenced article from The Florida Bar Journal: Sand for the People: The Continuing Controversy Over Public Access to Florida’s Beaches

I know some "legal" stuff gets posted on this forum that's a little difficult to read/comprehend but this article delves into into the topic of this thread. It's worth a read as it appears very straight forward and informative.

Do you live in "Old Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision 1" or did I miss something? I was hoping it was a jab.

BTW, I actually found the "bay-grunt" (vagrant) jab by my favorite "factual" poster (not you of course) to be humorously and poetically clever. I give credit where credit is due.

Yes I do. Don't toilet paper my house!

jkmason......Please try not to take this the wrong way. I'd rather save it for more important things.

Side note: I was just listening to comments at the March 16th meeting on youtube. It is so easy to take sides in this corrosive debate...non-beach front owners and their predictable cheer-leading section vs. beach front owners/lawyer making factual statements (and of course) followed by the usual deathly silence / sneers.

I admit that I've jumped down the throat of Andy A regarding his desire that all the beaches should be public. It is a noble cause and position that he is taking and one that I am not willing to give up as easily. BUT....the beach that he is "part owner of" is not his in its entirety to be given to the public in the first place. I've challenged him more than once to see if his association felt the same as him. You can imagine the response (or lack of). It's easy to "give to something away" that you don't own outright. And even if he did have full ownership and gave it to the county, the "public" use wouldn't affect him as the public would have no "real access" to his part of the beach without walking hundreds and hundreds of feet. Basically he is insulated - a nice predicament if one is a beach front owner, regardless of possible customary use or possible beach restoration/nourishment and the resulting public beach south of the ECL.

Now, I mention the above because even though I respect your position of customary use, I have to ask, do your neighbors feel the same way you do? For the benefit of the other members of this forum, all the owners/guests of Old BMB Subdivision 1 have full and exclusive use of BMB to the east of BMB Regional Access all the way to the end of Blue Mountain Road with the exceptions of the areas directly south of the 3 neighborhood accesses. This, again, is something that a "certain poetic individual" doesn't want the public to know.

But, jkmason, even though I know it's a loaded question, I think you'll be honest and forthright in your response.

I'm proud to call you a neighbor and you'll be one regardless of where all this ends up. I hope that statement doesn't cause one of our acquaintances to start to cry.

Look at the attachment jkmason's Post #346 . Read paragraphs 5 and 6. It provides the references you're looking for, I believe. Keep in mind, this document was prepared by Mark Davis at that time, who happens to be the current county attorney.

That's not a deed. That is a page from a pleading in a civil action. The only legal description posted so far is in the platted subdivision, and it states the subdivision extends to the bluff line. I would just like to know what the original deed granting the property to the corporation says

Ok, again I have to ask; are we fighting about all SoWal Beaches or is this now all about Blue Mtn. Beach and the spoiled owners there?

If this is such a County wide crisis, where's the outcry at Seaside, Rosemary, or other condos/homes on the Gulf?

How about Andante Condos (seacrest area)? They have signs and designated areas? Anyone upset over that way?

Ok, again I have to ask; are we fighting about all SoWal Beaches or is this now all about Blue Mtn. Beach and the spoiled owners there?

If this is such a County wide crisis, where's the outcry at Seaside, Rosemary, or other condos/homes on the Gulf?

How about Andante Condos (seacrest area)? They have signs and designated areas? Anyone upset over that way?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "all the spoiled owners there" (at BMB). But I can take a guess.
Your point is very well taken. That's why I mentioned what I did in post #60 (click). And BMB is just a "canary in the mine".

My circumstances are this: we visit in the fall, which used to be less visited, but not so now. in old seagrove have not had anyone run us off from where we set up our umbrella, but seeing the private beach indicators near there, most unwelcoming. taints the vibe. too bad.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "all the spoiled owners there" (at BMB). But I can take a guess.
Your point is very well taken. That's why I mentioned what I did in post #60 (click). And BMB is just a "canary in the mine".

I was being sarcastic.

If you own your property and wish it to be private, that's your right.

I believe the Andante was one of the first to have done all required by the WCSO SOP. Anyone been down that way recently?

