Back to All About SoWal

Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Reggie Gaskins avatar
Beach Lover
526,497 views2
upload_2019-4-25_8-30-52.jpeg
When you see a PCB or Destin bumper sticker, what thought immediately comes to mind? Probably same for all of us with any time spent here - nice, but it ain’t 30A! Do you remember why you started renting/visiting here? What was it? Remember when you bought your first 30A property? Why here?
Because it was DIFFERENT, right? Remember the words you used to describe it to family and friends as you invited them here? “Private” “Quiet” “Intimate” “Less crowded”. That wasn’t by accident. The entire genetic code of Sowal beaches is because of the private ownership and neighborhood beach personalities.
You could rent “private beach”. You could buy “private beach”. There wasn’t a free for all frat party atmosphere because of unlimited public beach access on the sands. That behavior was regulated by the privately owned property where such behavior was immediately squelched. And yet, by custom, no one was ever “Kicked off” of private beaches because owners don’t do that unless bad actors abuse the privilege.
Walton County has always had more than 50% PUBLIC beach. Still does. That hasn’t changed. There are now deliberately misleading fear tactics out there with scary words like “Quiet Title” and “Privatization”, neither of which have affected one single square inch of public beach, not one. Yet, the mob mentality, orchestrated by local carnival barkers eager for fame and notoriety, and dollars, have mislead the citizens and deliberately tried to divide the community in a shell game of Customary Use.
The fact is that the county outran the capabilities of local Commissioners to plan for growth 20 years ago, and we haven’t improved that talent to deal with it even yet. So the County, in failing to plan beach availability, tried to illegally claim private property as public, without following the laws requiring judicial oversight. The local Good Ol’ Boys overreached their authority and got caught by the adults in Tallahassee. So they then decides to sue 4,800 of Sowal citizens to take their property. That’s right, your tax money is being spent, and a lot of it, to SUE almost 5,000 of your neighbors, and steal what they agreed to purchase at a premium, and have a deed to prove it.
Don’t blame them please, they didn’t want or ask for this fight. They live here and care for these beaches just like you and me. Go meet them, they are truly the eclectic fabric of 30A. The signs they had to put up are just in defense of this new orchestrated public attack against them.
The bottom line is this: The minute you release the public to occupy all of Sowal beaches, you IMMEDIATELY get nasty Destin and PCB problems. How will you feel about that 30A sticker then? Nostalgic? Me too.

03BC6F35-C70B-476E-8581-BDFB287ECF68.jpeg

Replies

2,312
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#227
Buster, I basically agree with your entire post.

But the word greedy is still overused as many have applied it to private property owners who desire and are fully entitled to protect what they do own by the U.S. Constitution.

Added...Dear Cuba
Substitute Cuba with Walton County? :)

Edited

Lake View Too avatar
SoWal Insider
#228
In 1995, during the filming of The Truman Show, I met Cindy Meadows. She was just a visitor at that time, and was living in Orlando. WaterColor and WaterSound were just barely being planned at that time. She said she saw first hand the way St. Joe developed properties down south, especially Celebration, and she said it was going to be like a tsunami when St. Joe got cranked up. Well, guess what? She was right. She moved up and tried to use her knowledge about urban planning (master's degree) to try to help shape what this transformation would look like. She was treated like s**t by the powers that be, and was called Satan at one point. Oh well.
Hurricane Opal also hit in 1995. A lot of quaint little cabins in Grayton were wrecked, or at least pushed off their foundations. The next thing you know, there were a hundred new contractor's in town and the Monster House started sprouting in Grayton, and most anywhere.
The point of my story... oh hell, there is no point...
Dave Rauschkolb avatar
Beach Fanatic
#229
Pretty obvious to anyone who was here that the period from around 2000 until the bubble burst there was an influx of money - flippers, builders, developers, realtors, lawyers, title companies etc. etc. who were chasing the bucks and didn't give a damn about the local environment or businesses, except to exploit everything. Yes - GREEDY.

Probably began around 1995 when a large outside corporation with no real ties to the area planned and built Rosemary Beach. Not that it was perfect before then but at least people were here for the beach and the environment and not the MONEY.

We used to have a community of beach people. Now we are largely a community of exploiters and usurpers.

