Back to All About SoWal

Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Reggie Gaskins avatar
Beach Lover
526,502 views2
upload_2019-4-25_8-30-52.jpeg
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.

03BC6F35-C70B-476E-8581-BDFB287ECF68.jpeg

Replies

2,312
Beach Fanatic
#702
Yes my link was bad. This was mentioned several times and I aknowleged this. I don't know why it didn't copy over correctly. I can't go back and edit/fix it. My post was in reply to the 5th Amendment Taking Clause comment made by Poppaj. The quoted response that included the bad link was "the Supreme Court held that general benefits which a community would enjoy from the furthering of economic development is sufficient to qualify as a 'public use.'"

Now that semantics are out of the way.....

Interesting read below.

Customary Use Facts
Mike Jones avatar
Beach Fanatic
#703
Yes my link was bad. This was mentioned several times and I aknowleged this. I don't know why it didn't copy over correctly. I can't go back and edit/fix it. My post was in reply to the 5th Amendment Taking Clause comment made by Poppaj. The quoted response that included the bad link was "the Supreme Court held that general benefits which a community would enjoy from the furthering of economic development is sufficient to qualify as a 'public use.'"

Now that semantics are out of the way.....

Interesting read below.

Customary Use Facts
Don't allow yourself to be bullied. The bullies on this thread don't realize (or probably care) that they stand out like a sore thumb in the garden that is the SoWal forum. I've seen it before. They leave as victims when they realize that bullies can't exist here.

Typical pattern for bullies on SoWal - arrive suddenly, become aggressive very quickly, get frustrated, flail about, get butt hurt, cry victim.

You can see the pattern playing out on this thread as plain as day.
Beach Fanatic
#704
Don't allow yourself to be bullied. The bullies on this thread don't realize (or probably care) that they stand out like a sore thumb in the garden that is the SoWal forum. I've seen it before. They leave as victims when they realize that bullies can't exist here.

Typical pattern for bullies on SoWal - arrive suddenly, become aggressive very quickly, get frustrated, flail about, get butt hurt, cry victim.

You can see the pattern playing out on this thread as plain as day.

The irony is that they are actually unifying us to a degree. Me, Poppaj, Lake View Too and some others don't agree on much but on this topic we actually share some common ground (no pun intended).
PoppaJ avatar
SoWal Insider
#705
Yes my link was bad. This was mentioned several times and I aknowleged this. I don't know why it didn't copy over correctly. I can't go back and edit/fix it. My post was in reply to the 5th Amendment Taking Clause comment made by Poppaj. The quoted response that included the bad link was "the Supreme Court held that general benefits which a community would enjoy from the furthering of economic development is sufficient to qualify as a 'public use.'"

Now that semantics are out of the way.....

Interesting read below.

Customary Use Facts
Link was defective and obviously no fault of yours. Easily rectified by simply googling the case you referred to.
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#706
Yes my link was bad. This was mentioned several times and I aknowleged this. ... The quoted response that included the bad link was "the Supreme Court held that general benefits which a community would enjoy from the furthering of economic development is sufficient to qualify as a 'public use.'"
Interesting read below.
Customary Use Facts
OK on the Keto link. We all make mistakes. But there is a difference between semantic and facts.
What makes the FL Senate sponsor of 2018 HB631 read interesting to public customary use of private property advocates?

No one ever answered questions about Kelo. Did anyone read Kelo and understand the facts of the case?
Only a quote about Kelo taken out of context. "the Supreme Court held that general benefits which a community would enjoy from the furthering of economic development is sufficient to qualify as a 'public use.'" So? What does that have to do about Walton private beachfront and the legal doctrine of old English custom?

Is the point that Kelo permits any public use economic development of any private property, like private beachfront property?
Or did Kelo determine that a governmental taking of private property and making that previously private property, not available to the public, but to a different private property owner justify a police power eminent domain condemnation litigation?
If your definition of bulling is presenting facts about unsubstantiated beliefs - you have an odd definition of bulling. Can you give specific examples of bullying besides "there just is!".
#756 posts and counting. Not leaving anytime soon but will just ignore the repetitive meaningless LV2 posts in violation of SoWal Terms of Use 3.2 (a) Be courteous. ... do not deliberately disrupt discussions with repetitive messages, meaningless messages or "spam."

What public customary use of private property facts are you all offering?

Edited

PoppaJ avatar
SoWal Insider
#707
OK on the Keto link. We all make mistakes. But there is a difference between semantic and facts.
What makes the FL Senate sponsor of 2018 HB631 read interesting to public customary use of private property advocates?