Ok, again I have to ask; are we fighting about all SoWal Beaches or is this now all about Blue Mtn. Beach and the spoiled owners there?

If this is such a County wide crisis, where's the outcry at Seaside, Rosemary, or other condos/homes on the Gulf?

How about Andante Condos (seacrest area)? They have signs and designated areas? Anyone upset over that way?

We primarily visit the Seagrove area beaches now, but I grew up going to Blue Mountain beach almost every weekend, so it is still important to me. However, I am concerned about all sowal beaches. No one has bothered us on the beach so far, but I think its coming soon. We use the beachwood villas access and the public access at Watercoler. When the new luxury condo is built by the beachwood villas access, I'm sure signs will go up. They are advertising private beach.

John G, I'm in total agreement...there is no outrage by most individuals when they are face to face with LARGE developments such as Seaside, Watercolor, Watersound, Rosemary, etc. Do you remember, Kurt jumped on me ("sort of") about my idea of boycotting these areas and their restaurants and shops in an attempt (not realistic) of bringing the private vs. public beach to the forefront? He mentioned that "friends and neighbors" would be hurt who work in these establishments if they were boycotted. I know I have a point here, somewhere. Oh yea, my guess is that many who profess that the beach should be public from customary use probably don't go up against (protest, critique, boycott, etc.) these private developments because they either work there, have friends who work there, know people who own property there, derive business from, on and on.

Several days ago I reposted a comment made by 1st in 59 (click) where he eloquently cast blame on real estate agents and developers as to the current predicament that we all are facing - "selling a dream without a deed" (those are my words). But I want reiterate that the TDC / Walton County are as much to blame for "concealing" the fact that most beaches are in no uncertain terms, private. I didn't make them that way in case some of you want to attack this fact or me.

Over 9 years ago, I posted the following "BMBV's BMB Access Map". Redfish Village was a hot topic back then (and the fallout is now taking place, BTW). As you can easily see in PICTORIAL form, the only public beach is shown in green.

Why does TDC / Walton County make it so difficult for tourists and others to be able to find a similar representation across the entire county? A map like this clears the air as to whether the beach to the left or right of an access is public or private.

I really don't expect an answer as it is obvious to me.

BMBVagrant:

The real issue here are the facts as you've stated and that the county has really, really, really, screwed up historically. Why do you think all that money was spent on mail outs to beach front owners PUSHING the re-nourishment? They couldn't even get peoples addresses correct...Thanks Property Appraiser. Is wasn't to Protect those owners from storms, it was to get, to take the beaches from them. How? Because re-nourishment is funded by tax dollars. That makes those beaches "public" by the use of taxes to pay for the sand.

This is consistent along Scenic Gulf, it was re-nourished, and its sure not private (with very few exceptions). I've yet to hear anyone argue that point. What is private are all those deeded beach access / walk overs that many of the properties along Scenic Gulf OWN. Its not as easy to get on to those beaches along Scenic Gulf, as it is along 30a. Thus, the problems we have along 30a is not the same as any on Scenic Gulf, yet its the same county. Each has beach vendors.

When re-nourishment Failed (as I said it would), the customary use argument was created. This was / is Plan B for the county to try and save their butts from future embarrassment. I'm sure it was cooked up about the same time the mailings were going out to non-existent beach front owners at a significant cost to the county.

As for no one going after the large developments / resorts, I feel if anyone wants to cite customary use, you should at minimum be consistent and not give Seagrove, Watercolor, etc., a pass. All or nothing, I'd have a lot more respect for the argument at that point. But is sounds like Blue Mt, Blue Mt, Blue Mt, spoiled rich people, spoiled rich people, etc., ect.

Selective Enforcement is one of the main problems this county has. WCSO does it, Code Enforcement does it, judges do it, it goes on and on. We can't ever be consistent, because its not convenient.

As for Kurt's defense of them (resorts), just look at who runs the adds on his site... It's all hypocritical in its worst form. I'm quite frankly surprised he's allowed much of the posts to continue as in the past people (including me) would be banned. But look at the numbers of viewers and posters. It mean more eyes on advertisement and thus, mo $ mo $ mo $.