I don't sit around pining for the old days like some, but we have gone way past that into a dystopian hell of people fighting over sand on the beach no one should ever own.

These are the good old days for the people just moving here.
buster avatar
Beach Fanatic
#230
Buster, I basically agree with your entire post.

But the word greedy is still overused as many have applied it to private property owners who desire and are fully entitled to protect what they do own by the U.S. Constitution.

Added...Dear Cuba
Substitute Cuba with Walton County? :)
I abide the law but I would not use it to take advantage of others, or use the law for cover for actions that are clearly wrong. That is what GREEDY and unethical people do. If you are trying to keep people off the beach behind your home, a beach that has been free and open for decades (actually centuries before white men) for millions of people, then the best word that applies is GREED.

Deeding the beach was clearly a mistake that needs to be corrected. As @ShallowsNole aptly pointed out, it was done simply to give protection to beachfront owners so no person would try to build on the beach between them and the water. Whoever put beach ownership on the deed screwed up. It is time to correct the screwup.

Please explain why anyone would want to own the beach, and to keep people off. Legal deed or not, there is no moral justification.
buster avatar
Beach Fanatic
#231
These are the good old days for the people just moving here.
Not when they get yelled at or threatened for walking on the beach. Not when the sand is to be seen and not felt.
Dave Rauschkolb avatar
Beach Fanatic
#232
Not when they get yelled at or threatened for walking on the beach. Not when the sand is to be seen and not felt.

Oh I completely agree with you in regards to the customary use of our beaches
FactorFiction avatar
Beach Fanatic
#233
What if people aren't trying to keep people off the beach, but just wanted enforcement and weren't getting it? What if people just don't want the county to be in charge of their property? What if people just want respectful behavior? Is it ok for someone to set up a daycamp from sun up to sun down and come and go as they please on property that is deeded to someone else? Is it ok to leave trash or broken tent frames for someone else to clean up? Is it ok to use dunes for bathrooms? Is it ok for people to let their dogs go in the dunes or leave "gifts" on the beach or in the dunes? Take a good look and see whether people are really keeping others off the beach or if they are just trying to have some say in what happens on their deeded property. It might be eye opening.

Edited

FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#234
This thread started asking questions to understand WHY anyone is for property rights or customary use of private property. Many beachfront owners just know Walton commissioners are costing them a lot of money on attorneys and the majority of the public that have no real-property skin in the game are attacking them as greedy, privileged, carpet baggers for the private property they own, pay taxes on and want to enjoy for themselves if they choose to.

Verifiable opinions and facts about the doctrine of customary use, quiet title, and private property easements where presented. No one has disputed that information yet with contrary variable facts- including leading CU authority David Rauschkolb. Others have resorted to posting over and over childish disrespectful images of a military hero John McCain’s grave site, others shout “Alternative facts” whatever those are, greedy, nameless, rich, privileged, interlopers, portrayed as murderers, and many other names much worse. I just want to know your facts why you believe the way you do other than Dave Rasuchkolb said so.

This is a long term political problem by inept past and present Walton commissioners looking for an easy (relative to a political solution) legal solution. A legal solution designed as an adversarial process, where one side wins and one side looses. Now that Walton Commissioners have drawn a line in the sand and litigated against 4,500 citizens that have legal title to the land they earned; beachfront owners are angry and do not want to share anymore. The judge will rule on the LAW of private property customary use. Not anything else but the law. Not alternative facts or unsubstantiated opinions of Walton economic melt down.

Edited

FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#235
So Dave refuses to discuss the many CU facts proven false here. So Dave refuses to meet in public forum to have an adult discussion to help heal our community. So it appears the online personal attacks against innocent beach property owners has escalated. A great recap of historical TRUE facts can be followed here at the blog Dave recommended earlier in this thread:
FloridaBeachBum: CU Timeline
Walton Watchdog
The Walton Commissioner Larry Jones’ 2008 Master Thesis on customary use quoted Theriaque; on page 70 of Larry’s thesis; “… the local government should present their [customary use] ordinance to a judge for judicial review asking for a declaratory judgment (personal communication, Theriaque, D., 2008).” Otherwise, “Absent this judicial review and a supporting judgment, sustaining such and ordinance will be expensive and difficult (personal communication, Theriaque, D., 2008).”