No one ever answered questions about Kelo. Did anyone read Kelo and understand the facts of the case?
Only a quote about Kelo taken out of context. "the Supreme Court held that general benefits which a community would enjoy from the furthering of economic development is sufficient to qualify as a 'public use.'" So? What does that have to do about Walton private beachfront and the legal doctrine of old English custom?

Is the point that Kelo permits any public use economic development of any private property, like private beachfront property?
Or did Kelo determine that a governmental taking of private property and making that previously private property, not available to the public, but to a different private property owner justify a police power eminent domain condemnation litigation?
If your definition of bulling is presenting facts about unsubstantiated beliefs - you have an odd definition of bulling. Can you give specific examples of bullying besides "there just is!".
#756 posts and counting. Not leaving anytime soon but will just ignore the repetitive meaningless LV2 posts in violation of SoWal Terms of Use 3.2 (a) Be courteous. ... do not deliberately disrupt discussions with repetitive messages, meaningless messages or "spam."

What public customary use of private property facts are you all offering?
In LC Bane’s post, the one that caused you to freak out over a bad link, he asked in bold letters and I quote, "Is that Plan B (if needed)?"
Beach Fanatic
#708
In LC Bane’s post, the one that caused you to freak out over a bad link, he asked in bold letters and I quote, "Is that Plan B (if needed)?"

Correct. It was a question.
Bob Wells avatar
Beach Fanatic
#709
  • Thanks for the clarification from the Senator. Now if she could come up and explain it to all, because obviously her intent is important.
  • Yes my link was bad. This was mentioned several times and I aknowleged this. I don't know why it didn't copy over correctly. I can't go back and edit/fix it. My post was in reply to the 5th Amendment Taking Clause comment made by Poppaj. The quoted response that included the bad link was "the Supreme Court held that general benefits which a community would enjoy from the furthering of economic development is sufficient to qualify as a 'public use.'"
    [*]
    Now that semantics are out of the way.....

    Interesting read below.

    Customary Use Facts

BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#710
What makes the FL Senate sponsor of 2018 HB631 read interesting to public customary use of private property advocates?
I had the exact same question when I read the link to Kathleen Passidomo’s website. What is the point of referring to it from a CU supporter’s viewpoint? Truly an open minded question.
Beach Fanatic
#711
What Bob Wells said and to ad, information from the sponsor of the bill is interesting. That is all. Not playing a "gotcha" game. Nothing to read into guys.
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#712
Just wondered what made the Passidomo interesting enough to comment now? It's been posted for a while.

Another interesting read from the FL House Sponsor almost a year ago.
Edwards-Walpole defends HB 631. By State Rep. Katie Edwards-Walpole [2018 FL House sponsor of HB 631]. Jul 28, 2018.

The temperature is rising and it’s not just the hot Florida sun. A new law, that I sponsored during the 2018 Legislative Session and that went into effect on July 1, 2018, aims to introduce a balanced process for resolving the legal issue of whether customary use exists on privately owned beachfront property in Florida. Much to my disappointment, this law has been misunderstood by both proponents and opponents alike, causing temperatures to rise and disputes to ensue.

The law, simply put, was intended to protect private property rights from local government political pressures to adopt ordinances outside of a legal review of evidence relating to customary use and to protect government from literally hundreds of individual lawsuits challenging whether those customary use ordinances were legal. Importantly, the law preserves local governments’ ability to accommodate for customary use, meaning beachgoers may still have the ability to use the beaches as they did before.

Yet, some have viewed this as a restriction on their right to access the beach, and have deliberately trespassed on private, beachfront property and incited owners to themselves act in ways which leave many scratching their heads.

Let me be clear about what the law does and was intended to do. The legislation says that the decision on whether or not a government can invoke customary use on someone’s private property goes to a neutral third-party, which is the court system. Until the law was passed, a government entity made up of a handful of people, like local county commissioners, could unilaterally decide to declare a right of use over private property for public use. That is the same as a taking and was inevitably going to result in years of costly litigation, likely to not end well for local governments.

Moreover, there is a misconception that after a private beach has been re-nourished using public funds that it will remain private and won’t be open to the public for use and enjoyment. This argument is nothing more than a red herring. The fact is, once the beach undergoes re-nourishment it becomes public [seaward of the Erosion Control Line (ECL), based on the local MHWL] and beachgoers are welcome to use it as such.

As the sponsor of this legislation, I will say I have watched some of the news reports of conflict and confusion over this law. I encourage property owners and beachgoers alike to work together and understand that this bill is not about making beaches private or disrupting your day in the sand. Again, this bill only adds a vital step affording [private property owner] due process, which is a foundational element of the U.S. Constitution. Emphasis added.

