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.
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.
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 [1 Can you quote what SoWal post you are referring to? Goes to credibility of this statement]. To imply that you people are hiding behind pseudonyms [2 Even Benjamin Franklin , one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution use pseudonyms. Would you tell ol Ben to go “pound sand” if he questioned your belief that the Constitution protect beachfront private property rights too? Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy] because you’re worried about something that I am doing or may do is outrageous. [3 No person or FBFA is publicly speaking out against the vitriol directed at property owners either or extolling civil discourse either.] 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. [4 Are you denying that an attorney who should know better, on at least 3 different occasions, with the intent to incite the Vizcaya property owner and have an altercation with law enforcement on social media? If so that is disingenuous at best.] I can't control any person who verbally attacks Beachfront Owners in any social media platform, forum or on the beach. [5 No person or FBFA is publicly speaking out against the vitriol directed at property owners or extolling civil discourse either.] 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 [6 we are a nation of individual rights protected by the Constitution, rule of law, and due process - not polls and opinions.] is on this issue and that is to say the beaches are public use and they always have been regardless of "owned sand." [7 Until proven in a court of law, respect the private property rights owners have had since 1776 and have today or why would the Sheriff need a trespass SOP?] 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. [8 Today it is NOT public use. Do you respect that enough to lead others to respect private property rights and speak out publically on the attacks on beachfront owners?]
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. [9 How about verifiable facts and credibility as well?]. 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. [10 Nor have I if you want to personalize the statements.]
One thing I will tell you all. We will not be intimidated by anyone [11 nor will beachfront owners of the masses who you rally support from with baseless internet misinformation] and we will continue our efforts to ensure the beach going public may use every grain of sand on our beaches [12 still legally the owners private property so you can not say the sand is “ours”. That is an untruth. Even then Walton’s claim of public use is limited to 9 activities. Ask your attorney for clarification if you are unclear.] 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. [13 As will beachfront owners shine the light of facts and truth on misinformation and unfounded beliefs]. By Judge or by a vote of Floridians we will see this through to the public's shared use of the sand for all. [14 Not if the ancient English common law doctrine of public customary use of private property is found un-Constitutional in America. Until then getting a 2020 FL Constitutional CU amendment on the ballet is unlikely and non-starter if CU is found to be un-Constitutional in America.] 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. [15 Which morality do you based that judgment? The morality embodied in the US Constitution?]
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. [16 Will SoWal become a Ghost Town or other dark economic disaster?] Beachfront owners pay for the view and convenience of having the water steps from their homes. Homes closer but not on the beach have 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 [17 response below]. That is to say balance and shared value for all. Beachfront owners have the advantage of view and the closest proximity [18 and legal title with a deed to the MHWL and all rights that you have with your private property]. So, if the real issue is behavior [19 criticism of public beach behavior may have started the discussion but beachfront owners are being litigated against their legal property tile and property rights - the Commissioners should have thought about that before litigation that you encourage ad nauseam.] 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 [20 because that is the only “compromise” you want to see. That does not include property rights so you offer no compromise.] Fix the behavior and share the beaches. I am full of ideas. [21 I have many ideas as well how. Identify publicly available pedestrian right of ways public available beaches and all the rest is private beachfront and the owner has the choice to share it or not - like it has legally been since 1776.] But once you start talking property rights and exclusion you have lost me. [22 You lost me in 2016 with your “Your Sand, is My Sand” ditty and forced public “shared” position.] Any takers?
If you have comments, used the post [number in the bracket].
[17] "Beach Spreading" which is already a symptom of the shared "Tragedy of the [Beach] Commons". Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia
No one and especially not the public takes better care of real property than an owner who has an economic interest in the property.
What is common to many is taken least care of, for all men have greater regard for what is their own than for what they possess in common with others. — Aristotle An Introduction to The Tragedy Of The Commons
"You buy next to a cow pasture, get used to the cows. The beaches have always been SHARED and should be regardless of growth; anywhere, any beach and any community." Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
Beach spreading is problem at many public beaches in other states. The photos in these articles are what Walton public customary use of private property may look like.
"Tragedy of the [Beach] Commons"
Philadelphia Magazine
The Best Thing That Happened This Week: The Beginning of the End for Beach Spreading
No, you do not have the right to build your own beachfront Shangri-La out of canvas and poles. Welcome | Philadelphia Magazine
This is long, but so be it. Read it or don't. Your choice.
1) I'm confused. Is Reggie banned or not? He is not showing up as banned. If he is, I'd like to know why so that I know what to avoid. I have met Reggie once and he is not James Lince.
