Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

#3 is a problem. You will have to take up with the State.

Yeah, and then take up #1 and #2 with Mr. and Mrs. NO COMPROMISE.

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.

I like 3. but there are laws on how tourist tax can be spent. Although they are about to loosen it up a bit. Even so, your point is valid and we don't have to collect it OR spend it.

I believe HR631 has made #1 out of reach. It states that this matter has to be adjudicated in a court of law.

@BlueMtnBeachVagrant I believe the below quote is accurate. I also believe those who supported HB631 laid the path that had to be followed to contest it. That said, as I have said all along the courts will have to decide. For those who oppose customary use, it would seem reasonable that if a Compromise was going to be offered it would come from those who oppose it. Have I missed a compromise offer?

I believe HR631 has made #1 out of reach. It states that this matter has to be adjudicated in a court of law.

@BlueMtnBeachVagrant I believe the below quote is accurate. I also believe those who supported HB631 laid the path that had to be followed to contest it. That said, as I have said all along the courts will have to decide. For those who oppose customary use, it would seem reasonable that if a Compromise was going to be offered it would come from those who oppose it. Have I missed a compromise offer?

Is it really behavior that caused the CU vs Private beach issue?

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.

Stone Cold J, great effort but not sure realistic in the current Walton CU social media, political, and legal environment. The Mean High Water Line-in-the-sand has been drawn by the elected Walton Commissioners declared all private property available to the public without due process. Then decided to litigate against all 1,200 private beachfront parcels and 4,600+ property owners. From Public Records Walton has already spent almost a MILLION dollars in legal fees and the legal proceedings (the expensive part) have not even begun. Encouraged by Walton Commissioners litigation (beside it is not the Commissioner’s personal money; it’s all Walton tax payer dollars) the anti-social media masses created not-credible misinformation based on social media personal beliefs and not the law for their war on private property rights and created all this ill will and beachfront owners, even the owners like me who have for decades shared their private beach with other, are angry and aren’t going to take it any more.

#1. Everyone can already walk all 825 miles of Florida’s “foreshore”, swim, fish, surface, collect shells, take pictures, etc and on all 26 miles of Walton tidal coastline between the MHWL and MLWL or foreshore. There are 59 Walton public beach accesses. Some accesses are for pedestrian easements only to the foreshore, Like at Dune Allen’s Vizcaya, and some are Government owned available to the public park and occupy the dry sand not allocated to commercial beach vendors by the Walton TDC. But at no time is crossing a private home’s property north to south to reach the beach legal or acceptable.

If you mean an ordinance for uninvited persons to traverse private property dry sand or occupy private property or not; Walton Commissioners already did that, without due process, with their April 1, 2017 CU ordinance. I'd guess would still have property Constitutional issues even if local elected officials would prohibit occupying private property, which is already the law unless invited by the owner. The Florida legislature super majority rebuked Walton's lack of due process and enacted FS163.035 to ensure no other FL county did what Walton did by declaring private property available to the public without due process in court as the Plaintiff FIRST.

#2. Agree but how about use the millions instead on CU litigation, that may lose, to expand infrastructure to meet the current and expected growth, despite the baseless Ghost Town without-CU predictions, in south Walton.

#3. TDC annual $20,000,000 tourist bed tax can only be spent on beach related projects by law. Not roads, restrooms, water treatment public work projects. The TDC has the second largest number of employees and I suggest cutting TDC bed tax by 1/4th so those tourist dollars are spent in the local economy; not inefficient or wasteful government spending. TDC should stop marketing private beaches and should educate the public about where public and private beaches are, acceptable behavior and increased beach enforcement. TDC tourist tax marketing benefits the beach side businesses; if those business think $20,000,000 is a good return on the money let the beach-side business fund the marketing.

Keep thinking but understand today’s realities as been described in this thread's 580+ posts.
Might ask what bob bob what has he contributed to the solution too. I didn’t find one credible post in the 11 posts on this thread.