WOW Theriaque, Walton's $425/hr, land use attorney just described HB631! A bill that a super-majority of 2018 FL House and Senate passed, including local FL Rep Brad Drake, to become FL Statute 163.035 to ensure any local Government affords property owners due process of law first.

Surely the Walton BCC would not ignore Theriaque’s legal advice given to then Commissioner, now County Administrator Larry Jones? “sustaining such and ordinance will be expensive and difficult”. A recent public records request shows that Walton Commissioners have expended $757,747 of tax payers dollars. Should the beachfront property owners prevail; that’s less than half the costs to the Walton tax payer and we just started the litigating. What do the commissioners care; it's not their personal money. CUnCourt.

Edited

FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#236
Oh I completely agree with you in regards to the customary use of our beaches
Dave Rausckolb can you please explain just ONE of the four or more criterion of ancient English customary use and what evidence you think applies to any of the 1,192 Walton private beach parcels to justify your positions?

Edited

FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#237
David Rauschkolb, seriously, have you filed a police report on the CUer C.G. threatening, malicious, and violent Facebook video? Same Sheriff’s number you filed the complaint against the anonymous property rights blogger you reported to be threatened by.

Edited

BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#238
I abide the law but I would not use it to take advantage of others, or use the law for cover for actions that are clearly wrong. That is what GREEDY and unethical people do. If you are trying to keep people off the beach behind your home, a beach that has been free and open for decades (actually centuries before white men) for millions of people, then the best word that applies is GREED.

Do you honestly believe that owners of over 600 parcels that actually represent many more individuals are "clearly wrong", "GREEDY and unethical?" That is a very vicious remark to be throwing out at thousands of your neighbors. And its's remarks like that make us BFOs who are under attack so passionate about defending our property from the general public. You must understand that there is no going back with statements like that.

And it goes against the respect theme that I continuously remind those who just can't get a point across without insulting and demeaning their neighbors. More emotion, zero facts.

Just for the record, David Rauschkolb's good friend and attorney, David B. Pleat, is against customary use and is representing a multitude of BFOs against the county. BTW, Pleat used to be a committee member with www.abettersouthwalton.com to incorporate South Walton along with Rauschkolb. I guess David Pleat is "clearly wrong, GREEDY and unethical" based on your yardstick. Oh and this goes for the dozens and dozens of other attorneys defending private property rights. On the other hand, maybe you're on to something regarding attorneys. :lol: Just kidding! I love my attorneys.

What the hell did I just find???

The savior of the Customary Use movement and attorney, Daniel Uhlfelder (you know, the one who has a way with words when demeaning BFOs in front of a town hall meeting in front of hundreds of people) has filed a motion to intervene on behalf of a client on 2/8/2019 (document # 110 for those of you following the online filings).

Wait a minute! How can that be?

How can Daniel Uhlfelder be such a driving force for the Customary Use movement plaintiffs (County + FBFA) and then represent a client who wishes to intervene against (assume against like everyone else and not with) the county? Maybe his client is indigent and can't afford a real CU attorney and Uhlfelder feels compelled to help. Maybe Uhlfelder had a momentary lapse in judgement. Maybe Uhlfelder is guaranteed to be a winner by playing both sides. Or maybe it was simply for "GREED?" It does feel good to use that word. Thanks Buster. :) Maybe I shouldn't be too hard on those who continue to use the word "GREEDY".

So by your own standards, Uhlfelder and his client must be "clearly wrong", "GREEDY and unethical?" Would that be a fair statement?

PLEASE anyone, if I'm reading the filing wrong please shine a light on it. As, unlike some others, I will admit my errors when the light of truth is unfiltered. Also, if anyone sees it the same way I do, please confirm. It's just very difficult to understand why Uhlfelder is representing a defendant.

ADDED.....And how in the hell can an attorney represent the plaintiff AND defendant in the SAME lawsuit anyway?


Please explain why anyone would want to own the beach, and to keep people off. Legal deed or not, there is no moral justification.

Perhaps you should make your request for explanation to Daniel Uhlfelder.

