Walton County Customary Use: Where do we go from here?

If the public has the right to "use all the beaches" why then does the county give 50% to private business (vendors) for their exclusionary use at NO CHARGE?

Beach access ordinances are based on a legal principle called "customary use," defined as the traditional use of dry beach sand for public recreation, even on private property.

The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that if a private property owner tries to put up a fence or calls police to eject beachgoers who have been using the beach for years, the local government can cite "customary use" to allow the public to remain — but only if such use has been "ancient, reasonable, without interruption and free from dispute."

Ordinances enacted by two of the three counties, St. Johns and Volusia counties, were left standing by wording in the new law.

The only beach access ordinance being abolished is the one passed last year in the Panhandle’s Walton County, where the list of beach homeowners includes such well-known names as former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and ex-White House adviser Karl Rove. Last year when a similar bill was proposed in the Legislature but failed, it was nicknamed "the Huckabee amendment."

more...
Tampa Bay Times | Apr 4 2018

The County Commision did not follow the law already in place. So, please don’t unjustly accuse someone, unless you have proof . Huckabee was only involved in the shot down compromises by the County Commussion, nothing else. Karl Rove’s input? Seriously? Did Elvis tell you that? Want to put a big name on this? Here it is...The Constitution!

The County Commision did not follow the law already in place. So, please don’t unjustly accuse someone, unless you have proof . Huckabee was only involved in the shot down compromises by the County Commussion, nothing else. Karl Rove’s input? Seriously? Did Elvis tell you that? Want to put a big name on this? Here it is...The Constitution!

It's an article... Read it.

None of this nonsense affects my day to day life, whatsoever. If I go to the beach, I'm not going to take the time to give a s**t about any of this. I'm just going to the beach.

If a kid runs through my non-beachfront yard, I ain't callin' the cops. If someone is strolling by and sits and enjoys my grass and trees I aint whippin' out my survey. WTF kind of world are we living in now. Get an effing grip.

It's an article... Read it.

Oh! An article! That’s proof.

Oh! An article! That’s proof.

Just pointing out its written by someone else. No need to attack Teresa who generously provides the platform for you to show your ass.

Just pointing out its written by someone else. No need to attack Teresa who generously provides the platform for you to show your ass.

For what it's worth, I didn't take the comment by gailforce as an attack on Teresa, but rather a comment about the insinuations in the article. There have been a LOT of articles with inaccurate information and very few that have really explained the legislation without a slant or misinformation. Maybe Gov. Huckabee or Karl Rove are that powerful to persuade the entire FL legislature to overwhelmingly support a bill, but that would surprise me. In any case, customary use is going to be pursued by Walton County and they seem to have a relatively positive take on getting this done and having it stick.

The article provides an overview of what has happened and where we are now. For those interested. It doesn't tell you what you should think or not think about the issue. If anything it helps me to get a better idea of the issues on all sides. That is the intent of this thread as well. I am interested in understanding each side of this difficult issue. And what may come next... It is an issue that will effect the entire community. Not just second home property owners or visitors. Locals have an interest as well.

If you have another article that represents your views better than this one by all means post it in response. Sharing thoughtful pieces of editorial and opinion pieces is always helpful. Posting your own opinions in a thoughtful way is also important. I am interested in hearing about your views and I know many others are as well.

This article is one of several recently published in Florida. It is one piece of information.

........In any case, customary use is going to be pursued by Walton County and they seem to have a relatively positive take on getting this done and having it stick.

I've read this at least three times and and have been trying to fill in the blanks. Can you please help me out?

The County Commision did not follow the law already in place. So, please don’t unjustly accuse someone, unless you have proof . Huckabee was only involved in the shot down compromises by the County Commussion, nothing else. Karl Rove’s input? Seriously? Did Elvis tell you that? Want to put a big name on this? Here it is...The Constitution!

For what it's worth, I didn't take the comment by gailforce as an attack on Teresa, but rather a comment about the insinuations in the article. There have been a LOT of articles with inaccurate information and very few that have really explained the legislation without a slant or misinformation. Maybe Gov. Huckabee or Karl Rove are that powerful to persuade the entire FL legislature to overwhelmingly support a bill, but that would surprise me. In any case, customary use is going to be pursued by Walton County and they seem to have a relatively positive take on getting this done and having it stick.

Nah, the first quoted poster above was going after Teresa demanding to know “if Elvis told YOU that?” This makes it difficult to take that particular individuals opinion seriously when they are either too incompetent to employ reading comprehension. And laughably we are expected by that same poster to credit his or her ability to interpret the legal document that is The Constitution when he or she cannot reliably interpret a clearly worded post on a forum.
But your attempt at diplomacy is appreciated, seriously.

Nah, the first quoted poster above was going after Teresa demanding to know “if Elvis told YOU that?” This makes it difficult to take that particular individuals opinion seriously when they are either too incompetent to emply reading comprehension. And laughably we are expected by that same poster to credit his or her ability to interpret the legal document that is The Constitution when he or she cannot reliably interpret a clearly worded post on a forum.
But your attempt at diplomacy is appreciated, seriously.

SNAP!

Fact or Fiction (ie Huckabee) - please deny that you had any part in this legislation.

If you did - then you are Governor of the elite 900 Walton Gulf front owners - not of the people.

Fact or Fiction (ie Huckabee) - please deny that you had any part in this legislation.

If you did - then you are Governor of the elite 900 Walton Gulf front owners - not of the people.

I didn't. I just didn't interpret the post as you did because Teresa's post was just the words directly from an article. That said, if the comments were directed at Teresa and not just sarcasm toward the author of the article, then the sarcasm was misplaced.

I've read this at least three times and and have been trying to fill in the blanks. Can you please help me out?