Edited

Beach Fanatic
#713
Dang FBB. You "liked" my post then took it away. Are you just being coy?
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#714
Dang FBB. You "liked" my post then took it away. Are you just being coy?
No. Just undecided.
PoppaJ avatar
SoWal Insider
#715
Just wondered what made the Passidomo interesting enough to comment now? It's been posted for a while.

Another interesting read from the FL House Sponsor from almost a year ago.
Edwards-Walpole defends HB 631. By State Rep. Katie Edwards-Walpole [2018 FL House sponsor of HB 631]. Jul 28, 2018.

The temperature is rising and it’s not just the hot Florida sun. A new law, that I sponsored during the 2018 Legislative Session and that went into effect on July 1, 2018, aims to introduce a balanced process for resolving the legal issue of whether customary use exists on privately owned beachfront property in Florida. Much to my disappointment, this law has been misunderstood by both proponents and opponents alike, causing temperatures to rise and disputes to ensue.

The law, simply put, was intended to protect private property rights from local government political pressures to adopt ordinances outside of a legal review of evidence relating to customary use and to protect government from literally hundreds of individual lawsuits challenging whether those customary use ordinances were legal. Importantly, the law preserves local governments’ ability to accommodate for customary use, meaning beachgoers may still have the ability to use the beaches as they did before.

Yet, some have viewed this as a restriction on their right to access the beach, and have deliberately trespassed on private, beachfront property and incited owners to themselves act in ways which leave many scratching their heads.

Let me be clear about what the law does and was intended to do. The legislation says that the decision on whether or not a government can invoke customary use on someone’s private property goes to a neutral third-party, which is the court system. Until the law was passed, a government entity made up of a handful of people, like local county commissioners, could unilaterally decide to declare a right of use over private property for public use. That is the same as a taking and was inevitably going to result in years of costly litigation, likely to not end well for local governments.

Moreover, there is a misconception that after a private beach has been re-nourished using public funds that it will remain private and won’t be open to the public for use and enjoyment. This argument is nothing more than a red herring. The fact is, once the beach undergoes re-nourishment it becomes public [seaward of the Erosion Control Line (ECL), based on the local MHWL] and beachgoers are welcome to use it as such.

As the sponsor of this legislation, I will say I have watched some of the news reports of conflict and confusion over this law. I encourage property owners and beachgoers alike to work together and understand that this bill is not about making beaches private or disrupting your day in the sand. Again, this bill only adds a vital step affording [private property owner] due process, which is a foundational element of the U.S. Constitution. Emphasis added.
I guess it’s a foundational element If you consider the last sentence of the 5th amendment to be foundational. Sounds more like an afterthought.
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#716
I guess it’s a foundational element If you consider the last sentence of the 5th amendment to be foundational. Sounds more like an afterthought.
The 5th Amendment is only one sentence with 3 semicolon clauses. Unclear what you mean by "last sentence" and what sounds like an after thought? Government taking "Without just compensation" is an after thought of the Constitution authors?

State Rep. Katie Edwards-Walpole does not refer to the 5th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is also about due process.
The Constitution states only one command twice. Due Process

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

14th Amendment Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Edited

PoppaJ avatar
SoWal Insider
#717
The 5th Amendment is only one sentence with 3 semicolon clauses. Unclear what you mean by "last sentence" and what sounds like an after thought? Government taking "Without just compensation" is an after thought of the Constitution authors?

State Rep. Katie Edwards-Walpole does not refer to the 5th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is also about due process.
The Constitution states only one command twice. Due Process

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

14th Amendment Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Afterthought as in “hey guys, we should have included this with that first document.” Next time you build a house tell your architect you want to place some “foundational elements” on the 5th and 14th floors.
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#7191
You remember when Governor Scott did this and what Senator Passidomo had to say?
Backing beachgoers: Gov. Rick Scott signs executive order to protect public beach access
Can you explain, not read to the forum, what you remember and think Senator Passidomo had say? Otherwise, your point is unclear.
Did Gov Scott EO-18-202 address Government owned public dry sand beaches, beach seaward of the MHWL (foreshore), or All public and private FL dry sand beaches?
FL Gov Scott EO-18-202.pdf
Auburn Fan avatar
Beach Lover
#720
Serious question:

If fighting for public beach use is a national issue, why does Walton County have to foot the bill?

:scratching:
Jim Tucker avatar
Beach Fanatic
#721
Serious question:

If fighting for public beach use is a national issue, why does Walton County have to foot the bill?

:scratching:
You would think some national groups like ACLU or surf rider would step up.
PoppaJ avatar
SoWal Insider
#722
Serious question:

If fighting for public beach use is a national issue, why does Walton County have to foot the bill?