The TDC continues to spend money on advertising that is not necessary, unless you want to continue to flood the area with a lower class of vacation renter that spends less money, but creates more demand our local infrastructure and resources. It just won't work and I fear 30a is doomed to become PCB in less than five years. I hope I'm wrong, but just look around at the visitors that are here, they are NOT the same as 6 years ago. Those people saw the writing in the sand and have moved to other vacation destinations that are loving the fact they now get high end, high class tourist that follow rules and respect the property rights of others.

There is not going to be a simple answer here. The county will spend money, may win, may loose. It will be appealed, spend more money, etc., repeat. By the time anything is done, the aforementioned five years doomsday clock to PCB will have struck midnight.

As for Kurt's defense of them (resorts), just look at who runs the adds on his site... It's all hypocritical in its worst form. I'm quite frankly surprised he's allowed much of the posts to continue as in the past people (including me) would be banned. But look at the numbers of viewers and posters. It mean more eyes on advertisement and thus, mo$ mo $ mo $.

Very interesting....thanks for bringing this up...maybe this is why he (Kurt) dropped the old format. His excuse was the old app was always failing ,mine however was fine.
Most didn't like the new format switch, new site isn't even an app at all. It's simply SOWAL Forum in your tablet's memory....with ads.....
The kicker, (which I had missed) is now all about the ads ( moon creek studio llc)
So Mo$ Mo$mo$ is correct.

John G, I'm in total agreement...there is no outrage by most individuals when they are face to face with LARGE developments such as Seaside, Watercolor, Watersound, Rosemary, etc. Do you remember, Kurt jumped on me ("sort of") about my idea of boycotting these areas and their restaurants and shops in an attempt (not realistic) of bringing the private vs. public beach to the forefront? He mentioned that "friends and neighbors" would be hurt who work in these establishments if they were boycotted. I know I have a point here, somewhere. Oh yea, my guess is that many who profess that the beach should be public from customary use probably don't go up against (protest, critique, boycott, etc.) these private developments because they either work there, have friends who work there, know people who own property there, derive business from, on and on.

I recently took a walk on the beach from east of Rosemary Beach along all of that community's beachfront and onward to the west. I didn't see any private beach or no trespassing signs at Rosemary Beach, but apparently all their walkovers are private, so you can't get on or off the beach at Rosemary unless you are an owner or guest. I'm not sure what the situation is for the other large developments.

John G, all your points are spot-on!

But...

In my opinion, Kurt deserves our full respect and appreciation for the service he provides. Yes he makes money. It's America the last I heard, And, as far as I know, he has never tried to quash any posts when he personally disagrees with them.

On the other hand, I have tried to moderate my posts somewhat when it comes to attacking certain individuals who are and have been very hypocritical regarding private property rights as I assume they are friends of his. But it's getting harder and harder with a 3rd real estate agent from the same agency who, as I and others see it, is part of the problem described by 1st in 59's post. I listened to her talk to the BCC and just cringed.

Is it hypocritical to accept money from these "private developments" and on the other hand take a position that the beach should be public based on customary use (or lack of)? Maybe. But I'm sure Kurt would accept money from me advertising our property as private beach front. So I think he's equal opportunity. Just follow the money!

With all that said, you just have to love the super accurate targeted ad that has been showing up on the side bar.

Miz: I believe that's exactly how it should work. Anyone can walk, unmolested, East and West along the entire beach. Access and walk Overs are completely PRIVATE and I don't think anyone's trying to argue any "Customary" use there. I hope not.

As long as people aren't back packing in supplies from East or West and "setting up camp" on Rosemary's beach, there's no issue. Same for others.

See, we are drilling down to the real issue. The Private Property Homes with the beaches are much closer to Public Accesses. Some homes are flanked on either side by public access both an easy walk. When tourists find the small strip in front of the access occupied, they feel entitled to move East or West and "set up camp" on Private Property.

Add to that this new breed of tourist that brings glass, leaves trash, etc., and its easy to see where once tolerant beach front owners are now not so tolerant.