2) I keep reading and hearing what beachfront owners think or are trying to do from NON-beachfront owners and CU leadership. Have any of you who are in favor of CU actually asked the the beachfront owners any questions instead of making assumptions and cooking up conspiracy theories? I have and not one of them has told me what I keep reading and furthermore not one of the ones I have talked to "kicks" people off the beach who are respectful and minimalists (towel, chair, umbrella) who are there to enjoy the beach. The respectful ones bring minimal "stuff", set up when they arrive, enjoy the beach, and then take their "stuff", including their trash with them when they leave.
3) Some people keep claiming that there are a handful of people causing all these problems and driving the private property bus. That's BS. There are over 600 owners of parcels who have intervened against CU, representing approximately 4500 owners who have legal right to use those 600+ parcels. Check the list the County sent out. Check the court records. This is publicly available information.
4) I have personally witnessed several cyber campaigns against BFOs that were cyberbullying at its finest. While some in the CU leadership group may not have "started" or staged targeting incidents, they have "liked" posts and comments made by others. Only on a few occasions have the leaders tried to reign in their followers who engage in all kinds of name calling and ill wishes toward BFOs. Some of the leadership, who shall remain nameless, have absolutely participated in instigating issues with BFOs or representatives of the BPOs. To say they haven't is intellectually dishonest.
5) The Hurricane Storm Damage Reduction Project (sometimes thought of as beach re/nourishment) project was soundly defeated for several reasons, not the least of which was the color and feel/quality of the sand. Don't believe me, instead go to PC and walk on the sand. Compare the color and the feel. Our sand is extraordinary. There are thousands of beaches with sand, but ours is truly unique in its color and feel. One of the very early projects got same quality sand because it came from the Destin Pass area and nearby vicinity. There isn't enough of that anymore for big projects. Certain CU leaders wholeheartedly disagreed with putting inferior sand on the beaches and recognized that it would wash out, which it has (check out Miramar Beach area where the west Walton project was done). Now, some of those same people are willing to sacrifice our rare and unique sand because they don't like that Walton County allowed all the development we have today with private ownership?
6) Perhaps if Walton County had worked with BFO's before declaring CU and made sure to STAFF UP and ENFORCE their proposed (and adopted) ordinance, some or all of this could have been avoided. Vendors were and still are an issue, although there are finally steps being made in the right direction. Tents became a real problem, being used to reserve the beach in similar ways to vendors. Code enforcement was complaint driven rather than proactive. What do you think people thought if one group was told to take their tent down while another one on a different lot wasn't reported, so CE drove right by? Likewise for other infractions of the CU ordinance. I'm just happy for locals who have used the same beaches for years and been minimalists and respectful because THEY are not having trouble going to the beach. With 26 miles of beach, it is certainly interesting that there have only been a few places that conflicts have occurred, but rest assured that those few have been broadcast widely by people who seem to enjoy the division in this community so they can prove some sort of point.
Would people stop coming to our beaches if no setups of any kind were allowed without the people present to use them?
Would people stop coming to our beaches if no tents/canopies/sunshades except for Umbrellas 7 feet in diameter were permitted on our beaches?
Would people stop coming if they couldn't bring their family room to the beach, complete with gigantic blow up toys, music, tobacco and alcohol?
Would people stop coming if they actually could only do those things that are truly 50s, 60s, 70s uses?
Would people stop coming if there were some controls on density on the beach?
In spite of the rhetoric, there are plenty of BFOs who care. They aren't all about $$$. Try actually asking THEM what they think instead of listening to social media keyboard warriors. I have and it's enlightening.
Beach spreading is problem at many public beaches in other states. The photos in these articles are what Walton public customary use of private property may look like.
"Tragedy of the [Beach] Commons"
Philadelphia Magazine
The Best Thing That Happened This Week: The Beginning of the End for Beach Spreading
No, you do not have the right to build your own beachfront Shangri-La out of canvas and poles. Welcome | Philadelphia Magazine
Beach Spreading: and the county changed tent size from 8 feet to 10 feet, plus 50% to vendors. Why?
Simple answer: People complained about the smaller tent size, which I believe was actually 6x6 feet. Basically, they were not available without ordering from Amazon or somewhere. Regarding the vendors, there has long been a reluctance to reign in vending. They are small business owners and this county is very sympathetic to small businesses regardless of what those businesses are. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but in the case of allowing 50% of PUBLIC beach, it doesn't seem wise. Hindsight being 20/20, it definitely wasn't wise.
You are kinder than I am. My thought was that it was another way to make public beaches smaller to further the discourse.
I attend meetings or watch them online. I'm just repeating what I heard. I try to give the County the benefit of the doubt; however, there are times I really scratch my head!
@FloridaBeachBum, your post #523 regarding Tona-Roma and all was VERY informative. Thank you for the time and effort to pull it together.
Personally, I think DR is laughing very nervously with his “Ha ha...” malarkey.
IbelieveCUwillfail (there, I said it) and I think DR is starting to realize it as well.
