Is Walton County buying land for public access ?

The county commission has voted to acquire property for a new regional beach access in Dune Allen and other property on CR-283 in Grayton Beach that would provide for beachgoer parking.
The decisions took place at the Aug. 23 Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting at the South Walton Annex.
The two properties had previously been discussed at the Aug. 9 BCC meeting.

Highland Beach south of 30A past Stinkys. Anyone know if Walton is buying 3 beach front lots for parking at NEW constructed public beach access? Or just a HOT rumor. Thanks

Dune Allen Beach, although there is apparently a lawsuit that may or may not throw a kink in the closing. BCC meeting Monday, September 12 at 3pm at the South Walton Annex. Agenda has an item on the closing for this and the 283 property.

Was there ever a public notice sign posted? NO

Was there ever a public notice sign posted? NO

I don't believe so. It all happened fairly quickly. The seller set time limits due to some other offers that he was reported to have on the property.

I wouldn't think you would be required to post a sign for the county purchasing the property. When they firm up the plans and begin the development process then signage would be required.

Why would they buy something if they had to let the public speak? What about law suits? I know if I was a Nextdoor neighbor of 5999 W. 30A I would already have a TEAM of lawyers working on stoppage.

Why? Why would you oppose the public owning more beachfront and why would you oppose improving the amenities along the beaches that allow more people to enjoy the world's most beautiful beaches? Why would you oppose additional parking and restrooms and why would you think that more public beaches would not be a big help to our economy and also those beachfront owners who want a little less traffic on their beach? Why would anyone oppose improved amenities along the beaches which will improve property values all along the coast? I would love for someone to explain why this is a negative for anyone. I know one thing, you cannot stop people from coming to the beach, they have been coming for decades and short of posting armed guards they will keep coming. Beachfront owners do not want visitors and locals to be behind their residences and apparently do not want the public to own beachfront to allow people to enjoy the beach who cannot afford beachfront. So what is your solution?

Just as we cant (usually) stop a private property owner from building something that someone else finds offensive,neither can we stop the county from doing what they want with their property. I just read article that our lifeguards interacted with about a million people on our beaches this summer. We HAVE to start finding ways/places to accomodate them because I dont see the TDC or private owners stopping the advertising around here. Most of the beachfront homes are "investment" properties and the owners couldnt keep up with the taxes and mortgage if they didnt rent them at exorbitant rates most of the year. Most of these houses are not being rented to a family of 4/5 but to multiple families of 4/5. That is the only way most of them can afford a week here.

@Danny Glidewell: While I do not know exactly why there is opposition, here are some things I have heard:

1) Fear of making their property difficult to rent or sell due to influx of people to the beach in an area that has typically been relatively free of others beside the condo owners/renters. Extension of this is the concern that property values might go down.
2) Traffic congestion: There are times (generally at night, sometimes at lunch) that 30A gets backed up waiting for people to turn into Stinky's to valet park.
3) If people come to park and the parking is full, there is concern that overflow parking will extend to areas of 30-A and/or neighboring streets, some of which are in nearby neighborhoods.
4) Some people feel that this will become Stinky's parking paid for by taxpayers.

I know there is a lawsuit attempting to stop this purchase. I don't know what the complaints are in the lawsuit. The above mentioned items are things I have heard from people who live nearby, but are not actually in the adjacent condos.

It is worth noting that the parking that is drawn on the lots is a proposed plan that was a suggestion of how parking might be done by someone representing the seller, I believe. It may be that there will not be that many parking spots. If the County does NOT allow overflow to park on 30-A (except in specifically designated parking spots) and they don't allow beach parking in the neighborhoods nearby (and enforce the no parking), then that might allay some concerns. In terms of the financial aspects of rental, selling, or property values, those questions may not have an answer right now.

In terms of Stinky's parking, most of the excess demand occurs in the evening when may beachgoers have left the beach, but that is another unknown.