What do you have to contribute to the solution, or do you like to be part of the problem?
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
"30A" people are greedy, entitled, spoiled... A different breed.
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
SoWal Rules!
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
Let's drop this stupid argument.
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
Why would they [beachfront owners] give a damn
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
Beach front owners will get tired of spending money and fighting and will move on or fight a dumb never ending battle against millions.
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
Take candy from a baby and you might get some sad babies.
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
orange clown [Donald Trump]
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
gotta lay down on the beach in the warm sun and relax.
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
Dumb argument.
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
So scary you are.
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

@BlueMtnBeachVagrant I believe the below quote is accurate. I also believe those who supported HB631 laid the path that had to be followed to contest it. That said, as I have said all along the courts will have to decide. For those who oppose customary use, it would seem reasonable that if a Compromise was going to be offered it would come from those who oppose it. Have I missed a compromise offer?

Bob, FS163.035 has noting to do with public CU activities on private property but private property due process rights.
IMO you have it backwards. The burden of proof is rightly on the Plaintiff for public customary use of private property, Walton County Commissioners. Commissioners should have thought about other solutions before litigation an archaic English doctrine of custom with 4,600 American beachfront owners. The Defendants, beachfront owners, have to prove nothing nor are obligated to offer any compromise of their Constitutional protected property rights.

So your belief is it is Walton County's obligation to propose a compromise? I think Lakeview point has merit more so now. Can't be a compromise IMO unless it is going to come from those BFOs cause the State has given the County no other option. Of course I don't claim any specific legal knowledge so this is certainly my opinion.

Bob, IMO you have it backwards. The burden of proof is rightly on the Plaintiff for public customary use of private property, Walton County Commissioners. Commissioners should have thought about other solutions before litigation an archaic English doctrine of custom with 4,600 American beachfront owners. The Defendants, beachfront owners, have to prove nothing nor are obligated to offer any compromise of their Constitutional protected property rights.

Dave Rauchsholb is offering a compromise that is essential "let's work together to stop bad beach behavior (tourists, locals, BFO's vendors)" in exchange for BFO's withdrawing their legal objections to the continuity of customary use. This has been his position for many years now. He was advocating a robust Beach Ambassadors program that failed to get much backing from the BBC or TDC. (Dave, I hope I'm paraphrasing you properly - I'm not a member of any of these groups.)

So your belief is it is Walton County's obligation to propose a compromise? I think Lakeview point has merit more so now. Can't be a compromise IMO unless it is going to come from those BFOs cause the State has given the County no other option. Of course I don't claim any specific legal knowledge so this is certainly my opinion.

No, why should BFO compromise their Constitutional rights? Unsure how else to put it. BFO are the defendants, and have nothing to prove or property rights they have had and have today, to compromise. Walton Commissioners did not have to litigate and cost Walton taxpayers MILLIONS but could have offered solutions acceptable to BFO; Commissioners did not. I'm comfortable with and have enough faith in the Constitution and rule of law to risk my own money protecting my property rights. Why should I compromise my property rights?
Again trading beach enforcement for private property rights is a compromise? Beach enforcement is the civil duty of the TDC and Commissioner regardless of property rights or public use of private property. You (not you personally) lost me at "Your Sand is My Sand" and not interested.

Ok. I guess the Courts will decide. I will even go a step further, if Walton was to seek a compromise as you feel they should, I feel it weakens their case, just my opinion. I would also venture to guess based on your comment, the BFOs would also be weakening their case and it is not in their best interest to compromise. That said 631 leaves the County no alternative but to go to court. All my opinion.

No, why should BFO compromise their Constitutional rights? Unsure how else to put it. BFO are the defendants, and have nothing to prove or property rights they have had and have today, to compromise. Walton Commissioners did not have to litigate and cost Walton taxpayers MILLIONS but could have offered solutions acceptable to BFO; Commissioners did not. I'm comfortable with and have enough faith in the Constitution and rule of law to risk my own money protecting my property rights. Why should I compromise my property rights?
Again trading beach enforcement for private property rights is a compromise? Beach enforcement is the civil duty of the TDC and Commissioner regardless of property rights or public use of private property. You (not you personally) lost me at "Your Sand is My Sand" and not interested.

Ok. I guess the Courts will decide.

And the Walton tax payer will pay millions .... and may get nothing but 650+ beachfront owner's legal fees.
I NEVER said Walton should offer compromise! Your guess is as good as mine if compromise would weaken either parties' case. Again Defendant beachfront owners do not have to do anything and do not have to make a case. The County as Plaintiff always has alternatives. Destin in 2002 had alternatives and made different choices. Withdrawing the case and entering into discussions with each property owner they are claiming public customary use of their property is an option.
It's easy to have opinions when you have no real-property skin in the game.
CUnCourt.

