Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

There were some beach front houses....just not on every square inch of the dunes. It wasnt until St. Joe decided to really ramp it up that they went away. The helicopter pilots from Eglin used to make REALLY LOW passes on the beach....

The houses were more modest. Not setback to setback and reaching the 50' height mark.

I wish the south side of 30A was never touched but too late for that. What a shame.

I'm going to try to say this in a really respectful manner. If your intentions were to change hearts and minds about who is responsible for the situation we are in, you miscalculated badly by starting off with a distorted lie for the title this thread, and then repeated attempts to place blame on people that have known that customary use has been a doctrine on these beaches since before we all were born. We all know who instigated the disruption, and it wasn't the citizens that have used this beach for over 100 years. The blame is squarely on a handful of BFOs who have let their narcissism, anger management problems, and delusions of grandeur cloud their thinking. Are you one of them? You have voiced your opinion as if yours is the only valid way to see things. Well, I suspect, there are probably millions people who don't think you are correct. That is simply a guess, but when you add up all the people who have enjoyed these beaches for hundreds of years, and count their children, and their grandchildren, and their great grand children, and factor in a constant wave of tourists who have been coming here, year after year since the fifties, well I guess it adds up. Do you really think they are going to accept your point of view because it comes from you? My point is simple, you can yell and scream and order people to stand down, but it just makes you look like angry buffoon and no one is going to listen to you anyway.

Sorry, but my statements have all been facts. Such as...
CU doctrine was born in Florida in 1974, NOT “since before we were born”. See what I did there? Presented a fact. Not an opinion. So the title of my original post speaks factually to your very point. We all came here for the same reason. Our kids, grandkids, and great grandkids have always enjoyed the unique environment. The facts in this thread speak for themselves. AND ARE STILL UNDISPUTED. What I own, or don’t own, doesn’t change the facts. If you believe this disrespectful carnival show is good for our community, feel free. I spent today on a private beach that IS NOT MINE with many other strangers, visitors, people who came down to enjoy the day. Except for those waiting to shield their children from violent naked protesters carrying CU flags threatening to ruin their vacation. Not the same as a 1970’s Seagrove, sorry, fact. If you don’t think that will ruin the 30A legacy, then carry on your misplaced hate for a few homeowners. I choose to respect those who are interested in maintaining our 30A legacy, not destroying it through true misplaced greed, greed of someone else’s property.

It’s simple, some believe title was issued to property that should never be private and our judicial system will determine who is right. All your blustery and whining won’t change the fact we have a long established mechanism in this country to settle these types of disputes.

Reggie, bfo's etal I appreciate your facts and civility but I think you are missing something. Maybe that something is in the definition of the "legacy of 30A". Maybe your definition is different. You don't seem to accept that people have different perspectives, different definitions and well are just different. I understand why you are fed up with emotional outburst, propaganda and the lack of respect for your perspective. No matter what the facts are regarding CU doctrine and it's legality there is a higher power called the doctrine of good behavior, fairness and equality. Well, it should be the higher power because it is just. Both sides of this issue and most issues begin to lose sight of this powerful doctrine when promoting an agenda. Your agenda is that you worked hard for the money that allowed you to buy beach front property and pay the taxes on that property and the Constitution gives you the power to protect that property. Okay so now I must ask you a question and the answer is very important. Do you think that our economic system is fair to all people? This is not a question that you can answer quickly. It requires a lot of honest reflection not just a quick response to justify with "I worked hard" or "I worked harder than those who want to use the beach behind my house" and I have the Constitution on my side. Even if you do have the Constitution on your side you have to admit that the reason we have a Country is because of oppressive power. Money is power. So if you don't want the people to envy, resent or even hate your success it might be better to go back to the doctrine of good behavior, fairness and equality. I get it, the side that opposes you on this issue has either forgotten how to behave or relaxes good behavior in order to promote their agenda. I have posted on other threads and I can personally verify the disrespect and hatred from that side. My point is that both sides are wrong to fight fire with fire. I am not disputing your facts. I am not disputing why you chose to fight the agenda from those who believe in CU doctrine. BUT I am disputing the belief that you earned the right to keep ALL people off the beach behind your house because you earned that right from an economic system that is not fair to all people. The history of Country supports the fact that the people will eventually rebel against abusive power. It is better to use your power to promote a sense of sharing the beach (with rules of good behavior) remembering that building on those sand dunes already restricts the views of our beautiful natural resource which damages that very resource. If you practice the doctrine of good behavior you do not have to feel guilty of anything because we all damage this planet by definition of consumption. The only way for us all to get along with each other and this planet is to only take what you need and give something back...

Take candy from a baby and you might get some sad babies.

