Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

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.

Trying to catch up after 600 posts is definitely mind-numbing. I'm not as up to speed as you all. But trying to separate the facts on this one is becoming more clear to me. Can you help me Lake View Too?
Which "disinformation" facts did these "instigators and agitators" put forth? Just give me the two biggest ones. I want to research them for myself. Thanks!

Oh, but you flatter me. I'm not nearly as nice.

You sound very self aware. That's good.

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.

Your understanding is wrong. "H631 conflicted with our previously written customary use ordinance [wrong], so it [Walton CU ordinance] was re-written to comply with 631 [did not happen or provide your evidence]" There was NO "countersuite" or provide a reference to the "countersuite" please. Only Walton's litigation pursuant to FS163.035 that defines the legal due process for any local government to seek a judicial determination that all the criteria of customary use apply to 26 miles of private beachfront property.
You need to do your own homework and not listen to social media or your posts are not credible.

@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.

Now, something we finally agree on. There should be zero vending on county public beaches of Beach Chairs. Never should’ve happened and should stop as soon as the county comes to their senses. If they ever do. 100% there should be zero beach chair vending on County owned public beaches. If they absolutely cannot stop it then the only conditions that should be allowed would be if someone calls a company and the chairs are delivered where ever there is an open spot. No set ups until a call is made and the chairs are occupied.

I got my information from talking to the county attorney and from attending Brad Drake's explanation. I'm not saying it's 100% accurate but I didn't get it from anonymous posters on SoWal.

If there is any question about leading CU position on the "C" word and opinion of Mike Huckabee's "Beach Share"; intended as starting point for discussions, but rejected out of hand by leading Watersound CU resident and Walton Commissioners. Legally not "our" CU beaches regardless how many times you say it. Have 1,192 the private property deeds to prove it in court.

Is There Another solution to the Customary Use Dispute?
SoWal Posted by Dave Rauschkolb on Facebook Aug 25 2018
Watch out for the "C" word coming to South Walton. This word first introduced by County Commission Candidate, Bill Fletcher. Seeking ways to "Compromise" regarding Customary Use of our Beaches.

There will soon be a group or groups offering compromises couched in an narrative saying: "let's all come together and be good neighbors and work this out" Mmmm, a seemingly sounding, reasonable platform.

We need to remember this. The beachfront owners and their lawyers determined, well executed plan is to take control of our beaches so they call the shots. Many or most obtained their beach through Quiet Title [proven false by the public records on this thread and other credible sites] in the very recent years like new resident, Mike Huckabee. When I met with former Arkansas Governor Huckabee last summer his "Beach Share" plan was predicated on the owners "giving permission" to beach goers using "their property" provided they behave correctly. This platform is fundementally flawed because the Beachfront owners are calling the shots on our beaches; our beaches we have used freely for centuries.

Their end game is to Control, big C, the beaches and to monetize them. Make them private and up the price goes. Then, perhaps try to sell them back to he County through eminent domain or just have much more valuable property because it is private. [Nice hypothesis; no evidence, all opinion.]

Yes, The "C" word will be creeping in and we need to be careful about creeping compromise.

Read this "Good Neighbor" narrative coming from a new 501c3 website called "Preserving South Walton"... "We believe that Coastal property owners should be allowed to have full control of their private land, but realize that South Walton also needs recreational areas that the tourists and locals can enjoy." And further......"We look to secure and/or gain access to properties for public use that limits the liability of the landholder, while still permitting access to others who would use that property responsibly. In doing this, we firmly believe that we can find an acceptable compromise between the proponents of customary use, and those property owners who are concerned about allowing the public access to their property."

Did you catch that? "allowing" public access.....to their [deeded private] property.

This is eerily, exactly the Huckabee plan couched in a slick, new package. "It's ours. Behave and we might can work something out" Same playbook, different cover.

So beware of Creeping Compromise because all it has ever been about is Control of our Beaches. I promise you. Any Compromise will Compromise our ancient, uninterrupted use of OUR treasured, shared beaches.

Just remember everyone, the beach, it's ours, it's always been ours and anything less....is a Compromise. So let's be good neighbors and work together to reinstate Customary Use.

I gotta hand it to our new Compromising good neighbors, Preserving South Walton...hey, nice logo!