And the Walton tax payer will pay millions .... and may get nothing but 650+ beachfront owner's legal fees. CUnCourt.

It’s worth it.

And the Walton tax payer will pay millions .... and may get nothing but 650+ beachfront owner's legal fees. CUnCourt.

Let me see if I got this right: The BFO's could save themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars each, and save the taxpayers of Walton County MILLIONS of dollars by simply withdrawing their countersuits, and letting the judicial system, that was established by HB631, run it's course. And all this waste of money is because of Bad Beach Behavior. And the most prominent proponents of continuing customary use have pledged to establish a robust system of preventing Bad Beach Behavior, but that ain't good enough for you. Sounds like this isn't about Bad Beach Behavior...

And the Walton tax payer will pay millions .... and may get nothing but 650+ beachfront owner's legal fees. CUnCourt.

Sad I agree, but when there are really no other viable options then this is what happens. I do think @Lake View Too comment is true.

Let me see if I got this right: The BFO's could save themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars each, and save the taxpayers of Walton County MILLIONS of dollars by simply withdrawing their countersuits, and letting the judicial system, that was established by HB631, run it's course. And all this waste of money is because of Bad Beach Behavior. And the most prominent proponents of continuing customary use have pledged to establish a robust system of preventing Bad Beach Behavior, but that ain't good enough for you. Sounds like this isn't about Bad Beach Behavior...

Here's what you got wrong; not right. Walton Commissioners filed as Plaintiffs, litigation against 4,600+ Defendant private beachfront owners and have the burden of proof; not Defendent beachfront owners. It was Walton Commissioners choice; not private property owners choice. There are NO beachfront owner CU countersuits. Can you support this statement of fact? If not your credibility suffers. I was not aware Walton Commissioner's litigated against all 4,600+ beachfront owners because of "Bad Beach Behavior". Can you quote from the Walton Commissioner's and Theriaque complaint that fact? If not your hypothesis Bad Behavior is why Walton claims CU on private property is not credible. It is about Constitutional property rights all American property owners have.

It’s worth it.

Easy when it's not your personal money and easy when you have no real-property skin in the game. If the 650+ beachfront owners prevail; tell Walton tax payers you thought it was worth it. Would you be willing to kick in $20,000 to reimburse tax payers if BFO prevail? I'm guessing you are not willing to put you own money at risk; just tax payer's millions.

Easy when it's not your personal money and easy when you have no real-property skin in the game. If the 650+ beachfront owners prevail; tell Walton tax payers you thought it was worth it. Would you be willing to kick in $20,000 to reimburse tax payers if BFO prevail?

Sounds like the BFO’s are the ones afraid of the courts.

I simply view the situation like a sidewalk being a public right of way. BFO’s sound like they want the public to walk in the street when in front of their homes. It doesn’t matter to me who has title as long as the public has use of a moderate amount of dry sand.

The BFO's are willing to spend their money on trying to assert a property right that they have known they never had from the first time they set eyes on this beach. Customary use existed from before they were born. They started their campaign for privatization over a decade ago. It's that simple. The county is doing what is right and just for the constituents of this county, for the economic strength of this county, and for the broader beach community in general. It's that simple.

@BlueMtnBeachVagrant I believe the below quote is accurate. I also believe those who supported HB631 laid the path that had to be followed to contest it.

So @Bob Wells, are you saying we (BFOs) can’t or shouldn’t allow the public to “walk the beach (traverse), swim, fish, surface, collect shells, take pictures, etc ” because HB631? Has ANYBODY here on SoWal objected to those activities IN THE PAST? On the other hand, BFOs want to retain full control of their private sand in case these tourists are unruly or they decide to compete for prime beach location against owners and paying guests of said private property.

Not sure what “surface” means, so that might have to be excluded.

The days of “looking the other way” (30A Legacy) are regretfully gone because of overcrowding, FBFA and CU proponents’ self-entitlement attitudes and now that that the county deciding to file suit to confiscate private property without compensation.

That said, as I have said all along the courts will have to decide.

Yes you have said that on SEVERAL occasions....about as many times as I’ve brought up Daniel Uhlfelder’s Nazi card. Nobody can legitimately argue either point.

For those who oppose customary use, it would seem reasonable that if a Compromise was going to be offered it would come from those who oppose it. Have I missed a compromise offer?