Wah! Waaaaaah! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

ICYMI:
Motion to dismiss was filed on grounds that the county failed to identify “specific parcels of property” where “customary use affirmation is being sought”. The county’s current filing goes against previous determinations that customary use must be determined on a parcel by parcel basis....at least that’s my understanding all these years.

Talking about “greed”, the county wants it ALL and may perhaps get nothing.

ICYMI:
Motion to dismiss was filed on grounds that the county failed to identify “specific parcels of property” where “customary use affirmation is being sought”. The county’s current filing goes against previous determinations that customary use must be determined on a parcel by parcel basis....at least that’s my understanding all these years.

Talking about “greed”, the county wants it ALL and may perhaps get nothing.

I see the opposite. Owners with fat lawyers stringing it out unti the county quits. Seen it many times over the years by greedy people.

........Okay so now I must ask you a question and the answer is very important. Do you think that our economic system is fair to all people? This is not a question that you can answer quickly.

I can.

If you’re a capitalist and respect and believe what the Constitution guarantees each and every citizen of the United States - the answer is a simple YES.

If you’re a socialist, then the answer is obviously “not so much”.

Interesting that you have such idealistic views of society (I probably could even share a couple of beers with you). But what’s IRONIC, is that the same capitalist “pigs” are the ones who are pushing for customary use under the guise of public good.

Think about all that for a moment under the context of your post. I still am and truthfully have some mixed emotions regarding who really is attacking private property rights.

I can.

If you’re a capitalist and respect and believe what the Constitution guarantees each and every citizen of the United States - the answer is a simple YES.

If you’re a socialist, then the answer is obviously “not so much”.

Interesting that you have such idealistic views of society (I probably could even share a couple of beers with you). But what’s IRONIC, is that the same capitalist “pigs” are the ones who are pushing for customary use under the guise of public good.

Think about all that for a moment under the context of your post. I still am and truthfully have some mixed emotions regarding who really is attacking private property rights.

Life must be so wonderful for you with clear boxes to put everyone in.

I consider myself to be a realist. Capitalism is great but morality has to be built into it. We try to do it with rules but are currently failing at it as the Middle Class shrinks and the rich class grows along with the working poor class. Socialism does not work because creativity and sustainable growth is suppressed. Our political system has two all or nothing parties. If you believe that either party can solve all the problems in society then that is idealism. Division is because neither side is willing to compromise. The two sides fight over principle. Fighting leads to bitterness. Maybe we are too principled for our own good...

Taxes explained with beer (tax rates at time this was written, I guess):

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The 1st four men (the poorest) would pay nothing..
The 5th would pay $1.
The 6th would pay $3.
The 7th would pay $7.
The 8th would pay $12.
The 9th would pay $18.
The 10th man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar everyday and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
'Since you are all such good customers,' he said,
'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the 5th man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The 6th now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The 7th now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The 8th now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The 9th now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The 10th now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got one dollar out of the $20,' declared the 6th man.

He pointed to the 10th man,' but he got $10! ''Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the 5th man.

'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair he got ten times more than I!

'That's true!!' shouted the 7th man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?
The wealthy get all the breaks!

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all.
The system exploits the poor!

'The 9 men surrounded the 10th and beat him up. The next night the 10th man (the richest) didn't show up for drinks, so the 9 sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
The richest man had been paying for more than all the rest combined.

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, liberals and socialists everywhere, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
(based on an article by D. R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., Professor of Economics University of Georgia)

Good grief, this was a dumb comparison when Sanders delivered it from the WH podium and it’s even dumber for someone to use it again. Forbes did a good job explaining why government isn’t at all like beer maybe you should google it.

So here’s a confesssion.

We purchased a condo over 15 years ago. The building is a gulfront building with private deeded beach. Undisputed. And the amount of beach on a per unit basis, is very small in reality. We’ve had more issues internally. To be honest AFAIK, we have never had to kick off a public beach goer. Yes we asked a few people to leave who trespassed on our upland part of the property, using our walkover to access our private beach.

As I have mentioned before, there were no issues at that time regarding public access, because the public didn’t need to walk hundreds of feet from the public access to find a spot on our private beach. Life WAS good.

Fast forward to today and we all know the story. The county wants EVERYTHING as do many of you.

But us “mean, rich, greedy” BFOs are standing in the way.

BTW, our condo was purchased at just over $100k.

So maybe the mantra needs to be revised.....
“mean, not entitled to own the beach because they didn’t pay enough for it to begin with, greedy.....”

....Forbes did a good job explaining why government isn’t at all like beer maybe you should google it.

Yeah, I know. Beer leaves a much better after taste in your mouth.