I just have to ask though, is the fence halfway down or halfway up?

April 14, 2019 Jason Blakeney Executive editor of the Northwest Florida Daily News.
JASON BLAKENEY: Compromise before it's too late in Walton County

I got my information from talking to the county attorney and from attending Brad Drake's explanation. I'm not saying it's 100% accurate but I didn't get it from anonymous posters on SoWal.

Then the county attorney is wrong or you did not understand her and Brad Drake voted for HB631. "but I didn't get it from anonymous posters on SoWal." You should because what is posted is credible and verified with facts. You may not like the facts, you may not accept the facts; then do your own homework and present alternative verifiable facts or your posts credibility suffers.

Then the county attorney is wrong or you did not understand her and Brad Drake voted for HB631. "but I didn't get it from anonymous posters on SoWal." You should because what is posted is factual and credible. You may not like the facts, you may not accept the facts; then do your own homework and present alternative verifiable facts or your posts credibility suffers.

I’m sure your lawyer is giving you correct information, or maybe he’s just in it for the money and might take a dive in the end.

and was immediately challenged in court by several BFO's.

It is confusing so I went to the Clerk of Court records, did a case search on Year 2018, Course Type Circuit Civil (CA), and Sequence #547 and there are over 850 court documents. The county filed on Dec 11, 2018 against 1194 properties listed in Exhibit A, although the county is listed as owner of some of those parcels so not sure if they are also suing themselves? Anyway, the documents do confirm that the County is the one doing the suing (Plaintiff) and the property owners are the ones being sued (defendants). There are no countersuits mentioned in any of those documents. I did find Doc 784 asking the Judge to dismiss the lawsuit but I can not find anywhere that the Judge responded.

It is confusing so I went to the Clerk of Court records, did a case search on Year 2018, Course Type Circuit Civil (CA), and Sequence #547 and there are over 850 court documents. The county filed on Dec 11, 2018 against 1194 properties listed in Exhibit A, although the county is listed as owner of some of those parcels so not sure if they are also suing themselves? Anyway, the documents do confirm that the County is the one doing the suing (Plaintiff) and the property owners are the ones being sued (defendants). There are no countersuits mentioned in any of those documents. I did find Doc 784 asking the Judge to dismiss the lawsuit but I can not find anywhere that the Judge responded.

Thanks for the information. I checked your description, and you are right. Under circuit civil ca #547 the county is suing alot of people. I would be responding too. What is up with all that? The county using taxpayer money to sue taxpayers? There is something wrong with that picture. That money could be used by the county to do so many more things for the community like creating more public beach accesses to accommodate all of the tourists that help support our businesses.

I stand corrected. I do remember several lawsuits filed against the county earlier by BFO’s pertaining to the earlier customary use ordinance. But I’m sure I’m going get an assful of slings and arrows for not having my legalese in order.

It was never "customary" for forced occupation of private property in Walton County, nor is it reasonable to remove private property right from the owner, nor is this free from dispute if the county is spending millions of dollars on a lawsuit to try and take away these rights. This has nothing to do with sharing. This is about who has the right to determine who can use private property, the owner or the county.

This illustrates the intractable nature of the property owners. I understand that you feel backed into a corner. The other side wants to enjoy the beach. Not YOUR beach. THE BEACH. They don't see any property lines. Never have. Never will. So both sides are far apart. Neither will compromise.

Thing is, living with neighbors is about nothing other than compromise. It is what being a community is all about. SoWal WAS a community before we had luxury and branding.

This illustrates the intractable nature of the property owners. I understand that you feel backed into a corner. The other side wants to enjoy the beach. Not YOUR beach. THE BEACH. They don't see any property lines. Never have. Never will. So both sides are far apart. Neither will compromise.

Thing is, living with neighbors is about nothing other than compromise. It is what being a community is all about. SoWal WAS a community before we had luxury and branding.

What role, if any, do you think past and present Walton Commissioners and TDC is responsible with the premise of this thread and ill will?
What percentage of the 13 miles of intractable owner private beaches do you think the public can not access?
Is the about 13 miles of government public beaches not enough or not convenient for you?