Edited

BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#239
Hey I'm chillin out with a glass of ice water. Can someone please provide a link to this infamous video? I feel left out.
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#240
So, I watch the “sniper“ video and it’s Clint Eastwood shooting a streaker. That means someone naked running through Seaside. How exactly does that translate into a beachfront owner? Waiting for your answer. Thank you. Love and kisses.
Dave, look closely. The text is Private Beaches Solved! Chuck Norris (not Client Eastwood) is pointing a hunting rifle at the camera.
Below the image "Chuck Norris has a solution to the Private Beaches!!" To make it clear the video shows; a private beachfront owner with a hunting rifle and scope shooting a (nude) male from the public on private property as the "Solution to the Private Beaches!!"
And that does not concern you? This was filmed near your beach side business on private property. Why would you not call the Sheriff if you reported you felt threatened by a much less malicious anonymous blogger?
Will you do more than scoff and distance yourself and CU supporters and use your CU leadership to disavow the video and demand the video be taken down? Even if C.G. does not, you have made your position clear this is not acceptable and should be removed because it is more than just tasteless.
If not you are a hypocrite.

Edited

Dave Rauschkolb avatar
Beach Fanatic
#241
Seems that the thrust of that blog article at Editor's Opinion: Maybe Political Satire isn't for you? Or Maybe it's just for you! is that the ugly signs, chains, etc., are expression of political satire. Really? Or is that satire also? I get the feeling that the folks opposed to CU in this thread are just trying to goad pro CU folks into making comments that can be used in the opposition's lawsuit. Maybe not but I have a suspicious mind.

Bingo! Add anonymous folks opposed to CU, Hiding behind fake names.

Edited

BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#242
Now that I've seen the video on Facebook, all I can say is how juvenile it is. Poor guy just wants attention for his business and is pissed off that the entire 26 miles of beach is not his oyster (business wise).

And to Teresa's credit, I see where she asks him to remove it but he obviously hasn't.

I understand Dave R not condemning his friend regarding the Nazi card. It does nothing to further the CU cause. But has Dave R refused to outright condemn this video? Please fill me in. Was it also posted on other pro-CU Facebook pages?

Added...BTW the original Chuck Norris was much funnier as it didn't "attack" a group of people for their belief in defending private property rights - only that the "victims" were a little klutzy (actually a bit funny after you look at it from that point of view):
This is not to excuse the other video regarding the heated debate of customary use!!!!!!

Edited

FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#243
Bingo! Add anonymous folks opposed to CU, Hiding behind fake names.
Diversion, rhetoric, and silly ditty is your responses? Can you describe how any legal criteria of customary use applies to private property? Why would any beachfront owner identify themselves so Ulhfelder and others can pick a fight and taunt law enforcement on anti-social media?

Edited

BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#244
....A recent public records request shows that Walton Commissioners have expended $757,747 of tax payers dollars. Should the beachfront property owners prevail; that’s less than half the costs to the Walton tax payer and we just started the litigating. What do the commissioners care; it's not their personal money. CUnCourt.

I was going to ask you if the BCC will have to foot the legal bills of the BFOs should the County ultimately lose this battle when I saw the $757,747 amount you mentioned. Then I re-read the above bolded statement and found the answer. I wonder how many people out there know this small but potentially VERY EXPENSIVE fact.

I don't hear too much about this aspect although I thought that to be the case in the beginning.

Yep, I can hear the conversation of a real estate agent and a potential buyer of private beach front property a few years down the road, "And don't forget you might receive several thousands of dollars from the county if the CU is shot down in the courts." Just another selling point. Agents are always looking for ways to entice buyers. :rolleyes:

So if the county loses, does Daniel Uhlfelder's client also get their money back that they paid him? Will they have to share part of that with Mr. Uhlfelder? Interesting and complicated.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#245
....I understand Dave R not condemning his friend regarding the Nazi card. It does nothing to further the CU cause. And IMHO, that issue is 100x worse than the video in our discussion. But has Dave R even refused to outright condemn this video?

Never mind! Dave R never disappoints. Gosh, this is getting pathetic.