I'm for building jails, but I don't want one next to me! If I'm the home owner next to this site and had a property worth north of $7M last week and now maybe $4M..someone is getting SUED especially if I've owned this property for decades. This new site will see excess of 50-70 families per day in season....

Where would you suggest that these 50/70 families go to the beach then? Park in someones yard? On the side of 30A? Then unwittingly walk on someones "private" walkover to get to the beach? Then run into someone like Vizcaya guy? I see this as the county and the TDC trying to alleviate some of the beach access problems that arent going to go away without more purchases like this one.

If the criteria for expanding beach access is that everyone is in favor and no one may be inconvenienced, then there is nowhere in South Walton where any additional access may be purchased or developed. Beach access is not like a jail where you can go out in the middle of the woods and build. Beach accesses by definition must be located on some of the most prime real estate that exists. As far as parking and the congestion at this site, once again, there is no place on 30-A where the same conditions do not also apply. We cannot wait until all these issues are solved to everyone's satisfaction before we begin the process of acquiring property. So we must move forward with purchases while we also address the parking and congestion issues or we will never improve the beaches. Property owners may want to consider how they will pay for their properties if they kill off tourism.

If the criteria for expanding beach access is that everyone is in favor and no one may be inconvenienced, then there is nowhere in South Walton where any additional access may be purchased or developed. Beach access is not like a jail where you can go out in the middle of the woods and build. Beach accesses by definition must be located on some of the most prime real estate that exists. As far as parking and the congestion at this site, once again, there is no place on 30-A where the same conditions do not also apply. We cannot wait until all these issues are solved to everyone's satisfaction before we begin the process of acquiring property. So we must move forward with purchases while we also address the parking and congestion issues or we will never improve the beaches. Property owners may want to consider how they will pay for their properties if they kill off tourism.

I actually agree with you, Danny; however, I think one of the ways to help nearby owners who have concerns feel more comfortable is to try and develop solutions to projected problems BEFORE they become problems. I expect that the County will buy more properties, especially if this one does not get derailed. More properties will spread people out, but the other properties are likely to have similar issues to this one, so let's look for solutions ahead of time. More people with cars will never alleviate the congestion on 30-A, only public transportation is likely to help that. There is more than one way to kill tourism. If the character of South Walton continues to change from a quaint, friendly, family-oriented area to a Destin/Panama City Beach type over-developed, over-crowded area, the tourists who come here now may decide to look for a quieter place. Almost everyone I have encountered over my 30+ years of meeting people who visit our area loves it because it is not like Destin or Panama City Beach.

@Danny Glidewell: While I do not know exactly why there is opposition, here are some things I have heard:

1) Fear of making their property difficult to rent or sell due to influx of people to the beach in an area that has typically been relatively free of others beside the condo owners/renters. Extension of this is the concern that property values might go down.
2) Traffic congestion: There are times (generally at night, sometimes at lunch) that 30A gets backed up waiting for people to turn into Stinky's to valet park.
3) If people come to park and the parking is full, there is concern that overflow parking will extend to areas of 30-A and/or neighboring streets, some of which are in nearby neighborhoods.
4) Some people feel that this will become Stinky's parking paid for by taxpayers.

I know there is a lawsuit attempting to stop this purchase. I don't know what the complaints are in the lawsuit. The above mentioned items are things I have heard from people who live nearby, but are not actually in the adjacent condos.

It is worth noting that the parking that is drawn on the lots is a proposed plan that was a suggestion of how parking might be done by someone representing the seller, I believe. It may be that there will not be that many parking spots. If the County does NOT allow overflow to park on 30-A (except in specifically designated parking spots) and they don't allow beach parking in the neighborhoods nearby (and enforce the no parking), then that might allay some concerns. In terms of the financial aspects of rental, selling, or property values, those questions may not have an answer right now.

In terms of Stinky's parking, most of the excess demand occurs in the evening when may beachgoers have left the beach, but that is another unknown.

WoW
That's a great point about stinkys parking.