The title of this thread will live on, one way or another, either because of all the animosity from the “public” toward private property owners if CU fails OR because we become a Destin or Panama City because of unleashed growth due to CU prevailing.
And I thought DR said he wasn’t responding to posters who don’t use their real name. What gives?
Regarding using real names....this from Teresa:
“In forums you don't have to use real names though many of us have changed our forum names to our real names over time. It's a personal choice. Lots of our original members are still called by their original forum names even in real life. All good peeps. Where's River Otter?”.
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.
Translation: “I can’t figure out if I’m glad or sad that beach nourishment failed.”
Beach Spreading: and the county changed tent size from 8 feet to 10 feet, plus 50% to vendors. Why?
It does not matter what the size of beach umbrella is in the Walton beach ordinance anyway.
The is no ordinance or enforcement against beach spreading as many umbrellas as the public want on beaches.
When you compare the ratio of these figures you get 0.025 as a "toxicity index" (the amount of people that are curious compared to the amount of people that want to contribute).As a comparison, the next most toxic thread, "Welcome to Trump's America", has a "toxicity index" of .130. Don't ya just love a train wreck?
Lake View Too really got my attention, because I must admit, I do love math. But he's wrong about something. Sure the math is correct, but his deduction is dead wrong.
He introduced a bogus term of a "toxicity index", being the ratio of the number of replies divided by the number of views, as an indication of the number of people who are actually willing to contribute, compared to the total number of people who are curious.
But the definition is wrong. Nothing toxic about it at all. It's not a 'toxicity index' at all.
It is an INTIMIDATION INDEX.
This index is actually a very good indicator of the number of people reading this thread but who are too afraid to speak out openly due to the variety of intimidation tactics that we have seen displayed in the past few months by the instigators and agitators.
And note who liked this portrayal of a "trainwreck".
Dave Rauschkolb and Teresa
Lake View Too really got my attention, because I must admit, I do love math. But he's wrong about something. Sure the math is correct, but his deduction is dead wrong.
He introduced a bogus term of a "toxicity index", being the ratio of the number of replies divided by the number of views, as an indication of the number of people who are actually willing to contribute, compared to the total number of people who are curious.
But the definition is wrong. Nothing toxic about it at all. It's not a 'toxicity index' at all.
It is an INTIMIDATION INDEX.
This index is actually a very good indicator of the number of people reading this thread but who are too afraid to speak out openly due to the variety of intimidation tactics that we have seen displayed in the past few months by the instigators and agitators.
And note who liked this portrayal of a "trainwreck".
Dave Rauschkolb and Teresa
Both wrong. It's a "Voyeur Index". You should be able to extrapolate why without explanation.
Perhaps why all the secrecy about false identities. The Lawsuit. None want to be held accountable for what they say. Fear of being held accountable for your words. How courageous.
@FloridaBeachBum, your post #523 regarding Tona-Roma and all was VERY informative. Thank you for the time and effort to pull it together.
Personally, I think DR is laughing very nervously with his “Ha ha...” malarkey.
IbelieveCUwillfail (there, I said it) and I think DR is starting to realize it as well.
The title of this thread will live on, one way or another, either because of all the animosity from the “public” toward private property owners if CU fails OR because we become a Destin or Panama City because of unleashed growth due to CU prevailing.
And I thought DR said he wasn’t responding to posters who don’t use their real name. What gives?
Regarding using real names....this from Teresa:
“In forums you don't have to use real names though many of us have changed our forum names to our real names over time. It's a personal choice. Lots of our original members are still called by their original forum names even in real life. All good peeps. Where's River Otter?”.
Apparently DR disagrees.
Ha Ha,..... "Malarkey"......you are showing your age. My grandfather used to say that.
Perhaps why all the secrecy about false identities. The Lawsuit. None want to be held accountable for what they say. Fear of being held accountable for your words. How courageous.
Ha Ha,..... "Malarkey"......you are showing your age. My grandfather used to say that.
The Lawsuit? Walton County as the Plaintiff has the burden of proof. In according to FS 163.035 (3)(b)2. “All proceedings under this paragraph shall be de novo.” De novo - means fresh. Anew. A court decides the issues without reference to any previous legal conclusion or assumption made by the previous court, or local elected Government officials, to hear the case.
Private property owners are defendants and are not required to present any evidence should they choose. I predict there will be plenty of evidence to dispute Walton’s CU criteria “evidence”, public affidavits, and property rights evidence.
“None want to be held accountable for what they say. Fear of being held accountable for your words.” Why? Accountable and afraid for what? Nonsensical. Not a credible statement.
“Ha Ha,..... "Malarkey"......you are showing your age. My grandfather used to say that.” Immaterial to the thread and not a worthy comment.
"I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience," Ronald Reagan from Mondale debate.