This protecting their beach is really nothing more than a necessary response. Necessary beacuse our County has succeeded in marketing to a lower class of clientele and refuses to enforce code and law upon them when in the wrong.

BMB Vag: As for the Realtors, they are just as bad as lawyers. Talk out of both sides of mouth. One side will sell you a $2 million home with a Private Beach, but later that same day, over cocktails, the same agent will buddy up with friends and family and support Customary Use. Talk about an Ethical delemia...

Go to an open house on the beach and ask whomever is there some questions....its fun and you'll be amazed at the info you get. It's all about the sale.

........See, we are drilling down to the real issue. The Private Property Homes with the beaches are much closer to Public Accesses. Some homes are flanked on either side by public access both an easy walk. When tourists find the small strip in front of the access occupied, they feel entitled to move East or West and "set up camp" on Private Property.

Bingo! And that is EXACTLY why I personally feel so strongly about this. Then add in the Redfish Village factor at the BMB access and we are very concerned that we won't be able to guarantee beach access to our guests and ourselves as we have done for so very long if all this continues to head in the direction the county obviously wants it to.

.....BMB Vag: As for the Realtors, they are just as bad as lawyers. Talk out of both sides of mouth. One side will sell you a $2 million home with a Private Beach, but later that same day, over cocktails, the same agent will buddy up with friends and family and support Customary Use. Talk about an Ethical delemia...

Ethical dilemma is a very kind way of putting it. I'm still biting my tongue and it's starting to bleed.

Added:
Definition of dilemma - a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives....
Who's kidding who when it comes to money?

Now throw in the fact of a breeched sandbar ( I assume) at BMB access and you have beach erosion leaving only about 50' of dry sand from stairs to water.
So the public has 50'+/-( vendors have the other half) from life guard stand to private beach to the west and 50'+/- from stairs to wet sand total of 2500 sq.ft. for 100's to squeeze into.. Hope the erosion is not permanent.

You know I hate to say it, but I think we need to thank the beach vendors. They have single handedly pushed this issue to the cliff's edge. What is at stake is the tradition of customary use by generations of vacationers, millions of dollars of real estate value and millions of dollars of tourist dollars. Let the games begin....

You know I hate to say it, but I think we need to thank the beach vendors. They have single handedly pushed this issue to the cliff's edge. What is at stake is the tradition of customary use by generations of vacationers, millions of dollars of real estate value and millions of dollars of tourist dollars. Let the games begin....

I wish you did not mix the two situations when one of the problems could very easily be fixed by a simple vote of the BCC...banish beach businesses from our beautiful beaches, beriod. Can we at least find common ground in this regard? Maybe you already have stated a position - don't remember.

Customary use is what will have to "play" out in court - that much I agree with as in "Let the games begin...". We'll just have to wait a few years before the first significant outcome. A local victory / loss by itself won't directly affect other areas until they are tried.

And you mention, "....millions of dollars of real estate value and millions of dollars of tourist dollars." You should add, "off the backs of private beach front owners" whose private property rights are under assault by the government.

jkmason, let me be REAL CLEAR. My immediate neighbors and I have had absolutely no issue with the privacy of our part the beach until the past few years. I once said I never ran any public visitor from our beach because there was no need to. There, I said it again. There has been no customary use on our part of the beach.

Now, the no trespassing signs are up everywhere because of comments from customary use wishabees and the obvious uncontrolled growth relative to public beach access and the FACT that one's property has to be posted in order to be able to enforce no trespassing. Celia Jones is going to have a tough time with that one. She's the one that yelled the loudest about all the ugly signs but is in effect responsible for the private property owners' backlash, Allow enforcement without all the signs, and maybe (just maybe) many would go away.

The BCC mottos -
"Don't worry about it. Just go ahead and approve it. We'll worry about public beach access later."
"Vote for me! I'll tell you what you want to hear even if it costs the public taxpayers money."

Seriously (yes seriously),
The State of Florida, in my opinion, will have to be the one to do what Oregon did, if the entire beach is to be converted to public via customary use. That doesn't seem to be in the cards from everything I've read.

Now, "Let the games begin...."

Vagrant, you make some excellent points and I have to say I have learned a lot from your posts.