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
Dave Rauschkolb avatar
Beach Fanatic
#252
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?
View attachment 76897

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.



Any sane person can see it is wrong in its current incarnation or any other for that matter. Have you expressed outrage wherever it is posted? Does it serve your purpose to have renegade CU advocates making crazy videos? Perhaps. Have you personally asked him to take down the video? Have all the others expressed outrage and asked him to take it down? You and others have tried desperately to tie anyone who goes off the rails to us; including people I don't even know.

Mr. Galloway made the above photo showing the before and after of our beaches and allowed us to use it. He later posted some other bizarre posts shortly after that and I stopped communicating with him because I don't agree with his tactics. The moment I was critical of his posts he ignored me.

Do you want to talk about bizarre tactics? Harassment, nasty, cussing, personal attacks? Hackmeyer ring a bell? How about that video? Can you show me your condemnation of that behavior? Both sides have people who have their own personal way of responding to this situation. I doubt you condone some of the behavior on your side and certainly I don't to some people on the CU side. The bottom line is people react in their own ways and no one can control what people say or do. And that’s all I’ll say on the matter whoever you are.

Edited

FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#253
Any sane person can see it is wrong in its current incarnation. Have you expressed outrage wherever it is posted? Does it serve your purpose to have renegade CU advocates making crazy videos? Perhaps. Have you personally asked him to take down the video? Have all the others expressed outrage and asked him to take it down? You and others have tried desperately to tie anyone who goes off the rails to us; including people I don't even know.

Mr. Galloway made the above photo showing the before and after of our beaches and allowed us to use it. He later posted some other bizarre posts shortly after that and I stopped communicating with him because I don't agree with his tactics. The moment I was critical of his posts he ignored me.

Do you want to talk about bizarre tactics? Harassment, nasty, cussing, personal attacks? Hackmeyer ring a bell? How about that video? Can you show me your condemnation of that behavior? Both sides have people who have their own personal way of responding to this situation. I doubt you condone some of the behavior on your side and certainly I don't to some people on the CU side. The bottom line is people react in their own ways and no one can control what people say or do.
Disappointing. Missed opportunity.
Auburn Fan avatar
Beach Lover
#254
Hackmeyer ring a bell? How about that video? Can you show me your condemnation of that behavior?

A grumpy old man in a two-way cussing match responding to a rude tourist who wouldn't leave his private property in an episode that occurred three years ago is NOTHING compared to the very current threat of touting premeditated murder as a solution to our private beach issues.

Your attempt to be so dismissive would be laughable. If it weren't such a grave concern.
Reggie Gaskins avatar
Beach LoverAuthor
#2551
Screenshot_20190515_075503.jpgFlorida Beaches For All, chaired by David Rauschkolb, recently posted this photo, taken by that murder video guy. Check the dates.
Beach Fanatic
#256
A grumpy old man in a two-way cussing match responding to a rude tourist who wouldn't leave his private property in an episode that occurred three years ago is NOTHING compared to the very current threat of touting premeditated murder as a solution to our private beach issues.

Your attempt to be so dismissive would be laughable. If it weren't such a grave concern.
Didn't Hackmeyer at Vizcaya guy threaten someone with shooting or other bodily harm? I really don't remember except there was profanity involved. I did hear yesterday though that a Vizcaya owner is selling because he doesn't want to be associated with Hacmeyer 's tactics. Who does he represent? Is he on his own or is there a team behind him? Is he being paid to patrol the beach?
Auburn Fan avatar
Beach Lover
#257
Didn't Hackmeyer at Vizcaya guy threaten someone with shooting or other bodily harm?

Intentionally repeated hearsay of no substance. No police report whatsoever. Which of course there would have been if anything like that actually happened. Let's try sticking to the facts.
Beach Fanatic
#258
Intentionally repeated hearsay of no substance. No police report whatsoever. Which of course there would have been if anything like that actually happened. Let's try sticking to the facts.
I recall a video posted here of the incident with a lot of cussing and extremely aggressive behavior. Do you think there is a police report every time someone is threatened with a gun?
FactorFiction avatar
Beach Fanatic
#259
Just my two cents, but I think there are actually quite a few beach areas where sharing is working just fine (like it did before the CU ordinance) with people who adhere to the "sole uses" that Walton County designated in the previous customary use ordinance and have designated again in the lawsuit. It would be great if the various social media sites would put some major emphasis on the sole uses. It might make for a more peaceful summer. Obviously, where there are known conflicts, nothing is served by trying to instigate conflict just for the sake of it.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#260
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;......

Potentially good news for all, REALLY.

If you haven’t heard, attorney Borowski has filed a request to dismiss the whole customary use case on grounds that the doctrine of customary use is unconstitutional and that it violates the takings clause and the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Reference online court records Doc 784 filed on 5/4/19. It is a good read!

Thankfully, Dave R doesn’t really have to debate FBB....it would be painful if Dave R actually tried to engage.

It sounds similar to the Blessey federal case that went away because the original CU proclamation by the county was rightfully shot down.

“So how can that possibly be good news for the CU advocates as well?”

It would save EVERYONE bunches of money AND time.

And by time I mean it would bring MR. AND MRS. NO COMPROMISE Daniel Uhlfelder and Dave Rauschkolb and others begrudgingly back to the negotiating table. And then a deal could hopefully be negotiated with neighboring properties of public beach accesses using the saved money.

And then we could just move on, trying to heal the community and letting developers have their way with us. And time is of the essence.