There are some principles worth protecting. American founders fought a Revolutionary war to free themselves from English tyranny. Property rights and due process being key Constitutional principles embodied in the 5th and 14th Amendments.

This illustrates the intractable nature of the property owners. I understand that you feel backed into a corner. The other side wants to enjoy the beach. Not YOUR beach. THE BEACH. They don't see any property lines. Never have. Never will. So both sides are far apart. Neither will compromise.

Well.....
That’s exactly how the hunters felt who used other people’s land for hunting for a long period of time. In case you haven’t heard or just refuse to acknowledge it, Theriaque, the current Walton County CU attorney, won the case AGAINST the hunters in their attempt for CU on the lands they’ve hunted for a long time.

Drawing a parallel from your post:
Hunters said Not Your land, THE LAND. They don’t see property lines. Never have............
Never will. That last part will definitely land them in jail today.

That’s exactly how the hunters felt who used other people’s land for hunting for a long period of time. In case you haven’t heard or just refuse to acknowledge it, Theriaque, the current Walton County CU attorney, won the case AGAINST the hunters in their attempt for CU on the lands they’ve hunted for a long time.

I just looked up the Hunter Case that Theriaque was the Plaintiff attorney protecting private property rights, Case 2014 CA 2951 and found the quote from Judge Gievers at a hearing on Oct 31, 2017 "This is private property, and there's no right that the hunters have to be on the plaintiff's property"

In this case Mr Theriaque represented the private property owner and argued that the public cannot use private property if the private property owner did not give permission... and won.

I hope that a judge understands the difference between carrying guns onto a property with intent of killing and taking animals... and catching rays and riding waves.

Stupid example.

I hope that a judge understands the difference between carrying guns onto a property with intent of killing and taking animals... and catching rays and riding waves.
Stupid example.

bob bob you have to understand the legal criteria ancient English common-law doctrine of public customary use of private property to understand the difference. Both hunting and catching rays on private property is the common denominator. Not the activity. The ancient English doctrine of custom is not specific of the activity or if the property is highly desirable beachfront private property or private hunting property. Just that the custom criteria, that has been posted previously, is met. The private property owner’s attorneys will make sure judge will understand the differences.

I stand corrected. I do remember several lawsuits filed against the county earlier by BFO’s pertaining to the earlier customary use ordinance. But I’m sure I’m going get an assful of slings and arrows for not having my legalese in order.

Thanks for owning that. That is the problem, this cycle of jumping on and accepting erroneous beliefs at face value, because it fits an agenda, regardless if it is factual or based on the law or not; that incites others with the same agenda to perpetuate the erroneous beliefs as fact but is an illusion of fact, and the next thing you know lies about local celebrities stole public beach for $400 with quiet title judgments [quiet title has been between two private property owners, never public property, and a judge quieted the title based on the facts/evidence] or single handedly got a FL bill passed, or Walton beaches were all public use until HB631 “privatized” all of “our public” privately owned beaches, and the internet slide from a known “bizarre” CU activist proved the belief. Then the anti-social media jumps on the band wagon, partisan polls show might makes right, and “progressive” news channels echo the erroneous belief that fit the agenda and increases hits, which continues the vicious cycle of repeating over and over again an erroneous belief, that regardless if the belief is lawful or not, tax payers end up spending millions of dollars to litigate the belief, may get nothing in return except the Defendants legal fees, and a whole lot of finger pointing, anger, and ill will that may damage SoWal community for a long time. The premise of this thread.

Regardless of who prevails in court the public demand to enjoy a beach grows but the Walton beach supply governments and private citizens own is fixed. No one will take care of the real property beaches better than an private property owner with an economic interest in the property. Not the public and not the government and you can not ignore property owner’s Constitutional property rights because you don’t like that fact.

Supply and demand (and lack of enforcement) is a major cause of bad public beach behavior. Without managing the demand for beaches, because the supply is fixed, with education of acceptable behavior and respect for private property rights; demanding beachfront owners “compromise” by Commissioners not litigating against 4,600+ owners if they will trade their Constitutionally protected property rights for enforcing bad beach behavior, that is the responsibility of the Commissioners regardless of who owns or has rights to use private beaches, is misguided by a belief American property laws don’t matter polls do, and disingenuous at best.