How about discourse about the Tona-Rama facts of the case? Or just more circular "false identities" distractions? Tona-Rama lost it’s public prescriptive easement case. Or can you offer alternative facts why the FSC did not interpret the ancient English common law doctrine of custom but in 1974 activist FSC judges made new law (that’s State legislators responsibility) from the bench and could be unConstitutional? Or pick any of the Tona-Rama post to discuss. You can get the FBFA attorney to help you if you need to too. CUnCourt.
Perhaps why all the secrecy about false identities. The Lawsuit. None want to be held accountable for what they say. Fear of being held accountable for your words. How courageous.
Ha Ha,..... "Malarkey"......you are showing your age. My grandfather used to say that.
Wow.
Never guessed you were the type to ridicule the elderly for your own amusement.
That's a new low.
Can we talk about a "reputation index"? Let me get my calculator. (I would call up Lake View Too, because he likes to calculate the ratios. But alas, he's been a "secret identity" on this forum over 10 years.)
And how interesting that you dare to say, "None want to be held accountable for what they say." Now reading that really made me smile in between my sips of coffee. Thank you for that delicious thought. You made my morning. Interesting words of yours, sir. Indeed.
Wow.
Never guessed you were the type to ridicule the elderly for your own amusement.
That's a new low.
Can we talk about a "reputation index"? Let me get my calculator. (I would call up Lake View Too, because he likes to calculate the ratios. But alas, he's been a "secret identity" on this forum over 10 years.)
And how interesting that you dare to say, "None want to be held accountable for what they say." Now reading that really made me smile in between my sips of coffee. Thank you for that delicious thought. You made my morning. Interesting words of yours, sir. Indeed.
What do you have to contribute to the solution, or do you like to be part of the problem? WAR EAGLE!!!
Ha Ha,..... "Malarkey"......you are showing your age. My grandfather used to say that.
Well heck. Guess I’ll have to start bringing up Uhlfelfer’s Nazi card again, now that you’re engaging me and trying to redicule me on a personal basis. It’s only fair, right?
Uhlfelder’s grandfather would be ashamed of his grandson for referring to him and using the atrocities committed by Nazis as an argument for customary use, IMHO.
And the fact that you haven’t condemned Uhlfelder’s reference (you’ve had plenty of chances) speaks volumes.
Simply put, the tactics you and FBFA use to peddle your agenda will “Destroy our 30A Legacy”. I think it’s already happened.
What do you have to contribute to the solution, or do you like to be part of the problem?
I am Pro CU and Pro Constitutional Property Rights and don’t think they are in conflict.
Solution #1. Separate the issues. Have the BCC implement new ordinance to protect public’s ability to walk the beach (traverse), swim, fish, surface, collect shells, take pictures, etc on all 26 miles of coastline. Leave out the bit about forced occupation of private property to allow people put chairs, umbrellas, etc on private property against the will of the owner. The ordinance should not be controversial if the BCC removes the forced occupation part. If people want to day camp then they should go to State Park or Public Beach or rent a home/condo that owns that property.
Solution #2. Drop the lawsuit against taking private property rights against the will of the owner, which many believe might violate constitutional property rights and eventually may be thrown out of court anyway. Use the money instead to protect our unique coastal ecosystem.
Solution #3. Spend ½ of the advertising budget on local infrastructure. Roads, restrooms, water treatment. The past advertising has been very effective, we already have more tourists than we can handle. Don’t bring any more tourists until they can be accommodated without destroying our unique ecosystem.
Solution????? Any REAL solution would involve COMPROMISE.
And Mr. and Mrs. NO COMPROMISE have more than once stated they won’t accept that. At this point, I simcerely believe that many pro CU folks have to be taking a second look at the stance of their CU leaders. The fact that the question for a solution was asked just now is evidence.
I am Pro CU and Pro Constitutional Property Rights and don’t think they are in conflict.
Solution #1. Separate the issues. Have the BCC implement new ordinance to protect public’s ability to walk the beach (traverse), swim, fish, surface, collect shells, take pictures, etc on all 26 miles of coastline. Leave out the bit about forced occupation of private property to allow people put chairs, umbrellas, etc on private property against the will of the owner. The ordinance should not be controversial if the BCC removes the forced occupation part. If people want to day camp then they should go to State Park or Public Beach or rent a home/condo that owns that property.
Solution #2. Drop the lawsuit against taking private property rights against the will of the owner, which many believe might violate constitutional property rights and eventually may be thrown out of court anyway. Use the money instead to protect our unique coastal ecosystem.
Solution #3. Spend ½ of the advertising budget on local infrastructure. Roads, restrooms, water treatment. The past advertising has been very effective, we already have more tourists than we can handle. Don’t bring any more tourists until they can be accommodated without destroying our unique ecosystem.
#3 is a problem. You will have to take up with the State.