I'm just basing this on what was said in the official release about the County pursuing customary use. Do I believe that they have factual evidence for the entire county shoreline? Seems doubtful, but I suppose that the outcome depends largely on how the court/judge ends up interpreting ancient, reasonable, uninterrupted, and without dispute. None of those terms are clearly defined at this point. There may end up being lawsuits over definitions. Seems like there is a better way to bringing peace to the beach than lawsuits, name calling, and all the assorted ways that people are expressing their disagreement and frustration with the "other side".

I do not understand your reply

Did you promote the bill that banned customary use on Walton County beaches???

The old song, “Sign, Signs, every where a sign” keeps running through my head...also Joni Mitchell’s “ They Paved Paradise & put up a parking lot”
Ok I am dating myself but good grief if the beach is taken away what do we have? Thank Goodness we have the dedicated State forests and parks or iT really would be a paradise lost.....

The old song, “Sign, Signs, every where a sign” keeps running through my head...also Joni Mitchell’s “ They Paved Paradise & put up a parking lot”
Ok I am dating myself but good grief if the beach is taken away what do we have? Thank Goodness we have the dedicated State forests and parks or iT really would be a paradise lost.....

I'm dating myself as well. The old School House Rock - The Constitution song, keeps running through my head. Especially the 5th Amendment part.
Good grief if the rights protected by the Constitution are taken away what do we have? It really would be Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness lost. What's custom will be declared or litigated next?

The "takings" clause. "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" and (in context) the 14th extends the 5th to States , correct?

Would "partial taking" be applicable/plausible in regards to the beach if pursude?

Real questions here. Not trying to stir the pot. Just curious.

If you have another article that represents your views better than this one by all means post it in response. Sharing thoughtful pieces of editorial and opinion pieces is always helpful. Posting your own opinions in a thoughtful way is also important. I am interested in hearing about your views and I know many others are as well.

Can not get a more authoritative explanation of what the new legislation is and is not than the co-sponsor of the law Section 10. Section 163.035, Florida Statutes.

Commentary: Customary use beach bill widely misunderstood
by State Sen. Kathleen Passidomo, R-Naples Published 6:43 a.m. ET April 9, 2018 | Updated 11:58 a.m. ET April 9, 2018

While I worked on many complex bills during the recently concluded legislative session, few seem to be as misunderstood as House Bill 631/Senate Bill 804 — Possession of Real Property (commonly known as customary use) signed by Gov. Rick Scott on March 23.

Some people have been led to believe that this bill restricts access to Florida’s beaches. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Florida Constitution provides that all land seaward of the mean high-tide line [foreshore; sometimes referred to as the wet sand (but many times dry at low tide) on no wind days] belongs to the public. No private individual or governmental entity can deny access to it [foreshore seaward of the mean high tide line; 0.74 ft NAVD88 datum elevation in Walton].

In many cases, additional land above [landward of] the mean high-tide line is also public, providing the wide public beaches that many of us enjoy [over 6 miles of beachfront in Walton County].

Adjacent to this public land there may be privately owned property, and while it may appear indistinguishable as just more sand, that land may have been privately owned for years [if not centuries]. Development and building permit approvals, collection of impact fees and real estate taxes all serve as documentation that the local governments have acknowledged private ownership and the recorded boundaries of these private properties adjacent to the public beach.

Nevertheless, in certain instances, such as when the beach has eroded to the point that there is no publicly owned “dry sand” left for the public to enjoy, it may be necessary to enlarge [re-nourish] the public beach into adjacent private property. (This hasn’t been an issue in Collier County, which places a priority on beach renourishment to ensure there is an abundance of publicly owned property between the mean high-tide line and private property.)

Unfortunately, some local governments [like Walton County] have appropriated portions of private property adjacent to the public beach by merely passing a local “customary use” ordinance. Customary use is a [centuries old English] common law judicial doctrine that provides for the recreational use of privately owned land by the public if the recreational use has been “ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute.”

Even when a public benefit results, private property should never be “taken” through the creation of a local ordinance, nor should the state be allowed to make such a determination by statute.

State and local governments are both political bodies that are subject to political pressures and aren’t held to the same due process standards as the courts when making decisions about private property rights [who can use private property is the authority of the courts].

The courts are nonpolitical, nonpartisan objective bodies that are required to take testimony, listen to expert witnesses and weigh that testimony to make impartial decisions based on legal precedent of what portions of private property adjacent to our beaches should be open to the public under the judicial doctrine of “customary use.”

We wouldn’t find it acceptable for a local government to merely pass a local ordinance allowing for the “taking” of private property to build a road [without compensation]. Instead, we require the local government to prove in a court of law that the taking is necessary and in the public interest [and pay fair market value for the property]. Additionally, the owner of that property has an opportunity to present evidence and testimony to back up any opposing positions. After hearing the testimony of all parties and weighing the evidence, the court, as the neutral third party, makes the decision [based on the rule of law].

By the same token, a local government should also be required to establish through the courts the necessity of taking private property adjacent to the beach for public recreational use.

This bill only serves to establish a simple and equitable process by which local governments may seek a judicial determination of customary use that certain private property adjacent to the public beach [foreshore] should be open to the public.

Passidomo represents Florida Senate District 28.
Commentary: Customary use beach bill widely misunderstood

The "takings" clause. "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" and (in context) the 14th extends the 5th to States , correct?

Would "partial taking" be applicable/plausible in regards to the beach if pursued?

Real questions here. Not trying to stir the pot. Just curious.

Partial Taking Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Since most of the property value is between the toe of the dune or permanent vegetation line and the MHWL, I'd think not applicable.

I guess the devaluation of a property would need to be evaluated with a non arbitrary method to determine feasabilty.

Why is customary use being persued over implied dedication? To a layperson, it seems that the latter would be easier to show.