Sad thing is many owners are willing to share, but not if you force them by litigation (and cost them money to protect their property rights) or social media shaming. That just make us BFOs mad and not want to share any more. Is the CU agenda making a mountain out of mole hill out of a belief in principle regardless of American law? What if BFOs property rights prevail in court? (1) Public education and (2) respect of property rights can change the current course of actions but not if you want to litigate in court and shame on social media. The elected Commissioners made the political decision to litigate instead of finding a political solution to the beach supply & demand problem and self proclaimed leadership of the CU agenda can change civil discourse and social media shaming if they try. It will take time and effort on the leadership’s part. We didn’t get to this point of community ill will overnight. Otherwise what’s for BFOs to compromise? BFOs are the Defendant with private property right they have had since 1776 and have today and have nothing to prove or compromise if they so choose.

Ok, I get there is disagreement about “owning” and “using” the beach. And I do get that we won’t solve that here, but I re read Reggie’s original post that drew me to this thread (and btw, where is he? Is he banned? Never got an answer to that.) So imho it seems the County leadership is really at the bottom of all this since they haven’t been strategic in planning for all of the growth in our beach communities and the huge increase in tourists. I don’t know about you, but “the word is out” that Florida panhandle beaches are THE place to visit, bring the family, and enjoy an amazing beauty that we get to enjoy everyday. How can I find the county strategic plan? How can we get the county leadership to be better planners? Would pro CU folks accept more planned public accesses or are they really just wanting to fight with bfos?

Again, the fifth amendment to the Constitution says private property can be taken for public use if there is just compensation.

I wonder if the ratings for the erroneous posts will be revised? Or is just belief in the posts regardless if erroneous or not sufficient to Like the information?
590 Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

606 Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

You won't get an argument from anybody that the county government has been AWOL when it comes to growth management. Does it seem like a good idea to instantly compel the entire beachgoing community to confine their activities to less than 25% of the beaches they use to enjoy? Fun fact: only about one quarter of all those "public beaches" ya'll talk about have any parking whatsoever.

Again, the fifth amendment to the Constitution says private property can be taken for public use if there is just compensation.

What’s the point? No private property condemnation litigation has been taken by the Commissioners to offer market fair value for.

If your point is the dry sand beach is worthless because State and local Government has used its police powers to regulate uses and construction of private property beaches that does not make the property unbuildable or have no value. Government could just as well not use their police powers or authorize exception to their police powers and permit construction - making the private property more valuable. Like a fishing pier or a private beachfront property amusement tower like in the Daytona Beach Tona-Rama case. Might want to look up Florida’s Burt Harris Act too that provides relief to private landowners when a law, regulation, or ordinance inordinately burdens, restricts, or limits private property without amounting to a taking under the U.S Constitution.

I wonder if the ratings for the erroneous posts will be revised? Or is just belief in the posts regardless if erroneous or not sufficient to Like the information?
590 Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
View attachment 77292
606 Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
View attachment 77293

I'm taking responsibility for not being totally versed in all the legal minutia of this extremely complex situation. I think I have built up a small degree of reliability on this website and I am simply trying to express my sentiments about the situation, and in that regard, some people agree with me. You can't change how people feel with a barrage of legal facts, and that is all this thread has been about: trying to put a PR spin on an ugly situation.

You won't get an argument from anybody that the county government has been AWOL when it comes to growth management. Does it seem like a good idea to instantly compel the entire beachgoing community to confine their activities to less than 25% of the beaches they use to enjoy? Fun fact: only about one quarter of all those "public beaches" ya'll talk about have any parking whatsoever.

But is that the responsibility of the private property owner who paid fair market value for all the bundle of rights in the title granted by the US and Florida land grants and pay taxes on for what is described in their deeds to the MHWL?
That Commissioners want to shift their failures to manage Walton county beach supply & demand growth onto private property owners should be run out of town. Many of the previous Commissioners are already gone. Commissioners authorize the TDC annually to spend $20,000,000 a year to bring more tourist here, that mostly benefits local beach-side businesses, not locals and not private property owners, and just raised the tourist tax to 5%. Stop the taxes and let those tourist dollars go back into the local economy and grow jobs, not bureaucracy. Where is the outrage from the community and social media for that??