Reggie, bfo's etal I appreciate your facts and civility but I think you are missing something. Maybe that something is in the definition of the "legacy of 30A". Maybe your definition is different. You don't seem to accept that people have different perspectives, different definitions and well are just different. I understand why you are fed up with emotional outburst, propaganda and the lack of respect for your perspective. No matter what the facts are regarding CU doctrine and it's legality there is a higher power called the doctrine of good behavior, fairness and equality. Well, it should be the higher power because it is just. Both sides of this issue and most issues begin to lose sight of this powerful doctrine when promoting an agenda. Your agenda is that you worked hard for the money that allowed you to buy beach front property and pay the taxes on that property and the Constitution gives you the power to protect that property. Okay so now I must ask you a question and the answer is very important. Do you think that our economic system is fair to all people? This is not a question that you can answer quickly. It requires a lot of honest reflection not just a quick response to justify with "I worked hard" or "I worked harder than those who want to use the beach behind my house" and I have the Constitution on my side. Even if you do have the Constitution on your side you have to admit that the reason we have a Country is because of oppressive power. Money is power. So if you don't want the people to envy, resent or even hate your success it might be better to go back to the doctrine of good behavior, fairness and equality. I get it, the side that opposes you on this issue has either forgotten how to behave or relaxes good behavior in order to promote their agenda. I have posted on other threads and I can personally verify the disrespect and hatred from that side. My point is that both sides are wrong to fight fire with fire. I am not disputing your facts. I am not disputing why you chose to fight the agenda from those who believe in CU doctrine. BUT I am disputing the belief that you earned the right to keep ALL people off the beach behind your house because you earned that right from an economic system that is not fair to all people. The history of Country supports the fact that the people will eventually rebel against abusive power. It is better to use your power to promote a sense of sharing the beach (with rules of good behavior) remembering that building on those sand dunes already restricts the views of our beautiful natural resource which damages that very resource. If you practice the doctrine of good behavior you do not have to feel guilty of anything because we all damage this planet by definition of consumption. The only way for us all to get along with each other and this planet is to only take what you need and give something back...

Well done! Thank you for the intelligent, linear thought with cause & effect logic. You, my friend, are a breath of fresh air. Quick answer to your question is no, I do not. There is indeed great socioeconomic imbalance with stacked decks based on many soft and hard variables. But hey, life is NOT FAIR! Regardless of how much we’d like, it never will be. And that’s actually a good thing. I’ve been at both extreme ends of that imbalance. I'd like nothing more than for you and I to carry this discussion forward in a vacuum and solve this together. Won't happen. So here's a reply...
I'm all about perspectives. My journey has been long and very, very, wide. Perception is reality, I've written reams on that. (Under my Pen Name) With sincere respect, you entirely missed on what you assumed is my agenda. Right of exclusion, yes, undeniably, it's Constitutional discipline. Unilaterally? No, not here. That WAS the 30A legacy, we all got along. But that's where the fuse was lit. Certain little wealthy persons with greedy personal agendas, who live behind gated security fortress & fences, hoarding their private beaches, whipping up a public frenzy against folks owning private beaches. Irony? Exploiting natural public greed for a neighbor's sand, wife, dog, or car is not a sustainable strategy. It collapses under the weight on either side of the fulcrum. Expecting one to pay a premium for any asset, regardless of public opinion, as long as there are laws governing the transaction, then reversing that ownership AND THE RIGHTS THAT OWNER HAS LAWFULLY ENJOYED, and reversing it without compensation, is either stealing, or government taking (same thing). The answer to your desire for a kinder more tolerable sharing culture is impossible when the public is deliberately misled by extreme activists unwilling to compromise and let the truth be known. When every CU proponent gives up his property to use by Native Americans, or allow your neighbors to commercially rent their houses for dollars, complete with using YOUR pool at no charge, then we can reach your Utopian existence. See how absurd that sounds?
For the record, you’re also wrong on your assumptions of my:
working hard for a beach house, my current wealth status, taking what I need, giving back, and most of all - my agenda. I have none. My purpose is to shed light on reality where heretofore there has been none, so that newly educated peeps can decide for themselves on which side of the CU issue they are most comfortable. Then they will realize that either way this journey ends, CU will destroy our 30A legacy.

Yeah, I know. Beer leaves a much better after taste in your mouth.

Truth leaves an even better aftertaste. Your post attempts to legitimize itself by claiming it was authored by D. R. Kamerschen but he claims he never wrote it. Before submitting something as fact next time do a simple fact check.

Contrary to Internet folklore, Dr. Kamerschen is NOT the author of “Tax Cuts: A Simple Lesson in Economics.” Additionally, he does NOT know who wrote it.

Dr. Kamerschen denial on his personal web page.

The beaches have always been shared, and the sand is not taxed so get real.

Another funny thing about facts is there is usually some kind of record. I also found it interesting in Dave's account of the waltonwatchdog.com blog. I understood that waltonwatchdog quit his blog then brought it back after Dave opened up the "can of worms" on this thread with inaccurate statements surrounding the incident and slandered James Lince once again. I think it is important to know what really happened. So go read the facts. Our community is better than slandering and demeaning each other. We can agree to disagree and discuss reasonably.

Just to clear any suspicions and conspiracy theories;
MRBS: 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.
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
LC Bane: Something doesn't feel right about this entire thread. Can't put my finger on it but it doesn't seem genuine for some reason. Reads more like a game of chess rather than a discussion. Lots of subtle taunts and manipulation.
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy


The return of SOWAL.COM
May 18, 2019
By James G. Lince

sowal.com has returned as a hot bed for CU debate - good to see it as sowal.com is the only public (not private aka "secret") forum in the new public square where the actual public not on any particular platform can see some of the CU activism that's taken place. However, the mob doesn't show itself on sowal.com - that can only be found on Facebook in the private Walton County Ideas for Visioning and Quality of Life page - that's where the mob lives and is fed daily red meat about evil greedy BFO's. But the return of sowal is positive and as much as it frosts poor Teresa's screen to see anyone go against the CU narrative, she has been a good sport.

Before the handful (well less than 30) of CU Agitators get any fresh ideas to open yet another false police report on me, James Lince...

I, James Lince have not posted on sowal.com since March 2018, when my account ("formosa64") was banned for being just too mean to David Rauschkolb. 100% fact. Formosa64's posts are still there on sowal.com anyone can search for them. Yep, that's me.

I certainly do read sowal.com as a member of the public and community. You don't need an account on sowal.com to read it, as it should be for any community site.

But, I, James Lince do not have an account on sowal.com, not under my name, or any anonymous name, I am not using anyone else's account, nor am I hacking into sowal.com. 100% fact.

For all you conspiracy types who really think it's just 30 or so people and most of the anti-CU activity has been by me (a pretty idiotic view given there are thousands against CU, factually documented in the county lawsuit)...I, James Lince am NOT Reggie Gaskins.

Let's repeat: I, James Lince have NOT and am NOT posting on sowal.com or Walton County Ideas for Visioning and Quality of Life under any account whatsoever. When you see a post from me, James Lince, it will have my name.

And again, I haven't been on Walton County Ideas for Visioning and Quality of Life since July, 2018 when I left on my own and started my own Facebook group. I'm not the one taking screen shots.

The beaches have always been shared, and the sand is not taxed so get real.

Then why does the Assistant State Attorney and Walton Sheriff have a 2015 Standard Operating Procedure for enforcing private property rights to exclusive enjoyment of their property, if the owner so chooses, and why do I keep getting those pesky property tax bills based on my title deed to the MHWL from the Walton Commissioners?

I'm going to try to say this in a really respectful manner. If your intentions were to change hearts and minds about who is responsible for the situation we are in, ...

The intentions are to ensure 4,500+ beachfront owners and those that support private property rights know what the facts are and are not about property rights and public customary use of private property.
To shine the light of verifiable information in an open forum on the facts of property rights and CU myths, misinformation, and ignorance. If you have alternative facts lets hear them. Questions have been asked about the ancient British historical doctrine of custom and it's many criteria. I have yet heard anyone address why they think 100 years is ancient use. That's not even as old as the English doctrine of custom is. Present quiet title facts no one has disputed. Show plat why Vizcaya has NEVER been a public beach and its Beach Access Easement is a pedestrian access to the foreshore only. Something maybe Daniel Ulhfelder could explain after his 3 staged for social medial trespass altercation with law enforcement?
For CU Myth Busters facts look here >> Florida Coastal Property Rights
WAVE FB for real vision in Walton >> Walton County WAVE

Then why does the Assistant State Attorney and Walton Sheriff have a 2015 Standard Operating Procedure for enforcing private property rights to exclusive enjoyment of their property, if the owner so chooses, and why do I keep getting those pesky property tax bills based on my title deed to the MHWL from the Walton Commissioners?

A successful CU court finding will eliminate those pesky tax bills and guess what, you will still be able to enjoy that portion of the beach and more because the public won’t be calling the sheriff to come kick you off.

A successful CU court finding will eliminate those pesky tax bills and guess what, you will still be able to enjoy that portion of the beach and more because the public won’t be calling the sheriff to come kick you off.

Wow. Did I miss something in the current law? A Customary Use finding by the courts will change tax law? Please provide your reference for that information.

Wow. Did I miss something in the current law? A Customary Use finding by the courts will change tax law? Please provide your reference for that information.

Referring to portion of beach affected by CU.

Who knows anything about some guy in handcuffs on the beach Saturday near Sugar Dunes? Was it for trespassing on the private beach? Did a BFO finally get a trespassing arrest?

Referring to portion of beach affected by CU.

Where in the current law about Customary Use is there anything about taxes? Just trying to make sense of your statment.