So didn’t Mike Huckabee present one? And wasn’t it dismissed in its entirety by Mr. and Mrs. NO COMPROMISE?

:So didn’t Mike Huckabee present one? And wasn’t it dismissed in its entirety by Mr. and Mrs. NO COMPROMISE?

Please refresh my memory of Mike (I'm not directly involved) Huckabee's compromise. Didn't it involve money?

I believe HR631 has made #1 out of reach. It states that this matter has to be adjudicated in a court of law.

If forced occupation of private property against the will of the owner is removed from the ordnance (removing part about chairs & umbrellas on deeded private property) then option 1 is fully compliant with HB631 and no law suit required.

If not, then this entire lawsuit is ONLY about forced occupation of private property against the will of the owner and everything else is thrown around just to cause confusion. Of course everyone wants the right to walk the entire beach, fish, surf, and build sandcastles. Who wouldn't? We already have that.

It has been ancient custom to have permission to use private property and if a person used it without permission, and was asked to move, they moved. If a person was not asked to move, they stayed. If they knew an area that they were "not welcomed", then they did not go there. It was that way when Mr. Allen and a few others owned most of that beach area and stayed that way after the parcels were split and sold to new owners who built homes. It was an honored privilege to sit on somebody's property and was respected. It was also only a few people with minimal equipment. It is different when 100's of people "demand" that same "privilege" at the same time and at no costs. It is only very recent that the "public" has felt entitled to day camp or park anywhere and ignored requests to move, even when the request to move is made by the Sheriff. I don't think anyone has an issue finding a peaceful place to sit (unless they are purposely trying to cause a disruption) except between Memorial Day and Labor Day. During those times the DTC even pays the park fee so people can go the state park as a courtesy of the county. Of course what happens when we get 6 million visitors a year? What about 8 million visitors a year? What is the limit before destroy our unique ecosystem?

I can see where imminent domain might be used to force "access" to a public beach that has access blocked by private owner, like the California case where Vinod Khosla was sued to allow access, but the public was never allowed to day camp on his property and he was able to charge for parking and access. Access is very different than "day camping" against the will of the property owner. The property owner is the one that determines the rules to use the property. Doesn't matter if it is Florida that owns the property (state park has entry fees and maximum occupation limits depending on available resources and conditions, etc), or the County (county park / public beach has limited hours, parking limits, chair vendor rules, etc), or a private owner (use of property if permitted).

We need to preserve our unique ecosystem. That is why (including many of the readers here) were so excited in 1992 when the community came together to make sure the 1,637 acres and 3-1/2 miles beach at Topsail were protected and not developed.

Let's spend millions preserve our unique ecosystem instead of on lawyers.

From my understanding, H631 conflicted with our previously written customary use ordinance, so it was re-written to comply with 631, and was passed unanimously by the BCC, and was immediately challenged in court by several BFO's. The county was then forced to countersue those BFO's to get a judgement on this issue. I may not be quite sure of my terminology, but that is my general understanding. Whether the 5300 or 6100 BFO's are defendants of a lawsuit by the County, or are launching countersuits, or both, is still a little bit fuzzy to me. There are a bunch of "instigators and agitators" who launched this thread, and the amount of disinformation is mind-numbing.

@Bob Wells , over 3 years ago, I threw out what I thought was a very good compromise based on what I observed taking place at the Blue Mountain Beach access. Coincidentally, you sort of just shot it down saying it was an old topic under a new thread without any constructive input.

Please take a look.....
Eliminate Beach Vending from Blue Mountain Regional Beach Access (and possibly others)

I genuinely believed everyone would benefit in that scenario - the essence of compromise:

Eliminate ALL beach vending on public accesses, especially the crowded ones where the adjacent private property owners are agreeable to partner with beach vendors to allow to rent setups on their private property.
and ALSO get to use private property.

Locals and others on a limited budget could use the more open public beach without having to compete against paying customers on public beach and the BFO gets to control their property while receiving compensation (sorry @Lake View Too, that does mean money).

It basically worked at Blue Mountain Beach except for the part where vendors are getting 50% of the public beach for their own profitable use and so the public part was (is) still very crowded. Could it work at other accesses? Not sure. But given a choice of constantly pushing back on public encroachment on private property vs. allowing the public access to private property for the price of a beach setup sounded like a pretty good compromise to me.

But it’s too late now......you know, Mr. and Mrs. NO COMPROMISE.