I actually agree with you, Danny; however, I think one of the ways to help nearby owners who have concerns feel more comfortable is to try and develop solutions to projected problems BEFORE they become problems. I expect that the County will buy more properties, especially if this one does not get derailed. More properties will spread people out, but the other properties are likely to have similar issues to this one, so let's look for solutions ahead of time. More people with cars will never alleviate the congestion on 30-A, only public transportation is likely to help that. There is more than one way to kill tourism. If the character of South Walton continues to change from a quaint, friendly, family-oriented area to a Destin/Panama City Beach type over-developed, over-crowded area, the tourists who come here now may decide to look for a quieter place. Almost everyone I have encountered over my 30+ years of meeting people who visit our area loves it because it is not like Destin or Panama City Beach.

I agree. 30-A is a multi-faceted problem and several steps need to be taken simultaneously. Mass transit and off-site parking to reduce vehicle traffic, better enforcement of the rules on the beach, more parking and better enforcement of parking rules and more beach access with better amenities are just some of the solutions needed. But most of all the community needs to recognize the need to work together and help find and implement solutions. We cannot allow the NIMBY attitude to stop improvements and hinder solutions to our problems.

I agree. 30-A is a multi-faceted problem and several steps need to be taken simultaneously. Mass transit and off-site parking to reduce vehicle traffic, better enforcement of the rules on the beach, more parking and better enforcement of parking rules and more beach access with better amenities are just some of the solutions needed. But most of all the community needs to recognize the need to work together and help find and implement solutions. We cannot allow the NIMBY attitude to stop improvements and hinder solutions to our problems.

I agree. The one thing I would strongly recommend is that people not dismiss concerns on the basis of the "NIMBY" classification. Let's face it, until something is in most people's backyard, they are not likely to notice or get involved. IMO, the people most affected are the very ones that we should be listening to and trying to mitigate as many issues as possible, so that they know they are heard even if they don't get everything they want. It reminds me of a very wise mediator I know, he said that in mediation, nobody gets 100% of what they want, but everybody goes away feeling like they got something. That's not a bad outcome.

Compromise has become a bad word as more and more people think they must achieve total victory in every debate or on every issue. However, sometimes you have to be willing to give a little so that everyone can move forward.

The lawsuit claims the TDC is violating state statute with this purchase which is completely false. This lawsuit will only delay the inevitable and cost money in terms of legal fees.

A sign is not necessary as the county is buying property. Once they have the property (which is seriously in jeopardy thanks to the lawsuit) then a sign would be needed for any land use changes or construction.

The neighbors on both sides of this proposed beach access are condos. The complex that hired the lawyer doesn't have a single full-time resident, they are all rental units. I can't think of a better place to put a new public beach access - the only people potentially bothered by tourists will be tourists!

Today at 3:00pm - this will be on agenda at South Walton Annex.

Walton County Board of County Commissioners 3 P.M. ON MONDAY, SEPT. 12 at South Walton Annex. Among items on the agenda are review of due diligence reports on purchase of beachfront property on CR-30A in Dune Allen

I'm for building jails, but I don't want one next to me! If I'm the home owner next to this site and had a property worth north of $7M last week and now maybe $4M..someone is getting SUED especially if I've owned this property for decades. This new site will see excess of 50-70 families per day in season....

Et tu steel1man?

BCC voted unanimously to proceed with the closing of the Dune Allen beach parcels at 5999 W. C-30A. They voted for the Chair (Sara Comander) to sign the documents. Closing date is set for September 15.

Dang! Just lost one of my favorite fishin' spots if that turns into a public access. I lived 3 blocks up the hill from that spot. Not sure how I feel yet about having a public access right there, but not my call. That's only about two blocks from the Dune Allen access. What I'm glad I'm not is one of the 14 homes and a condo tucked (jammed) between these two accesses. It's going get a bit busier than it ever has been. I don't recall there being much room there for parking, even if they bought up the home and the empty lot with just an old garage on it. Both of those lots combined are the same width as the scrub brush Stinky's parks in front of across 30A.

What I do find a bit humorous is dead center of these two accesses would be the homeowner who's nearly famous for all the photos posted of their signage and chain right down into the water..

I live on 30-A very near this proposed beach access and I am THRILLED at the prospect of having more public parking. Currently, cars park along the side of the road, especially locals on Saturday and Sunday, and it is nearly impossible to pull out of the driveway because cars are lined up blocking our view. I don't and never would complain, because prior to owning my home, I did the same exact thing to take my children to the beach. I also hope people who go to stinkys at night park there- it will be much safer than the cars piled up on the sides of the road. I do not think this will decrease property values and it is a great thing for Dune Allen. I think a lot of the complainers on this forum are just mad they didnt make money selling their lot to the county!

http://defuniakherald.com/purchases-consideration-beach-access-parking/

By DOTTY NIST
Of 54 properties available for county purchase for beach access and parking, officials have narrowed down to six potential purchases moving forward.

This was the outcome of the Dec. 13 Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) special meeting at the South Walton Annex, at which Walton County Tourist Development Council (TDC) Executive Director Jay Tusa presented his recommendations to the BCC.

Tusa had been tasked with bringing forward for consideration properties available for purchase with TDC funds for public parking and use by beachgoers.

A surprising number of property owners had offered parcels for purchase to the county, with the value of available properties totaling $115 million.

Tusa said the six purchases recommended would total roughly $20 million.

Among properties eliminated from consideration were possible offsite beachgoer parking parcels located adjacent to Gulf Place, in Blue Mountain Beach, and on CR-395, along with bayfront parcels. Tusa said this was due to BCC direction to prioritize beachfront over nonbeachfront property and due to covenants and restrictions that might pose problems with intended uses.

He did not recommend a Little Redfish Lake parcel, nor one of two offered on San Roy Road due to ingress/egress issues, nor one close to the Santa Clara Beach Access due to a desire to “space out” beach access. Also not recommended were parcels offered on Fort Panic Road due to an abundance of beach access opportunities already in place in that area, including recently-acquired property near Stinky’s Fish Camp restaurant.

Parcels previously offered to the county in the Seacrest area were withdrawn due to a change of mind by the property owner, who wanted to build on them.

Properties recommended for purchase were mostly beachfront, with the first of those located in Miramar Beach about 1.35 miles east of the existing Miramar Beach Regional Access. Tusa commented that 20 to 30 90-degree parking spaces would be possible plus 15 parallel parking spaces.

Also recommended was property at the Oyster Lake outfall, where both upland and beachfront parcels were available.

Tusa recommended keeping the Highland House Bed and Breakfast property near Gulf Place under consideration, where a restroom and approximately 15 parking spaces would be possible to provide relief for Ed Walline Regional Beach Access, one of the counties busiest beach accesses. He called for a title search on the property and evaluation to ensure that property ownership was such that people would be able to get to the beach from the bed and breakfast property.

Also recommended were three parcels of beachfront property across from Cafe 30-A, located about half a mile from the Santa Clara Beach Access, where Tusa said 36 to 40 parking spaces would be possible. He did not recommend Hinton Drive property associated with this offering.

Recommended as well was some Eastern Lake property about four-tenths mile from the Santa Clara Beach Access that Tusa noted would be suitable for about 12 parking spaces and a dune walkover and restroom.

The final recommended purchase was adjacent to the 2.5-acre county-owned beachfront property in the Walton Dunes area, off the east side of Beachfront Trail. Tusa noted that it could potentially help with parking in connection with a possible decision to construct a beach access on that property, with about 15-20 parking spaces possible.

There was discussion that $6 million in TDC funds was currently available toward these purchases. Tusa also said that conversations with legal counsel and a Walton County Finance had indicated that a total of $18 million to $20 million could be made available for the property purchases from bed tax funds.

Tusa suggested as the next step moving forward with title searches on the recommended properties. This was agreed to, with resulting information to be brought before the BCC at its Jan. 10 regular meeting.