OK so I’m only going to talk to you because at least I know who you are. So, I watch the “sniper“ video and it’s Clint Eastwood shooting a streaker. That means someone naked running through Seaside. How exactly does that translate into a beachfront owner? Waiting for your answer. Thank you. Love and kisses.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#246
That's pretty bad I can't tell the difference between Chuck and Clint. Oh, I was wrong he is not naked; he still has his boots on.
Dave, this is a serious question. Do you drink at night when you post?
kayti elliott avatar
Beach Lover
#247
You've got to love South Walton's political activists. They're kind of like the Bernie Sanders and AOCs of North Florida.
Dave Rauschkolb avatar
Beach Fanatic
#248
Nope, It's pretty clear this young man is trying to advance his business somehow through his bizarre posts. I don't see what he hopes to accomplish by posting this stuff. He is operating on his own and does not seem to listen to anyone.
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#2491
Nope, It's pretty clear this young man is trying to advance his business somehow through his bizarre posts. I don't see what he hopes to accomplish by posting this stuff. He is operating on his own and does not seem to listen to anyone.
Dave, would like a serious discussion of the old English law of customary use you and the commissioners base your positions on? So far I agree it’s been a circular discussion, many ask for facts, no one offers any facts or even verifiable opinions; more distraction about aliases and “alternative” facts (that I still do not understand the definition of, you have to have facts to be an alternative to), and legally meaningless partisan polls.

Or how about what facts do you base your public position that beachfront property owners took public beachfront property by filing a $400 quiet title form? I offered facts about that. So far you nor anyone else have disputed or offered alternative facts.

Want to discuss if Vizcaya private beachfront was EVER "public" beach property? Facts here > Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
That's C.G.'s factual legally based Vizcaya slide at the FBFA meeting isn't it?
2019-02-26 FBFA Vizcaya private property.jpg

I answered your question “How exactly does that translate into a beachfront owner? Waiting for your answer.” Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

What would be your response had a beachfront owner produced a video like that? What do you think the CU social media would be like had a beachfront owner produced that video?

So far you’ve distanced yourself and the CU cause by, it’s in “poor taste”, jokes about who the shooter is (like that matters), that it is bizarre; but you have not disavowed the video for it’s message of violence, rhetorical or not. Why have you not is disavowed this C.G. video in public where the video is posted? You are quick to file a police report on an anonymous blogger that you admitted to police you felt threatened by but not a FB active shooter video you know who produced it?

I hope you take the opportunity in an open forum to answer questions that have been posted and to clear the air.

Edited

Beach Fanatic
#250
I'm a little confused by all of this. I read that H.B. 631 established the procedure for adopting a customary use ordinance. Part of that procedure is going to court to affirm cu. That's whats happening. It's now in the hands of the courts. What's the issue? What is this converastion on Sowal suppose to achieve?

The prior ordinance sunsetted with H.B. 631 appearing to single out Walton County based on the dates it spelled out. I don't see how that can be disputed.
Beach Fanatic
#251
LVT I just want to say that I enjoyed your post and agree with you. It is so much better to post an observation or opinion without accusatory tones. Forums like this sometimes bring out the worst in our behavior and sometimes bring out the best. I am on the side of respect. I respect both sides however I am not for anyone who believes that they have bought the right to prevent other people from using the "beach". I am also not for using shame and emotion to make a point. Why not blame the developers for over developing and now we have too many people and not enough infrastructure or access to the resource. I do believe that these big mansions that block both view and access is not exactly a wonderful thing and maybe even wrong but we should let them make their point. Well they have made their point and I say that they should be more generous and sharing of the beach with all people who show good behavior. This means there would have to be some rules for good behavior because unfortunately not all people have good behavior. Wow, this seems like there was a very simple solution until emotion and principle got in the way...
In 1995, during the filming of The Truman Show, I met Cindy Meadows. She was just a visitor at that time, and was living in Orlando. WaterColor and WaterSound were just barely being planned at that time. She said she saw first hand the way St. Joe developed properties down south, especially Celebration, and she said it was going to be like a tsunami when St. Joe got cranked up. Well, guess what? She was right. She moved up and tried to use her knowledge about urban planning (master's degree) to try to help shape what this transformation would look like. She was treated like s**t by the powers that be, and was called Satan at one point. Oh well.
Hurricane Opal also hit in 1995. A lot of quaint little cabins in Grayton were wrecked, or at least pushed off their foundations. The next thing you know, there were a hundred new contractor's in town and the Monster House started sprouting in Grayton, and most anywhere.
The point of my story... oh hell, there is no point...

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.

New posts