Headland Ave Beach Access Workshop 7/12/16

What about the South San Juan Ave access in Seagrove Beach, in regard to vendor set ups?

Agreed. She should absolutely recuse herself, but then it looks like you may be left with a tie vote? Is there an ordinance regarding conflicts of interest for BCC commissioners? Also, it's a shame that this proposal provides that half of the county owned sand at each access will be designated for vendors, as I suspect that many will sit empty all day and discriminate against those who bring their own and/or can't afford to rent them. Seems like the concurrence on these threads is that the set ups should not be placed until reserved by persons who will actually sit in them. Will the BCC entertain that thought?

No, which is exactly what C. Jones and T. Anderson and 2 other sitting Commissioners want. With T. Anderson on board C. Jones has the votes to exert her will.

What about the South San Juan Ave access in Seagrove Beach, in regard to vendor set ups?

From what I'm understanding of those maps (someone will correct me if I'm wrong)...ALL public beaches will at some point in the future be 50% vendors with a designated area for set-ups.

I think we should maybe change the title of this thread to include the issue of beach vendors. It seems to me they are going to be discussing alot more than just the Headland Ave. access but maybe they want that part to fly under the radar while they make decisions about vendors that are going to affect us all.

The 50% area is where vendors are allowed to setup. It is not an area restricted to vendors. If the public sets up there then they do and a vendor cannot move you or your things.

The 50% area is where vendors are allowed to setup. It is not an area restricted to vendors. If the public sets up there then they do and a vendor cannot move you or your things.

You and I have had this conversation Matt. My argument to that is that tourists (the golden goose that feeds our economy) and citizens as well, should not have to get up at 4:30 (in NoWal's case much early than that) in the morning to beat vendors to the beach in order to enjoy them.

My other disagreement is that those beaches belong to Walton County not private enterprise. In effect what's happening here is the County is giving publicly owned land to private enterprise (vendors) and the only requirements are that they be licensed, insured and carry a cell phone.

I simply can not understand why vendors can't be made to set-up ONLY if they have renters.

No, which is exactly what C. Jones and T. Anderson and 2 other sitting Commissioners want. With T. Anderson on board C. Jones has the votes to exert her will.

As someone smarter said prior, Walton County should prohibit all commercial vending on the sand now, as other beach communities elsewhere have done, to preserve what makes these beaches special!

As much as I'd like to see that happen I think its unrealistic but I do think having actual sitters for the set-ups and the County charging vendors for the space (just as state parks do) would substantially reduce the numbers and would give the people back substantially more beach than they have currently or will have if that 50% proposal is approved.

@Misty the 50% is already in effect.

@Misty the 50% is already in effect.

What? Are you saying that Walton County has already handed over 50% of publicly owned beaches to private enterprise?

This is true at the public access at Grayton. Been that way for the last two years. And I will say that before they made the 50% rule, things were much worse. The vendors would cover the entire beach with their set ups.

Just a suggestion but why not require the vendors that have permits to be property owners like they do with the driving on the beach permits. That would eliminate quite a few of the out of towners that have moved in to vend and make a quick buck!! Also eliminating canopies, some that you could easily fit 3 vendor setups under, would create more space and allow 3 families to have a front row spot as opposed to one family with a monster canopy and their chairs spread wide hogging space that many other families could use!! And require vendors to leave a 5 ft gap after so many feet of setups. That allows for public setup and access to the water for emergency personnel if needed.

FROM WMBB

SANTA ROSA BEACH, Fla.

Walton County Commissioners revisited a potential neighborhood beach access after voting to not move forward a few months ago. The Board held a public workshop Tuesday afternoon to discuss putting an access on Headland Avenue.

"I think you voted correctly the first time," said Bonnie McQuiston.

"June 2016, we asked for a workshop to be scheduled, and then here we are at our July 2016 workshop," said Brian Kellenberger, the Director of Beach Operations for Visit South Walton.