Isn’t that something we all can agree on?
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#261
You've got to love South Walton's political activists. They're kind of like the Bernie Sanders and AOCs of North Florida.
And what’s scary, is the following they ALL have.
Jenksy avatar
Beach Fanatic
#262
And what’s scary, is the following they ALL have.
99.99999999% of people in South Walton and our visitors want open beaches like it was before you.
Auburn Fan avatar
Beach Lover
#263
99.99999999% of people in South Walton and our visitors want open beaches like it was before you.


99.99999999% of Arapaho, Comanche, and Cheyenne tribes of the Great Plains wanted open prairies like it was before your ancestors.
And your point is?
Beach Fanatic
#264
99.99999999% of Arapaho, Comanche, and Cheyenne tribes of the Great Plains wanted open prairies like it was before your ancestors.
And your point is?
Genocide is bad. So is kicking people off beaches.
Beach Fanatic
#265
99.99999999% of Arapaho, Comanche, and Cheyenne tribes of the Great Plains wanted open prairies like it was before your ancestors.
And your point is?

The indigineous peoples ( yes the native Americans that have been here long before you or I or our ancestors) of Walton County fully support customary use. What's your point?
Beach Fanatic
#266
In fact, I challenge any of the BFO that take issue with CU to take a ride up to Bruce and debate any member of the Muscogee Nation of Florida over the issue of CU and defend why they shouldn't have access to all of the beaches of Walton county.
bob bob avatar
Beach Fanatic
#267
In fact, I challenge any of the BFO that take issue with CU to take a ride up to Bruce and debate any member of the Muscogee Nation of Florida over the issue of CU and defend why they shouldn't have access to all of the beaches of Walton county.
Why would they give a damn if they don't care what their neighbors across the street think?
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#268
Genocide is bad. So is kicking people off beaches.
You're starting to sound like Daniel Uhlfelder.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#269
In fact, I challenge any of the BFO that take issue with CU to take a ride up to Bruce and debate any member of the Muscogee Nation of Florida over the issue of CU and defend why they shouldn't have access to all of the beaches of Walton county.
Do they play chess?
Beach Fanatic
#270
Why would they give a damn if they don't care what their neighbors across the street think?

True Bob. I guarantee that not one will accept my challenge. It's tough to be tough when faced with reality.
Beach Fanatic
#271
Do they play chess?

Why don't you find out for yourself?
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#272
Why don't you find out for yourself?
No sense of humor I see.
Yes, this subject is so damn serious.
Beach Fanatic
#273
No sense of humor I see.
Yes, this subject is so damn serious.

This subject is extremely serious. I can set my wit and sense of humor aside when appropriate. You can sell your property when appropriate and walk away from it all if you so choose. The locals, not so much.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#274
Honestly, do ANY of you CU people want to have any kind of a real dialogue?

Can any of you explain why Daniel Uhlfelder is representing a client against the county and against FBFA? Don't you find it a least bit curious?

Can any of you defend Daniel Uhlfelder's pulling out the Nazi card at a public town hall meeting? Obviously David R won't touch it.

Can any of you make some kind of a semi-intelligent remark in regards to if CU is knocked down because it is ruled unconstitutional (as is claimed by the recent filing I posted about), do you think the county should then negotiate with property owners adjacent to public beach accesses? Wouldn't that be the last "corrective" course possible? Or would you follow your leaders, MR. and MRS. NO COMPROMISE and possibly end up gaining nothing?

I think these are very fair and reasonable questions and I still hold out hope that some of you CU people do think and don't just react.
Beach Fanatic
#275
I was having real dialogue and you wanted to make jokes and dismissed a challange which is fair and reasonable.

This is bigger than Daniel and only he can speak for himself. Why would expect anyone else to answer for him?

Why are you seeking compromise if your are so certain of the outcome?

Semi-intelligent? Really? That feeling of superiority you are embracing is your weakness.

The beach is our lifeblood and you want to put a turnaquite on it. We have nothing to lose.

CUnCourt (per the path laid out in H.B. 631).

Edited

BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#276
Another observation:

Many of the CU defendants have filed motions to sever. What this means is that each parcel must be litigated on a "case by case" basis. Of course the county is opposing this because it is much more difficult for the county to prove AND it will be significantly more expensive to do so.

So let's say for some reason that the county is able to knock down the motions to sever and proceed to treat all the parcels as one.

It would seem to me that they would be shooting themselves in the foot. And here's what I mean:

"Section 163.035, Fla. Stat., created by HB631, outlines limitations and prevents local governments from declaring Florida beaches on private property accessible to the public without the local government first obtaining a court declaration that the property meets four established criteria of customary use. The public’s recreational use of a specific piece of beach property must have been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute."

If properties like the Retreat are lumped in with all the other beach front properties and the county refuses to allow the motions to sever, then based on the above paragraph, a judge could (should IMHO) throw out the whole enchilada because it's very well documented that the Retreat, for example, has instituted interrupted use of their beach and has been in the middle of dispute (putting it mildly - actual arrests on their property many years ago).

I don't see how the county cannot allow severance and then not jeopardize their CU position.

Anybody have an idea as to what timeline is going to be used as to when "without interruption" and "free from dispute" cut-off date would be?

And if the all the beach front properties are continued lumped as one in terms of evidence and litigation, is it a winner take all situation?

Added: Of course none of this matters if the the Doctrine of Customary is found unconstitutional as it should be. Here on SoWal I brought up the idea of what the heck is "ancient, reasonable, reasonable, and free from dispute". Nobody could define it, understandably, including me. And that in and of itself makes the Doctrine of Customary Use unconstitutional IMHO among the other challenges. How can something SO VAGUE trump one of the most important rights clearly protected by the U.S. Constitution?

Edited

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.

New posts