Customary Use of SoWal Beaches: Contact Governor Scott

And you deny that Walton county beach front owners met with Governor Scott and made a SECRET DEAL?

Bob, you were around for the 2015 Walton BCC and Army Corps of Engineer (ACE) beach fortification fiasco. As I recall about 95% of beach front owners declined Walton’s 50 year easement and 3.8 million cubic yards of off-shore, less than white, shell ridden tax payer paid sand mostly because owners did not agree to an Erosion Control Line (ECL) that would separate their littoral property (by definition contacts the water) boundary from the Gulf waters making their property water view instead of water front that owners paid a premium for. Including me. The white quartz beaches have been here for tens of thousands of years, I’m told. Look at the Walton beach aerial photos from the 1940s and compare them to today. Not much difference where the shoreline is now. How many hurricanes has Walton experienced since the 1940s? I’ll take my chances with my money, land title, and the bundle of rights I have had and have today. If you, the public, or Walton BCC want it and I’m willing to sell it you’ll have to pay fair market value for it to use it. Or go to court as a Plaintiff with the burden of proof and prove it first BEFORE you can declare private property for customary public use.

And I hope you don’t quibble about government flood insurance giving the public rights to private property unless you are going to apply the same logic to the flood victims in middle America too. Besides most owners I know, including me, self insure their premises or purchase additional private flood insurance because the $250K property and $100K contents FEMA insurance is not sufficient.

Bob, you seem like an informed guy but you missed the mark with this comment. I and I think many other littoral beach front owners are willing to share our littoral property with those strolling on the beach, like we have in the past, but that does not mean we gave up the property rights we have had and have today. If the BCC want to take our property rights I am willing to fight and will not be so willing to share in the future. Would you if your property rights you pay taxes on were being taken by local government declaration? What if beach front property owners prevail in court? Then what is the BCC and public going to do? Declare martial law?

Beach front owners have made suggestions like Mike Huckabee’s 2016 “Beach Share”.
EDITORIAL: 'Beach Share' worth reviewing in South Walton
I did not see the Walton BCC even acknowledge Beach Share plan and Dave Rauschkolb dismissed it out of hand and has declared "This sand is your sand, this sand is my sand!!" In Oct 25, 2016 Commissioner Comander declared her willingness to spend $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 of Walton tax payer dollars if we have to. Which means to me the BCC just want to take all private beach for inept unconstitutional reasons and a quick fix for the BCC's failure to manage growth.
Board of County Commissioners on 2016-10-25 9:00 AM - Regular Meeting - Oct 25th, 2016

FloridaBeachBum
I appreciate the info and respect your point of view, but I believe I have said that I will accept a courts ruling.

then why has this not been a problem for the last 50 years? because the beach front owners then were not entitled and pompous - and did not build big high houses that blocked everyones view.

they were just thankful to be here.

Have you ever asked any of them? Interesting to me that so many think they KNOW what beachfront owners do or do not think, but I sure don't see many people trying to actually TALK to the beachfront owners to find out what they really think. This apparently even holds true for our "leaders". Try asking, maybe getting to know some of them, instead of assuming the worst all the time.

And you deny that Walton county beach front owners met with Governor Scott and made a SECRET DEAL?

I neither confirm or deny any property owner secret deal with the Governor. That should really spin up the conspiracies.
I'd guess the Governor meeting in secret with anyone would be a Sunshine law violation.
I'd guess many property owners lobbied the legislator and Governor in the Sunshine with facts about the declaration of custom on private property by local governments. Unlike the misinformation Tony Anderson, C. Jones, and Walton $425/hr attorney Theriaque did in person. You (and me) and tax payers pay Walton's lobbyist too. In addition Dave R's Surf Rider provided misinformation during the legislative session too.

Florida beach bum - cat got your tongue ??

guess your attorney told you to keep quiet??

that says it all

SERET DEAL WITH GOVENOR SCOTT

I hope the day never comes, but if those that claim title to beaches need tax dollars to repair/ renourish, I am sure you will happily decline.

Bob, you stated the above. Clearly making the point that you hope and expect beach front property owners, should happily decline and NOT to expect tax dollars to repair/renourish [fortify beach front] private property. My point is in 2015 95%+ beach front owners already have.

FloridaBeachBum ... I believe I have said that I will accept a courts ruling.

Your previous point was clear and stated nothing about how "I would accept a courts ruling." You have no choice especially since it's not your personal money litigating against Walton's BCC abuse of power against private property rights. I wonder how much infrastructure Walton could buy with $40,000,00 or $50,000,000 (according to Comander)?

Florida beach bum - cat got your tongue ??
guess your attorney told you to keep quiet??
that says it all
SECRET DEAL WITH GOVERNOR SCOTT

Believe what you want. Proves my point about "... spin up the conspiracies."
Do you understand Sunshine laws? Did you read and understand the bill?
Besides if I admitted owners secretly met with the Governor .... it wouldn't be a secret would it?

Maybe this is another thread but why is Imfeld still employed by Walton County (after he voted for customary use and lost his BCC seat)? Good ol boy network?
What is the budget of the Walton County Economic Development Alliance (WCEDA)?
What has the WCEDA accomplished since Imfeld was hired? Or before, for that matter?
What is the Walton tax payer's real dollar WCEDA return on investment? Not some made up stat.
Why does Imfeld have Latin(?) on the WCEDA web site? Not sure many American companies do business in Walton County not in English.
Walton County EDA - Organizational Resources

Absolutely a good ole boy deal. Sara Comander can tell you all about that one since it was her baby from its inception.

You neglected to mention he is also provided a county vehicle and gas to traipse all over the county doing pretty much nothing.

As for the Latin, it is mostly gibberish, a garbling of Latin that makes no real sense which translates as, "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain."

I think that has more to do with the web designer and the page not being finished more than it does in containing any factual information.

That is another one of those good ole boys deals where Imfield cost this county money in lost/missing planning fees ($600,000) doesn't get re-elected and what does the county do? Gives him another job.

Believe what you want. Proves my point about "... spin up the conspiracies."
Do you understand Sunshine laws? Did you read and understand the bill?
Besides if I admitted owners secretly met with the Governor .... it wouldn't be a secret would it?

It's fascinating that people believe that 900ish beachfront owners have so much power when they're opposed by the County and their lobbyist(s), 50,000ish people who want customary use, Surfriders, and influential people like Dave Rauschkolb and others were valiantly opposing this legislation. If they have that kind of pull, I'm amazed.

It's fascinating that people believe that 900ish beachfront owners have so much power when they're opposed by the County and their lobbyist(s), 50,000ish people who want customary use, Surfriders, and influential people like Dave Rauschkolb and others were valiantly opposing this legislation. If they have that kind of pull, I'm amazed.

If they had that kind of pull, 4 of the BCC would have been incarcerated long ago. Sadly in the latter instance, they do not.

Unfortunately, the 4 BCC insiders and their backers/enablers have to this point had the pull to do as they choose, and that includes serially ignoring the law. The Customary Use ordinance is just the latest and most far-reaching of their transgressions. They blatantly disregarded the law and the Constitution, and the Legislature has responded by slapping them down and statutorily encoding the existing case law such that their actions re CU are voided and in future prohibited.

The cure for the disease the malefactors represent is the ballot box. We can replace two of the biggest and longest tenured transgressors via the elections later this year with two honest, upstanding members of the community, Danny Glidewell and Bill Fletcher.

We all need Walton County to reject the people who have created such an incredible mess with people who intend to do their honest best to make Walton County government honest, open, effective, and devoted to serving the interests of its citizens, not just their own and those of the wealthy who own and direct the current office-holders.

Time for justice for the good ole boys and their corrupt system.

FloridaBeachBum.
I understand that a majority of owners have rejected renourishment. I also know that it is easy to reject something until you need it. As for dealing with it in court, it does sound as though the State Politicians have said that is the way it is going to be addressed. Based on that, it sounds as though you and I will have to live by the courts decision. In the end I have my point of view and you yours and I will attempt to be respectful no matter the issue.
Bob

Absolutely a good ole boy deal. Sara Comander can tell you all about that one since it was her baby from its inception.

You neglected to mention he is also provided a county vehicle and gas to traipse all over the county doing pretty much nothing.

As for the Latin, it is mostly gibberish, a garbling of Latin that makes no real sense which translates as, "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain."

I think that has more to do with the web designer and the page not being finished more than it does in containing any factual information.

That is another one of those good ole boys deals where Imfield cost this county money in lost/missing planning fees ($600,000) doesn't get re-elected and what does the county do? Gives him another job.

You are right. The "Latin" on that webpage is an "example" style for the page when the template is selected. In other words no content exists for those sections - just boilerplate text (which happens to be in "Latin" to make sure the designer knows that is not real content).

I'm also not impressed with this organization --- seems like another one of those self licking ice cream cones. And why pick this guy as the employee? Was the job posted? Was there a selection process and multiple people interviewed?

Sun Sentinel editorial highlights what's at stake for many beach towns in Florida... Glad this is getting the attention it deserves in news outlets

Rep. Katie Edwards puts public beach access at risk | Editorial

Now she wants to prohibit local governments from protecting your access to the beach.

That’s right. Edwards’ House Bill 631 would ban local ordinances that ensure long-standing public access to stretches of beach that overlap private property. She’d rather the courts decide where someone’s property rights begin and your beach access ends.

This unwarranted proposal would make it easier for beachfront property owners to put up fences, post “No Trespassing” signs and sue to keep more of Florida’s coastline off limits to you and your family.

Do the people of Plantation — the people Edwards was elected to serve — really want a harder time finding a spot on the sand?

Beachgoers may be surprised to learn that someone’s property line can extend all the way to the mean high tide line — the point the water reaches at high tide.

With beach erosion, that line becomes a moving target, but it’s typically identified as the “wet” sand area, or the sea side of the line of seaweed that washes ashore.

However, the courts recognize that the public’s long-standing use of beaches can be protected, even when the land has technically become private property.

Maintaining that “customary use” standard is important for beachside communities, which is why Volusia, St. Johns and Walton counties have passed local ordinances that make clear that beaches should remain public.

Edwards says her bill is misunderstood, that she’s only trying to clarify how property rights disputes should be resolved, not favor oceanfront landowners.

Right. Like no one now knows they can take property disputes to court.

In reality, Edwards’ bill is about eliminating the ability of cities and counties to protect beach access for residents and visitors.

It’s not just beaches, either. Lakefront properties, access points between homes, land near community trails and other sites could be made off-limits by her legislation, too.

Edwards, an attorney, says the courts are better suited than local politicians to decide property rights. She’d also like to end confusion about differing standards across the state.

But going to court is hardly a practical way for families to find a spot on the beach. And who has the money to take on a wealthy oceanfront landowner?

Allowing communities to set local rules makes more sense than having the courts weigh in, property by property. If a local ordinance goes too far, that’s the point the courts should step in.

With her bills to prohibit local governments from protecting beach access and trees, Edwards is emerging as a warrior against home rule and the concept that government closest to the people works best.

We disagree that, as Edwards’ House Bill 521 suggests, Tallahassee should decide what the tree canopy should look like in Key West or Live Oak. Neither should local governments be forced to look away when beach access is eroded.

The Legislature should reject these two bills.

And Edwards should stop kicking sand on the concept of home rule.

This article is completely misleading and ignorant of the facts. Walton county made a sweeping land grab by issuing a county wide ordinance giving rights to the entire US population to private property owned by individuals without any due process to the property owner. Customary use has been ruled by the FLA SC and it has to be determined on a case by case basis for a specific parcel of land, and proven in court. That's all the bill is trying to do - keep local county boards from simply voting in an ordinance without giving the property owner due process. To say "everyone knows they can dispute in court" is ignoring reality. I think most of us who own private property would be pretty upset if the county came along and voted in an ordinance that turned our property into de facto unlimited public use without offering any proof or getting a court order.

BTW - the FLA SC case that everyone cites as proving customary use across the board granted access to 225 sq feet of beach - that SINGLE parcel, and it has to be proven on a case by case, individual parcel basis.

This is not about PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS. Public beaches have NOTHING to do with this bill - it's about private property rights. FYI for those who aren't familiar with Walton county, there are 8 miles of public beach with many access points. In fact there is so much public beach space that the county allows private beach vendors to reserve 50% of the public beach space for themselves. So no one has ever suggested that the public's access to enjoy the beach be limited in anyway. Not this bill, and not the property owners of Walton county. Very misleading opinion article.

I am sharing this important local's letter I just received via email. Please contact Governor Rick Scott to have your voice heard on this critical issue in Walton County...

Dear Walton County Citizens,

I am sending out this information as a public service announcement to those who live in our county and enjoy the use of the dry sand along our portion of the Gulf of Mexico.

As you are aware, the Walton County Board of County Commissioners passed and codified Customary Use in March of 2017. It is a short document and attached here for your pleasure reading:
Municode Library

Over the past few weeks, the Florida House and Senate have considered and passed legislation which will nullify Customary Use in Walton County. That legislation has now been sent to the governor's office for consideration and a signature making it law.

Many Walton Citizens will be pleased with the nullification of Customary Use. Other citizens may desire to call Governor Scott's office (850) 488-7146 or email at Email the Governor and voice their discontent and actively request that he veto the bill and allow Customary Use to continue in Walton County in order for all Citizens to have free use of the white sand as have the first people to inhabit this region of Florida, USA.

I thought you might want to know the current status of Customary Use in Walton County.

Regards,
Laurie Reichenbach

I have sent email to hizzoner requesting veto

This article is completely misleading and ignorant of the facts. Walton county made a sweeping land grab by issuing a county wide ordinance giving rights to the entire US population to private property owned by individuals without any due process to the property owner. Customary use has been ruled by the FLA SC and it has to be determined on a case by case basis for a specific parcel of land, and proven in court. That's all the bill is trying to do - keep local county boards from simply voting in an ordinance without giving the property owner due process. To say "everyone knows they can dispute in court" is ignoring reality. I think most of us who own private property would be pretty upset if the county came along and voted in an ordinance that turned our property into de facto unlimited public use without offering any proof or getting a court order.

BTW - the FLA SC case that everyone cites as proving customary use across the board granted access to 225 sq feet of beach - that SINGLE parcel, and it has to be proven on a case by case, individual parcel basis.

This is not about PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS. Public beaches have NOTHING to do with this bill - it's about private property rights. FYI for those who aren't familiar with Walton county, there are 8 miles of public beach with many access points. In fact there is so much public beach space that the county allows private beach vendors to reserve 50% of the public beach space for themselves. So no one has ever suggested that the public's access to enjoy the beach be limited in anyway. Not this bill, and not the property owners of Walton county. Very misleading opinion article.

I love how you say "8 miles of public beach." Thats less than 1/3 of Walton County beaches. 50K+ County residence and the multi-million visitors need to share less than 1/3 while 900 beach front homeowners get more than 2/3 of the beach? That is as bass ackwards as it gets.

I love how you say "8 miles of public beach." Thats less than 1/3 of Walton County beaches. 50K+ County residence and the multi-million visitors need to share less than 1/3 while 900 beach front homeowners get more than 2/3 of the beach? That is as bass ackwards as it gets.

Actually, what is bass ackward is that the County put an ordinance in place without going through the proper protocol. They over stepped the laws in place and whether you are a beachfront owner or not, be glad that they are being reeled in because soon they may want your titled property.

Actually, what is bass ackward is that the County put an ordinance in place without going through the proper protocol. They over stepped the laws in place and whether you are a beachfront owner or not, be glad that they are being reeled in because soon they may want your titled property.

Making an ordinance to allow public use of the beach is far from taking titled property. Beach front owners still own the same amount of land as they did before the ordinance. The county stepped in because after decades of open beaches property owners (mostly new residence) started putting up ugly fences and trashy no trespassing signs.

When the County steps in, there are legal steps for them to follow. And with signs, there is even a rule about the dimensions of signs and color. Why didn’t they enforce their sign rule, if they did all of this because of aesthetics? Yes, beachfront owners still own the same amount of sand and they are still the only ones paying property tax on it as well. Why is that? I would like to know

I love how you say "8 miles of public beach." Thats less than 1/3 of Walton County beaches. 50K+ County residence and the multi-million visitors need to share less than 1/3 while 900 beach front homeowners get more than 2/3 of the beach? That is as bass ackwards as it gets.

Love it all you want, your position is not really accurate. A number of the private beaches are for entire communities. For example there is a private beach for all of Seaside which has 300+ homes. Rosemary Beach supports well over 2,000 homes, etc. So you painting this like there are 900 folks telling everyone else to eat cake is far from reality.

Obviously that's enough beach for the visitors, in that the county can give away 50% of it to beach vendors to reserve it for their own businesses. Until the time that the county says they are so overcrowded that they can no longer give away 50% of the public beach land to beach vendors --- I'm not really sympathetic to your "easement by necessity" argument.

So explain to me how you want 100% of a private beach front property owners sand, but are "ok" with giving away 50% of the public beach sand real estate. You want ass backwards? There it is.

Writing a bill and passing a bill are two completely different animals. Writing the bill placates one side. Not passing the bill placates the other side. The bill will go nowhere. The courts will decide.

Writing a bill and passing a bill are two completely different animals. Writing the bill placates one side. Not passing the bill placates the other side. The bill will go nowhere. The courts will decide.

The bill has been passed

Sun Sentinel editorial highlights what's at stake for many beach towns in Florida... Glad this is getting the attention it deserves in news outlets
Rep. Katie Edwards puts public beach access at risk | Editorial
Now she wants to prohibit local governments from protecting your access to the beach.
That’s right. Edwards’ House Bill 631 would ban local ordinances that ensure long-standing public access to stretches of beach that overlap private property. She’d rather the courts decide where someone’s property rights begin and your beach access ends.
This unwarranted proposal would make it easier for beachfront property owners to put up fences, post “No Trespassing” signs and sue to keep more of Florida’s coastline off limits to you and your family.
Do the people of Plantation — the people Edwards was elected to serve — really want a harder time finding a spot on the sand?
Beachgoers may be surprised to learn that someone’s property line can extend all the way to the mean high tide line — the point the water reaches at high tide.
With beach erosion, that line becomes a moving target, but it’s typically identified as the “wet” sand area, or the sea side of the line of seaweed that washes ashore.
However, the courts recognize that the public’s long-standing use of beaches can be protected, even when the land has technically become private property.
Maintaining that “customary use” standard is important for beachside communities, which is why Volusia, St. Johns and Walton counties have passed local ordinances that make clear that beaches should remain public.
Edwards says her bill is misunderstood, that she’s only trying to clarify how property rights disputes should be resolved, not favor oceanfront landowners.
In reality, Edwards’ bill is about eliminating the ability of cities and counties to protect beach access for residents and visitors.

More emotional opinion and video fake news. Geez, does anyone try to read and understand the facts. Sorry for the long post but there is so much FICTION to dispel.
1. The bill does NOT prohibit local governments from claiming custom as a Plaintiff on private property. Local governments can't usurp due process to do it and has to prove it in court first.
2. Edwards bill would not ban local ordinances; but would ensure local governments do not circumvent due process and rule of law before the ordinance becomes law.
3. Bill will NOT make it easier for beachfront property owners to put up fences, post “No Trespassing” signs. Custom has NOTHING to do with signs and fences. That is a local government police power. As long as ordinances does NOT infringe on the first amendment - like Walton BCC ordinance did and was struck down in court.
4. Beachgoers may be surprised to learn that MOST of FLORIDA private property lines extend all the way to the mean high tide line; which is how littoral property boundaries were defined by the State.
5. That line [MHWL] becomes a moving target, but it’s typically identified as the “wet” sand area, or the sea side of the line of seaweed that washes ashore. Total FICTION. MHLW is well defined and it is NOT the wet sand.
6. “customary use” standard is important for beachside communities. Customary use elements are ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute. Private property rights were so important they are included in the USA Constitution. Local economics is NOT an element of custom. Nor are popularity votes.
7. Edwards’ bill is about eliminating the ability of cities and counties to protect beach access. FICTION local governments can still claim customary use as a plaintiff just like Teresa can. Except Teresa can not declare private property subject to public use like Walton county did or use million$ of other tax payer's money to litigate.
8. Where does the bill say local governments will have to litigate parcel by parcel as reported in the video? It does NOT. Fake news.
--------------------------------------------------
https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sect...ocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0631&Session=2018
Starting at line 362