Residents from the surrounding area voiced both concerns and support for the access. The neighborhood access the TDC has in mind would resemble a similar neighborhood beach access just a block away.

"It's nonessential," said Leonard Isacks. "There's already five public accesses within 100 feet of each other - probably the most frequent grouping in all of Walton County."

Some cited safety concerns over a blind curve as well as a lack of parking as reasons not to move forward. But others said accesses would be needed as the southern end of the county continues to grow.

"Walton County needs every beach access that is available," said Celeste Cobena.

Added another resident, "Please build this neighborhood beach walkover."

Commissioners can't take action during a public workshop and didn't give staff any further instruction.

The beach isn't the beach anymore. It's a business. And it sucks A$$ all the way around. Sad I live here and have no desire to even go down to the beach.

Headland Ave meeting workshop was last night, vendor issues were not mentioned as it was solely a workshop for a neighborhood public access (NPA). Beachfront owners came out in force along with 723 Whisky Bravo restaurant (Moore) to thwart this proposed beach access by publicly speaking against it. This NPA only includes a walkover and a bike rack. The county owns the land and the walkover will lead to public beaches, TDC will pay for everything. Seems like a no brainer as this has been proposed and planned by TDC for several years. It will reduce the strain on other accesses in the area, encourage bike riding to beach, and will be an asset to the community. Instead once again, special interests seem to prevail. Watch the video and match contributions in public records..... Very sad for locals and tourists alike.

In the past its been voted down consistently, except for allowing workshop. Not sure if it will ever return for a vote. All available accesses need to be developed and county owns this land, no purchase required, think long-term! Please write BCC, especially the three that voted no in the past.

One of those three will have to bring it back to the agenda but since 2 are up for election they might could be persuaded.

The beach isn't the beach anymore. It's a business. And it sucks A$$ all the way around. Sad I live here and have no desire to even go down to the beach.

That is sad and a shame. If you can't find any joy living here and enjoy the simple beauty of the beach then you could never be happy anywhere.

Headland Ave meeting workshop was last night, vendor issues were not mentioned as it was solely a workshop for a neighborhood public access (NPA). Beachfront owners came out in force along with 723 Whisky Bravo restaurant (Moore) to thwart this proposed beach access by publicly speaking against it. This NPA only includes a walkover and a bike rack. The county owns the land and the walkover will lead to public beaches, TDC will pay for everything. Seems like a no brainer as this has been proposed and planned by TDC for several years. It will reduce the strain on other accesses in the area, encourage bike riding to beach, and will be an asset to the community. Instead once again, special interests seem to prevail. Watch the video and match contributions in public records..... Very sad for locals and tourists alike.

In the past its been voted down consistently, except for allowing workshop. Not sure if it will ever return for a vote. All available accesses need to be developed and county owns this land, no purchase required, think long-term! Please write BCC, especially the three that voted no in the past.

This is tragic. That a few adjacent homeowners can dictate what happens against 99.99999999% of the rest of us.

If I were a business owner (real estate agent, restaurateur, rental property owner, etc.) I would favor maximum beach access. But it seems these folks, along with beach front owners (who probably never sit on the beach) are opposing the Headland access. Biting the hand that feeds you?

This picture from a facebook post should explain everything on the need for the additional access in Seagrove. This is the Greenwood access just east of the proposed Headland neighborhood access. It is maxed out and based on facebook post, this appears to be late in afternoon. An additional access would relieve pressure on the existing beach access. As communities on 30A, we are trying to encourage bike riding to beach vs golf carts, car drop off, etc....but additional accesses are needed to continue this vision and prepare for future demand.

Cecilia Jones is leading the fight not to open the headland access.....vote and screaming customary use while quietly teaming with beachfronters to get Tony elected. Lucifers daughter, you people are so fooled.

Federal judge ruled June 24 that Headland Beach is for public use and Walton County can build the access.

I am going to create a new thread for the completed Headland Avenue Access with info and photos but also wanted to post here: