Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

......The only thing you have contributed here is perceived grievances .....

My only "perceived grievance" on a personal level is a result from Daniel Uhlfelder - in effect calling me a Nazi because I (we - over 600 parcel DEFENDANTS) elect to fight for our private property rights ("and that his Jewish grandparents immigrated to this country because of oppression like this"). That's a lot of hostility being projected by a supposed respected member of our community and a PRINCIPAL spokesperson and attorney for customary use.

Oh, maybe it's my imagination, but didn't Daniel's cohort JUST POST on this thread? You know, the one that won't engage me. Could he not speak on behalf of Daniel and/or FBFA, since it was Daniel, a Florida Beaches for All spokesperson?

This is the last post regarding Damiel's Nazi really disgusting analogy. I think Reggie's thread title is more than obviously still spot on.

You keep referring to the nazi comment that was used in a very meaningful, heartfelt and personal way that you apparently can't comprehend so you choose to keep beating up Daniel here publicly.

Now I get it. It's ok to refer to someone as a Nazi as long as it's heartfelt. Sad.

..... He's not here so move on.

Trump's not here either. Doesn't stop all the Trump bashing.

So sad...

My only "perceived grievance" on a personal level is a result from Daniel Uhlfelder - in effect calling me a Nazi because I (we - over 600 parcel DEFENDANTS) elect to fight for our private property rights ("and that his Jewish grandparents immigrated to this country because of oppression like this"). That's a lot of hostility being projected by a supposed respected member of our community and a PRINCIPAL spokesperson and attorney for customary use.

Oh, maybe it's my imagination, but didn't Daniel's cohort JUST POST on this thread? You know, the one that won't engage me. Could he not speak on behalf of Daniel and/or FBFA, since it was Daniel, a Florida Beaches for All spokesperson?

This is the last post regarding Damiel's Nazi really disgusting analogy. I think Reggie's thread title is more than obviously still spot on.


Now I get it. It's ok to refer to someone as a Nazi as long as it's heartfelt. Sad.

Trump's not here either. Doesn't stop all the Trump bashing.

Your outrage is so outrageous.

Seriously don't take his comment so seriously. Because the comment was foolish. Defending your stance by hanging your hat on that comment makes you look foolish.

That's hilarious; good point JodiFL. Here you have the same 6 or 8 people talking in circles in this echo chamber of a thread. 20,000 views. Ha ha.

It’s an echo chamber because their are no alternative facts for why public customary use of private property should be legal based on the 7? ancient English common law criteria of custom, no credibility, no substance. Just deflection, made up fake "toxicity index", empty rhetoric, name calling, and shout downs. Justify the doctrine of public customary use of private property, other than, I believe it. Why? Based on what verifiable information? Crickets so far. At least dispute the property rights facts with your own alternative facts.

Talking about credibility of facts. Here is a simple Yes or No question; is there any Seaside business/LLC, excluding the original property owner, Seaside Community Development Corporation and Seaside HOAs, that own private property in Seaside seaward from the beach top of the dunes, the dune walkovers, to the MHWL?

Is the Seaside Community Development Corporation intervening against Walton Commissioner’s litigation against 650+ other private beachfront owners to affirm public customary use of private property?

I won’t hold my breath waiting for a response from anyone as LC Bane suggested I not do on page 17.
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

My only "perceived grievance" on a personal level is a result from Daniel Uhlfelder - in effect calling me a Nazi because I (we - over 600 parcel DEFENDANTS) elect to fight for our private property rights ("and that his Jewish grandparents immigrated to this country because of oppression like this"). That's a lot of hostility being projected by a supposed respected member of our community and a PRINCIPAL spokesperson and attorney for customary use.

Oh, maybe it's my imagination, but didn't Daniel's cohort JUST POST on this thread? You know, the one that won't engage me. Could he not speak on behalf of Daniel and/or FBFA, since it was Daniel, a Florida Beaches for All spokesperson?

This is the last post regarding Damiel's Nazi really disgusting analogy. I think Reggie's thread title is more than obviously still spot on.


Now I get it. It's ok to refer to someone as a Nazi as long as it's heartfelt. Sad.

Trump's not here either. Doesn't stop all the Trump bashing.

Good point. Speaking of nazis and political bashing, perhaps this whole discussion belongs in the lounge.

Your outrage is so outrageous.

Seriously don't take his comment so seriously. Because the comment was foolish. Defending your stance by hanging your hat on that comment makes you look foolish.

I cannot agree more. People get called Nazis fairly frequently. If you are a big person, and you know you are morally right, you should be able to laugh it off. If you a small person, I guess you let it fester, and you proclaim your outrage ad nauseum.

That's hilarious; good point JodiFL. Here you have the same 6 or 8 people talking in circles in this echo chamber of a thread. 20,000 views. Ha ha. Estimate 19,700 are of them reading their own stuff and replying to their own stuff. I would not exactly call this a "high engagement" thread by any stretch of the imagination. Reminds me of someone with 42 twitter followers. Where are the 6500 adoring fans representing and appreciating the viewpoints expressed? Another echo chamber there as well. "Just a handful."

Mr. Rauschkolb, if engaging on this thread is so insignificant, then why are you?

An 'echo chamber' is a metaphorical description of a situation in which beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed system.

Sure. It's a catchy little term to throw around by those who like to continuously speak in false narratives to the uninformed masses, but the term certainly does not not apply here.

Why? Because this forum is anything but closed. In fact it's very open to the public. Reggie opened this discussion asking some honest, serious, heart felt, thought provoking questions. Many informative facts followed by others (who must remain anonymous thanks to the documented intimidation tactics such as doxxing and staged video ambush by the agitators. That's right. Pro-property rights advocates are fearful of speaking out or even "following" similar groups because of such effective intimidation targeting spurred by a vicious social media campaign.)

And, where are all those opposing replies and answers to the questions presented in this long thread? After 20,000 views? And it's a very hot topic. If there was indeed any factual opposition, it surely would be presented here. Resoundingly so.

Dave, unless you have some insider knowledge of the specific metrics of this platform, perhaps you should reconsider your assumption about those 20,000 views. You might just be wrong. Perhaps they are actually representative of a silent majority now absorbing all these facts that have not been refuted. Not once.

Merely "calling" a fact "alternative" is not good enough for the majority of the educated professionals in our area. (I'm referring to the educated professionals who actually spend money in the upscale restaurants and shops advertised on this site. The ones who are very busy with their professions and giving back time serving the community and don't have time to be keyboard warriors.) Oppositional so-called "replies" filled with only emotional opinions or mere repetitive, disrespectful graveside memes by a known local troll seriously turn off the educated reader from even considering to engage here, so you can't really blame them.

The lack of factual opposition is indicative of a silent readership now scratching their heads, wondering if they have been bamboozled from the beginning by orchestrated social media campaign that has been quite misleading, built on emotion, not facts. And certainly not sound principles of public policy. Perhaps there is a silent majority who are having their eyes now opened, in that "lightbulb -Ah Ha" moment, as they realize the deep and revelatory hypocrisy of the instigators and agitators of the customary use battle.

Overdevelopment greed is what is truly driving the CU bus. Perhaps there is a silent majority who are now actively re-evaluating this whole customary use legal battle. A battle that will accomplish nothing over the next decade other than create deep painful social divisions and needlessly cost millions of taxpayer dollars. Funds that could have been spent on so many community amenities to the delightful benefit of our county's citizens and visitors. So many other wonderful ways we could have spent those millions of dollars. Oh, let me count the ways.

But development greed has successfully orchestrated a propaganda machine to convince a community to actually foot the bill on their behalf, for the sake of more overdevelopment. Slick move by the power brokers.

I genuinely feel sorry for the good people who have joined the CU bandwagon thinking that this is all on behalf of their grandchildren. No. It's about turning over the control of the commercialization of the beaches from private home owners to a county government. A local government not exactly known for its reputation for honesty when it comes to development and commerce.

The silly point you were trying to fabricate here Dave is completely without merit, and obviously yet another attempted distraction from the very serious issue at hand that we were trying to openly discuss in this forum. It surprises me that you think so many people would be fooled by those cotton candy words of yours. Go ahead. Enjoy your frivolous fun and make light of this dreadful community division that you have single-handedly spearheaded over the years, causing a great deal of personal pain for thousands of very innocent people on both sides of the CU battle. It's not funny to us at all.

Dave, if the facts presented here in this open public forum are incorrect, then where are your 6500 adoring fans presenting factual corrections?

Or maybe you can shed some light personally, Dave. Tell us just one fact that was presented in this thread that is not actually true. Just one. Go ahead. I'll wait.

It's pretty simple, Dave.
Renaming a truth chamber an "echo chamber" doesn't make it so.

Mr. Rauschkolb, if engaging on this thread is so insignificant, then why are you?

An 'echo chamber' is a metaphorical description of a situation in which beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed system.

Sure. It's a catchy little term to throw around by those who like to continuously speak in false narratives to the uninformed masses, but the term certainly does not not apply here.

Why? Because this forum is anything but closed. In fact it's very open to the public. Reggie opened this discussion asking some honest, serious, heart felt, thought provoking questions. Many informative facts followed by others (who must remain anonymous thanks to the documented intimidation tactics such as doxxing and staged video ambush by the agitators. That's right. Pro-property rights advocates are fearful of speaking out or even "following" similar groups because of such effective intimidation targeting spurred by a vicious social media campaign.)

And, where are all those opposing replies and answers to the questions presented in this long thread? After 20,000 views? And it's a very hot topic. If there was indeed any factual opposition, it surely would be presented here. Resoundingly so.

Dave, unless you have some insider knowledge of the specific metrics of this platform, perhaps you should reconsider your assumption about those 20,000 views. You might just be wrong. Perhaps they are actually representative of a silent majority now absorbing all these facts that have not been refuted. Not once.

Merely "calling" a fact "alternative" is not good enough for the majority of the educated professionals in our area. (I'm referring to the educated professionals who actually spend money in the upscale restaurants and shops advertised on this site. The ones who are very busy with their professions and giving back time serving the community and don't have time to be keyboard warriors.) Oppositional so-called "replies" filled with only emotional opinions or mere repetitive, disrespectful graveside memes by a known local troll seriously turn off the educated reader from even considering to engage here, so you can't really blame them.

The lack of factual opposition is indicative of a silent readership now scratching their heads, wondering if they have been bamboozled from the beginning by orchestrated social media campaign that has been quite misleading, built on emotion, not facts. And certainly not sound principles of public policy. Perhaps there is a silent majority who are having their eyes now opened, in that "lightbulb -Ah Ha" moment, as they realize the deep and revelatory hypocrisy of the instigators and agitators of the customary use battle.

Overdevelopment greed is what is truly driving the CU bus. Perhaps there is a silent majority who are now actively re-evaluating this whole customary use legal battle. A battle that will accomplish nothing over the next decade other than create deep painful social divisions and needlessly cost millions of taxpayer dollars. Funds that could have been spent on so many community amenities to the delightful benefit of our county's citizens and visitors. So many other wonderful ways we could have spent those millions of dollars. Oh, let me count the ways.

But development greed has successfully orchestrated a propaganda machine to convince a community to actually foot the bill on their behalf, for the sake of more overdevelopment. Slick move by the power brokers.

I genuinely feel sorry for the good people who have joined the CU bandwagon thinking that this is all on behalf of their grandchildren. No. It's about turning over the control of the commercialization of the beaches from private home owners to a county government. A local government not exactly known for its reputation for honesty when it comes to development and commerce.

The silly point you were trying to fabricate here Dave is completely without merit, and obviously yet another attempted distraction from the very serious issue at hand that we were trying to openly discuss in this forum. It surprises me that you think so many people would be fooled by those cotton candy words of yours. Go ahead. Enjoy your frivolous fun and make light of this dreadful community division that you have single-handedly spearheaded over the years, causing a great deal of personal pain for thousands of very innocent people on both sides of the CU battle. It's not funny to us at all.

Dave, if the facts presented here in this open public forum are incorrect, then where are your 6500 adoring fans presenting factual corrections?

Or maybe you can shed some light personally, Dave. Tell us just one fact that was presented in this thread that is not actually true. Just one. Go ahead. I'll wait.

It's pretty simple, Dave.
Renaming a truth chamber an "echo chamber" doesn't make it so.

Not sure what your problem is with Dave but it is obviously personal and has no place here. Axe grinding is not allowed and not tolerated. You have crossed the line from attacking the issue to attacking a forum member which is not allowed. Keep on topic and stop the insults. You discredit those on your side of the issue.

Not sure what your problem is with Dave but it is obviously personal and has no place here. Axe grinding is not allowed and not tolerated. You have crossed the line from attacking the issue to attacking a forum member which is not allowed. Keep on topic and stop the insults. You discredit those on your side of the issue.

It's interesting that people interpret questions to Mr. Rauschkolb as a personal attack. Since he is both the self and publicly proclaimed leader of the customary use "fight", he is the logical person to answer questions and/or refute the facts presented here. The buck often stops with leaders of an organization and they are typically the ones to speak for said organization. Is asking him to address questions unreasonable?

If, on the other hand, those who are clearly on the CU side of the issues simply don't want to hear anything from the other side, just say so or ignore the posts. If SOWAL doesn't want to hear from property rights people on this site, then say that. If this is an open forum, then maybe if we all open our minds a bit, maybe, just maybe, we can learn something from each other. People on both sides deserve respect. It's just not that hard.

It's interesting that people interpret questions to Mr. Rauschkolb as a personal attack. Since he is both the self and publicly proclaimed leader of the customary use "fight", he is the logical person to answer questions and/or refute the facts presented here. The buck often stops with leaders of an organization and they are typically the ones to speak for said organization. Is asking him to address questions unreasonable?

If, on the other hand, those who are clearly on the CU side of the issues simply don't want to hear anything from the other side, just say so or ignore the posts. If SOWAL doesn't want to hear from property rights people on this site, then say that. If this is an open forum, then maybe if we all open our minds a bit, maybe, just maybe, we can learn something from each other. People on both sides deserve respect. It's just not that hard.

Calling someone out in an aggressive way on the internet is like standing in their front yard and yelling for them to come outside. Would you do that? Probably would be more polite and productive face to face.

That's hilarious; good point JodiFL. Here you have the same 6 or 8 people talking in circles in this echo chamber of a thread. 20,000 views. Ha ha. Estimate 19,700 are of them reading their own stuff and replying to their own stuff. I would not exactly call this a "high engagement" thread by any stretch of the imagination. Reminds me of someone with 42 twitter followers. Where are the 6500 adoring fans representing and appreciating the viewpoints expressed? Another echo chamber there as well. "Just a handful."

Calling someone out in an aggressive way on the internet is like standing in their front yard and yelling for them to come outside. Would you do that? Probably would be more polite and productive face to face.

As they hide in the shadows behind their anonymous identities. It’s really kind of hard to take any of these people seriously if they’re not willing to speak as themselves. I take responsibility for every word and action I say and do. I never even thought for a second to represent anyone but myself when I got on this forum so many years ago.

As they hide in the shadows behind their anonymous identities. It’s really kind of hard to take any of these people seriously if they’re not willing to speak as themselves. I take responsibility for every word and action I say and do. I never even thought for a second to represent anyone but myself when I got on this forum so many years ago.

Are you referring to Lake View Too, bob bob, poppaj, Dawn, EZ4144, MRBS, Duchess, Jenksy, L.C. Bane, mputnal, buster, Leader of the Banned, Emerald Drifter, ShallowsNole, or jodiFL on this thread? How do you know Jim Tucker, James Bentwood, Pam Hicks are not pseudonyms? They are not in the Walton tax rolls used to look up Reggie Gaskins
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

Besides who would want to subject themselves to the CU anti-social media vitriol like with James Linch and many others and staged beach altercations like at Vizcaya and other private properties?

Calling someone out in an aggressive way on the internet is like standing in their front yard and yelling for them to come outside. Would you do that? Probably would be more polite and productive face to face.

The point of Auburn Fan post IMO is about CREDIBILITY. In an open forum if someone posts a fact, opinion, or belief shouldn’t the open forum members be able to discuss the post and person’s point and credibility and why? Shouldn’t the person who posted the original opinion be accountable for the post if questioned and name be used too if someone disagrees and explains why?

Because you ally with the original post-er and do not agree with the someone questioning the original post by the post-er; that raises to the level of “axe grinding” and “attacking” and should be censored? There has been far worse attacking property rights advocates on this thread alone.

Auburn Fan questioned the post-er's analogy and credibility of the original post [Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy] and why, and went on to express that developer over-development and Walton Commissioners complicity allowing it was the counter point.

If someone makes a public statement like; “I personally am a beachfront owner in Seaside with my restaurant” and posts it in the public domain; but is NOT a beachfront owner, why shouldn’t that person’s credibility be challenged and name used so we know who is being questioned and they can respond to the challenge if they so choose?

Questioning credibility of the posts and those who post here should not be censored. If you are questioning how the credibility of a post is made? Heck some people claim it is common to call people Nazis all the time and they should just laugh it off.

Are you referring to Lake View Too, bob bob, poppaj, Dawn, EZ4144, MRBS, Duchess, Jenksy, L.C. Bane, mputnal, buster, Leader of the Banned, Emerald Drifter, ShallowsNole, or jodiFL on this thread? How do you know Jim Tucker, James Bentwood, Pam Hicks are not pseudonyms? They are not in the Walton tax rolls used to look up Reggie Gaskins
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

Besides who would want to subject themselves to the CU anti-social media vitriol like with James Linch and staged beach altercations like at Vizcaya?

Mine is my real name. I have said what I believe in a respectful manner. I do understand why some use pseudonyms but at the same time I think part of the problem with hiding behind one is you are personally NOT ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR WORDS. I could say and do some outrageous things behind a mask. I may not be as polite behind a screen name and I think that is part of the issue here. Just my opinion.

Mine is my real name. I have said what I believe in a respectful manner. I do understand why some use pseudonyms but at the same time I think part of the problem with hiding behind one is you are personally NOT ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR WORDS. I could say and do some outrageous things behind a mask. I may not be as polite behind a screen name and I think that is part of the issue here. Just my opinion.

Bob, do you really understand? Have you seen the vitriol and the intentional altercations that the beachfront owners the Goodwins have endured? The Goodwins even prevailed in court to protect their property rights. If you believe all the lies about Huckabee I have beachfront for $400 to sell you. Have you read the anti-social media and misinformation about beachfront property owners?

I'll say it again why would any beachfront property owner want to be subjected lies and anti-social media just because they own private beach property? I'm one of the 650+ owners intervening in Walton's CU of private property litigation.

I think your point is well taken for CU of private property advocates who do not have any real-property skin in the game and support of the social media masses.

GUEST COLUMN: Walton County couple speaks up for property owners' First Amendment rights
First Amendment & Property Rights Violation in Florida -- Forbes Article | National Review
Countering Public Officials Who Respect Neither Free Speech Nor Property Rights

Are you referring to Lake View Too, bob bob, poppaj, Dawn, EZ4144, MRBS, Duchess, Jenksy, L.C. Bane, mputnal, buster, Leader of the Banned, Emerald Drifter, ShallowsNole, or jodiFL on this thread? How do you know Jim Tucker, James Bentwood, Pam Hicks are not pseudonyms? They are not in the Walton tax rolls used to look up Reggie Gaskins
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

Besides who would want to subject themselves to the CU anti-social media vitriol like with James Linch and many others and staged beach altercations like at Vizcaya and other private properties?

So scary you are. Keep up the great research.
There sure are a lot of silent accounts since gaskins was banned. Hmmmmm
#sockpuppets

Bob, do you really understand? Have you seen the vitriol and the intentional altercations that the beachfront owners the Goodwins have endured? The Goodwins even prevailed in court to protect their property rights. If you believe all the lies about Huckabee I have beachfront for $400 to sell you. Have you read the anti-social media and misinformation about beachfront property owners? I'll say it again why would any beachfront property owner want to be subjected lies and anti-social media just because they own private beach property? I'm one of the 650+ owners intervening in Walton's CU of private property litigation.

GUEST COLUMN: Walton County couple speaks up for property owners' First Amendment rights
First Amendment & Property Rights Violation in Florida -- Forbes Article | National Review
Countering Public Officials Who Respect Neither Free Speech Nor Property Rights

And because I expressed my view under my own name we have deflected as to why some on both sides won't put their name to something. Kind of hard to own your words when we won't put our name on them. You brought up the Goodwins, who I have met and have respect for. Although I may disagree with them I won't trash them for their views. The arguements here have not changed my mind and I have made clear that the courts will decide the issue. I believe because of the screen names it is easier to be inhospitable than being friendly. Although not a fan of Mr Lince he at least owns his words because if I am correct he uses his real name, I can respectfully disagree with him.

And because I expressed my view under my own name we have deflected as to why some on both sides won't put their name to something. Kind of hard to own your words when we won't put our name on them. You brought up the Goodwins, who I have met and have respect for. Although I may disagree with them I won't trash them for their views. The arguements here have not changed my mind and I have made clear that the courts will decide the issue. I believe because of the screen names it is easier to be inhospitable than being friendly. Although not a fan of Mr Lince he at least owns his words because if I am correct he uses his real name, I can respectfully disagree with him.

You are one of the very few exceptions on-line of advocates for public customary use of private property who are respectful. Thank you Bob Wells.

I'd still be interested in a civil discourse somewhere else on what basis; legal, just believe it, or other, you advocate for public customary use of private property.

That's hilarious; good point JodiFL. Here you have the same 6 or 8 people talking in circles in this echo chamber of a thread. 20,000 views. Ha ha. Estimate 19,700 are of them reading their own stuff and replying to their own stuff. I would not exactly call this a "high engagement" thread by any stretch of the imagination. Reminds me of someone with 42 twitter followers. Where are the 6500 adoring fans representing and appreciating the viewpoints expressed? Another echo chamber there as well. "Just a handful."

Dave, your online posturing is great for the masses. Those that think for themselves understand the manipulation involved in your masked and feigned worry about identities. FBFA and Divisioning followers attack persons into shadows by contacting their employers, customers, neighbors, and family to torch their personal life. It’s happened now a dozen times. Reggie is a perfect example. You couldn’t argue with his logic. You couldn’t embarrass him in his home. So y’all silenced the most prolific poster of Sowal by banning his truth from the very page that Sowal collects ad revenue increase from by his hand. Brilliant display of honest conversation. Not very much. Let us in the community know when you’re ready to have a conversation to support your CU ideas withOUT diversions of irrelevance as you’ve repeated here. Come with facts please.

I've personally known Reggie for years and he's not James Lince.
If you knew him personally like I do, you would truly ashamed for a banning him! Reggie is as upstanding as they come.

P.S.
And by the way, if anyone wants to refute Dave on is 10 to 12 people number, remind him he predicted only 30 owners would defend the lawsuit against them. When in fact there are well over 1000 individual homeowners defending their property against the attack by the county. So his predictive power leaves a little bit to be desired based on his historical performance.

So scary you are. Keep up the great research.
There sure are a lot of silent accounts since gaskins was banned. Hmmmmm
#sockpuppets

Ok, so I am new to this forum and how it works. I don't understand why Gaskins was banned for stating his opinions like everyone else on this thread. And I really don't understand why there is a problem with anonymous names since the majority of people seem to use them. Can someone please tell me what Gaskins did to qualify for banning? Alot of people here have bashed others, called people names, but yet they are still here commenting. Do you have to be in a special group to have protection from being banned? Just asking so I know if this is really a forum for me. PS I may not comment, but I do read the thread. So just because people are silent, it doesn't mean we aren't here reading and learning from the discussion.

Bob, do you really understand? Have you seen the vitriol and the intentional altercations that the beachfront owners the Goodwins have endured? The Goodwins even prevailed in court to protect their property rights. If you believe all the lies about Huckabee I have beachfront for $400 to sell you. Have you read the anti-social media and misinformation about beachfront property owners?

I'll say it again why would any beachfront property owner want to be subjected lies and anti-social media just because they own private beach property? I'm one of the 650+ owners intervening in Walton's CU of private property litigation.

I think your point is well taken for CU of private property advocates who do not have any real-property skin in the game and support of the social media masses.

GUEST COLUMN: Walton County couple speaks up for property owners' First Amendment rights
First Amendment & Property Rights Violation in Florida -- Forbes Article | National Review
Countering Public Officials Who Respect Neither Free Speech Nor Property Rights

It is absolutely ridiculous for anyone to assert or imply that any of the vitriol directed at any beachfront owner is coming from me or the board members of FBFA. To imply that you people are hiding behind pseudonyms because you’re worried about something that I am doing or may do is outrageous. The conspiracy theories abound here and elsewhere. I do not lie nor do I tolerate liars. To imply that we are staging conflicts is also ludicrous. I can't control any person who verbally attacks Beachfront Owners in any social media platform, forum or on the beach. And Fishing Fool, or whatever your name is, I have had zero to do with anyone being banned in the 18 years I have been on this forum.

My position is of what most people's opinion is on this issue and that is to say the beaches are public use and they always have been regardless of "owned sand." The volumes of conjecture and analysis is impressive on this forum to dispute that but in the end our beaches will be public use or they will not. Two differing opinions; it distills down to that one issue.

I choose not to engage with anonymous people who attack me because I prefer to give all of you the least amount of material you will invariably use to try to twist and turn against me and our efforts. I operate in the realm of respect. Those who disrespect me get very little response or respect in return; I don't resort to nastiness I just turn my back to you and focus my good energies on the task at hand.

One thing I will tell you all. We will not be intimidated by anyone and we will continue our efforts to ensure the beachgoing public may use every grain of sand on our beaches. We will continue to educate anyone and everyone willing to hear the story of what has brought us to this travesty playing out daily on our beaches. By Judge or by a vote of Floridians we will see this through to the public's shared use of the sand for all. And this goes way, way beyond me and our community. Leaders are being woken up to this all over our Nation. For Beach Front Owners to have the audacity to claim any of our shared, Nation's beach borders are private and may exclude the public is simply wrong on too many levels to count.

Every word I have written in numerous published articles I stand by. My positions are clear and there for all to see in my own hand and in my own name. Property values near the beaches are higher because of their close proximity to the beach. Beachfront owners pay for the view and convenience of having the water steps from their homes. Homes closer but not on the beach have little less value because of the convenience of having the water and beach a short walk from their homes. Homes that require a short drive are less valuable for that reason and homes that require a longer drive are worth less. So, values both quality of life and financial values are tied directly to the shared beach and those homes closest to the beach. Shared is the operative word and beach is THE place that determines value on all levels. That is to say balance and shared value for all. Beachfront owners have the advantage of view and the closest proximity. So, if the real issue is behavior let's work together to reign in the behavior, set some rules and begin sharing the beaches again; all of the beaches again from dune line to water line. If that is the compromise then that is the only compromise I can see. Fix the behavior and share the beaches. I am full of ideas. But once you start talking property rights and applying them to a beach and excluding people from that beach you have lost me. Any takers?

So scary you are. Keep up the great research.
There sure are a lot of silent accounts since gaskins was banned. Hmmmmm
#sockpuppets

Reggie was banned?!!!!???

Does he even know?

How did you and Lakeview Two find out?

Why was he banned?

What rule did he break?

Surely that was not an easy decision for the administrators to make, considering the thousands of extra views he could have brought in over the years, views are necessary to attract the advertisers.

"The handful of influential beachfront owners stopping beach nourishment was the beginning of the end of customary use. This was the first step in their plan to deny us the use of our beaches."
Dave Rauschkolb June 5, 2019


"I've made a good argument against re-nourisment in the Sun, it's a waste of time and money and in the end our beaches will never be the same" -
David Rauschkolb May 7, 2015

"I wholeheartedly agree Dr. Leatherman!!"
Dave Rauschkolb May 7, 2015


Direct quotes from Dr. Leatherman's study:

“The irony in this misguided Walton County project is that under the guise of strengthening, widening or nourishing area beaches, this plan would have the actual effect of eroding its spectacular beauty, timeless appeal and inherent economic value.”

“My findings lead to the conclusion that the project is misguided, counterproductive and harmful to the matchless nature of the sugar-white sand that makes these beaches so outstanding.”

“It is my professional opinion that the nourishment project would be harmful to Walton County’s most alluring resource – its magnificent beaches.”

"The handful of influential beachfront owners stopping beach nourishment was the beginning of the end of customary use. This was the first step in their plan to deny us the use of our beaches."
Dave Rauschkolb June 5, 2019


"I've made a good argument against re-nourisment in the Sun, it's a waste of time and money and in the end our beaches will never be the same" -
David Rauschkolb May 7, 2015

"I wholeheartedly agree Dr. Leatherman!!"
Dave Rauschkolb May 7, 2015


Direct quotes from Dr. Leatherman's study:

“The irony in this misguided Walton County project is that under the guise of strengthening, widening or nourishing area beaches, this plan would have the actual effect of eroding its spectacular beauty, timeless appeal and inherent economic value.”

“My findings lead to the conclusion that the project is misguided, counterproductive and harmful to the matchless nature of the sugar-white sand that makes these beaches so outstanding.”

“It is my professional opinion that the nourishment project would be harmful to Walton County’s most alluring resource – its magnificent beaches.”

My beliefs on beach nourishment is well documented and my reasons were that the sand quality would not be the same and for the environment and I did not think it works. The plan played out by beachfront owners had everything to do with securing private beaches. I never imagined they would ever succeed. And stopping beach nourishment WAS indeed the first step in their plan to deny the use of our beaches. There I said it again and I will say it again if you wish. Happy to connect the dots all they way to the beginning.

My beliefs on beach nourishment is well documented and my reasons were that the sand quality would not be the same and for the environment and I did not think it works. The plan played out by beachfront owners had everything to do with securing private beaches. I never imagined they would ever succeed. And stopping beach nourishment WAS indeed the first step in their plan to deny the use of our beaches. There I said it again and I will say it again if you wish. Happy to connect the dots all they way to the beginning.

Here you go Auburn Fan or whoever you are. My reasons were not of course to keep the beaches private, I did not think beach nourishment works. I am not a scientist though that's for sure. Would you like for me to supply all the email addresses from the email trail I copied it to? Oh, they are in the public record as most of these communications were with County Officials. Easy to connect the dots.




Seaside Times Article Winter 2014/15



By Dave Rauschkolb



You know the old adage that “you can’t sell sand on the beach” appears to be coming true right here on Walton County beaches through a proposed “beach nourishment project” The hefty price of $170,197,000 will be spread over the coming decades once every 10 years. Half the price tag of the project will be paid by the state and federal government and half will be paid by the county with bed tax revenue and loans.



This tidy package is brought to you by the hard and persistent work of several well meaning people and agencies. It’s a seemingly insurmountable task of gigantically bureaucratic proportions yet it seems it is going to happen. The questions I have are: Do we do it just because we can? And, will it REALLY make a difference in protecting our beaches and property?



I’ve spent nearly 30 years in Walton County and have not evacuated for all 30 years of hurricanes except one, hurricane “Opal”. Call me crazy but I like to surf those storms. In the thick of it I always stay in a very large concrete building not my house; I’m not that crazy.



Many times I have observed storm surges, during the lowest, middle and highest tidal surges of the storm. The power of a hurricane storm surge is incredible, terrifying really. It’s hard to imagine the entire Gulf 12 feet higher than it normally is. The average tidal surge I have observed is 6 to 12 feet. Basically, a 12 foot storm surge rises up to the height of half of the existing bluff behind Seaside. Every wave, once it reaches the bluff claws at the sandy bluff like a steam shovel.



Every storm this is what I measured: A full 12 foot storm surge takes about 8 to 10 feet of the old, hard packed bluff every 3 to 4 hours. The new sand that had been pushed up as a “cosmetic fix” after past storms washed away at this rate: 8 to 10 feet of newly planted sand was gone in first 45 minutes of the tidal surge. I was astounded at how the new sand just vaporized in a very short time.



The “Storm damage and restoration project” is planning on raising the height of the beach by pumping a 50 foot berm of sand at the bottom of the existing bluff/dunes and tapering the higher beach to a new further out waterline. New dunes will be created and a higher, larger beach will result.



After all this money is spent ONE storm with a 12 foot tidal surge of 3 to 5 hours could wash away the entire beach nourishment project. The new sand simply goes very quickly because it is not as hard packed as the old sand. To make matters worse the tidal surge rises above any new berms, dunes further accelerating the rate of erosion of the new sand. Basically the newly pumped sand will be all underwater and there is a powerful rip current that washes west to Destin and later east to Panama City after the wind shift. Unfortunately the offshore sand is a darker color than our pristine white beach sand.



The other issue is this: In most of Walton county we are blessed with a high bluff. If the bluff is 20 feet high from sea level and they add 10 feet or more of sand that will raise the beach level at the base of the bluff to a point where a 12 tidal surge will over top the edge of the bluff. If the new sand washes away quickly as I illustrated earlier it won’t be a problem but it could create a higher sand ramp for the waves that would be higher then previously without “beach nourishment”.



So, it is estimated one beach nourishment project will be necessary every 10 years. It is clear we have had years where multiple storms have impacted our beaches in only one year. Do we just keep adding more and more “nourishments”? Where will that money come from?



Here are two questions I pulled from the project website.



What will the beach look like after it is nourished?

The beach will be about 50-100 feet wider and a dune will be constructed at the landward portion of the beach. For the first month or so, the sand will look a shade darker than the native sand because it has been underwater. Once it is exposed to the sun, rain and wind, the new sand will lighten and match the color of the native sugar-white sand.


Why are we nourishing the beach when it will just wash away?

The purpose of the project is storm protection. We realize that storms will have an impact of the restored beach; however, the project will serve as the first line of defense against storm surge and waves that would lead to more damages.



The first answer is simply not true. Our sand is white quartz collected over eons it; it doesn’t bleach out; it is naturally white and consists of a special formulation of sand. It’s either the right sand or it isn’t. Sadly, Panama City’s sand has been mixed with offshore sand from nourishment projects; it is no longer as pure white sand as ours is.



The second answer just doesn’t hold water, or better stated, sand. The answer isn’t very convincing is it? The power of a hurricane storm surge is incredible and I don’t believe there is any amount of money or dredged sand on our beaches that will stop it.



Of the three restaurants I have in Seaside Bud & Alley’s is most at risk from a storm surge. I have about 20 feet of old sand bluff left behind the Gazebo and porch. I stand to lose a lot from future potential storms. Believe me, If I thought for one second that there was anything that really would protect us from a hurricane storm surge I would support it. The only thing that could be done is to build a wall from Pensacola to Panama City and then there would be no beach just like Galveston Texas. Not an option.



I would love to be comforted that beach nourishment is a solution but I just don’t believe it’s going to make much if any of a difference. The likely emphatically stated answer is “well, we have to do something Dave, don’t’ we?” Well, Do we?



I ask again, are we doing this just because we can? Will it really protect our beaches and property or are we just buying sand at the beach?