Section 10. Section 163.035, Florida Statutes, is created to read: 163.035
Establishment of recreational customary use. —
(1) DEFINITION. — The term " governmental entity" includes an agency of the state, a regional or a local government created by the State Constitution or by general or special act, any county or municipality, or any other entity that independently exercises governmental authority.
(2) ORDINANCES AND RULES RELATING TO CUSTOMARY USE. — A governmental entity may not adopt or keep in effect an ordinance or rule that finds, determines, relies on, or is based upon customary use of any portion of a beach above the mean high - water line, as defined in s. 177.27, unless such ordinance or rule is based on a judicial declaration affirming recreational customary use on such beach.
(3) NOTICE OF INTENT TO AFFIRM RECREATION PUBLIC USE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY; JUDICIAL DETERMINATION. — A governmental entity that seeks to affirm the existence of a recreational customary use on private property must follow the procedures set forth in this subsection.
(a) Notice. — The governing board of a governmental entity must, at a public hearing, adopt a formal notice of intent to affirm the existence of a recreational customary use on private property. The notice of intent must specifically identify the following:
1. The specific parcels of property, or the specific portions thereof, upon which a customary use affirmation is sought;
2. The detailed, specific, and individual use or uses of the parcels of property to which a customary use affirmation is sought; and
3. Each source of evidence that the governmental entity would rely upon to prove a recreational customary use has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute.
The governmental entity must provide notice of the public hearing to the owner of each parcel of property subject to the notice of intent at the address reflected in the count y property appraiser's records no later than 30 days before the public meeting. Such notice must be provided by certified mail with return receipt requested, publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the parcels of property are located, and posting on the governmental entity's website.
(b) Judicial determination. —
1. Within 60 days after the adoption of the notice of intent at the public hearing, the governmental entity must file a Complaint for Declaration of Recreational Customary Use with the circuit court in the county in which the properties subject to the notice of intent are located. The governmental entity must provide notice of the filing of the complaint to the owner of each parcel of property subject to the complaint in the same manner as is required for the notice of intent in paragraph (a). The notice must allow the owner receiving the notice to intervene in the proceeding within 45 days after receiving the notice. The governmental entity must provide verification of the service of the notice to the property owners required in this paragraph to the court so that the court may establish a schedule for the judicial proceedings.
2. All proceedings under this paragraph shall be de novo. The court must determine whether the evidence presented demonstrates that the recreational customary use for the use or uses identified in the notice of intent have been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute. There is no presumption regarding the existence of a recreational customary use with respect to any parcel of property, and the governmental entity has the burden of proof to show that a recreational customary use exists. An owner of a parcel of property that is subject to the complaint has the right to intervene as a party defendant in such proceeding.

Writing a bill and passing a bill are two completely different animals. Writing the bill placates one side. Not passing the bill placates the other side. The bill will go nowhere. The courts will decide.

The courts will decide local government claim of custom on private property but not likely this bill.
I predict the Governor will not sign the bill.

I love how you say "8 miles of public beach." Thats less than 1/3 of Walton County beaches. 50K+ County residence and the multi-million visitors need to share less than 1/3 while 900 beach front homeowners get more than 2/3 of the beach? That is as bass ackwards as it gets.

Where the hell do you get a third from?

Walton County gives 50% of beach access to vendors for free. Prime water front property that has cost millions to purchase and vendors get to set up on it and run their businesses for free. Cushy deal.

I won't even mention the greedy tourists that bring 2 or 3 10 ft tents and set them up end to end preventing others from having any access.

The righteous indignation is comical.