:scratching:
Could it be this is a rhetorical question and Walton County isn’t footing the bill for the entire nation?
Bob Wells avatar
Beach Fanatic
#723
Can you explain, not read to the forum, what you remember and think Senator Passidomo had say? Otherwise, your point is unclear.
Did Gov Scott EO-18-202 address Government owned public dry sand beaches, beach seaward of the MHWL (foreshore), or All public and private FL dry sand beaches?
I always like to use the words people use and go from there. I suppose it goes to intent, what the intent was versus what folks think it was. In the end the Senator says it must be brought before the Courts. The Governor, imo, seemed to regret signing the bill but of course with his history of close races for Governor, my opinion was he was hedging his bets to ensure he was able to defeat Senator Nelson. Just my take, you are more than welcome to disagree.
Beach Lover
#724
I would like to define two terms.

1. Ancient Customary Use as related to Walton County Florida - Defined as the right to transverse the coastline, swim, fish, take family photos on the entire 26 miles of 30A coastline and the right to use beach equipment on County Property (during approved hours) or State Property (with a permit) or Private Property (if no objection by the Private Property Owner).

2. Entitlement Use as related to Walton County – Defined as the rights of tourists, or locals, to use chairs, umbrellas, and other beach equipment against the will of the Property Owner (AKA Day Camping).

Note that Property Owner in item #2 could be the County (use of Public beach or parking outside of posted hours), or the State of Florida (use of State Parks without a permit or against the rules of the park), or Private Property Owners (use of property against the will of the owner). This is not about sharing County, State, or Private Property with tourists or locals. Item #2 is about use of property AGAINST the will of the property owner.

The issue of the County lawsuit is all about item #2 (Entitlement Use) and nothing about item #1 (Ancient CU). If Entitlement Use is dropped from the County Ordinance, then there is no lawsuit because there is not violation of private property rights.

The BCC has never approved, or even assumed, an Entitlement Use Ordinances prior to 2016, so this is a very recent issue by the BCC.

Even previous law enforcement agencies did not assume Entitlement use existed. In July of 2002 Mark Austin used a public access walkover to get to a stretch of Dune Allen beach and the property owner at the time, William Houser, objected to Austin's presence on "his" private property called police, who gave Austin a summons for trespassing. Although the current Sherriff has decided he is temporarily not going to enforce trespassing laws while this is in court, that doesn’t mean the private property deeded boundaries have changed or that somehow Entitlement Use is approved.

Two of the current BCC members were not on the board that decided to try and remove constitutional property rights (right of exclusion) and the BCC may have been acting with assumptions that only a few property owners would object. I am asking for Bill Chapman, Danny Glidewell, Melanie Nipper, Trey Nick, and Tony Anderson to take a new Vote to determine if they should proceed with Entitlement Use or even Vote on a budget for how much public funds to use sue Private Property Owners for Entitlement Rights? How about a Vote to alter the language of the Ordinance which could save us MILLIONS OF DOLLARS by inserting the words "WITH PERMISSION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER" to the beach ordinance referencing private property. That would potentially resolve this issue and then property owners can decided on a parcel by parcel basis if they open up their property on an unlimited basis without restriction, during particular hours, or even with some type of maximum limit on the number of tourists on their property. As far as I can tell through BCC minutes and other postings this was never discussed or even asked of the property owners. Why jump straight to a lawsuit that has already exceeded a combined expense over $1MM and has nearly 900 court documents already filed without even trying to work out something?

Are the FBFA founders, their companies, or people associated with FBFA receiving some of the funds they raised through T-Shirt sales, donations, and Go-Fund Me accounts or are they 100% volunteer organization with no paid compensation? If they are receiving any compensation then that could be seen as a personal advantage to those individuals to keep this in court as long as possible no matter what it costs in tax payers dollars. The FBFA has indicated this could be in court for 10 years and cost $50 Million Dollars, and that could be a conservative estimate. That could explain the FBFA "No Compromise" rally cry.

How we end up working together, or continuing to work against each other to create further division in Walton County on this very issue will impact our future and the 30A Legacy.
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#725
I always like to use the words people use and go from there. I suppose it goes to intent, what the intent was versus what folks think it was. In the end the Senator says it must be brought before the Courts. The Governor, imo, seemed to regret signing the bill but of course with his history of close races for Governor, my opinion was he was hedging his bets to ensure he was able to defeat Senator Nelson. Just my take, you are more than welcome to disagree.
Bob, not clear what your intent or point was. “You remember when Governor Scott did this (this what? E-O 18-202?) and what Senator Passidomo had to say?” (say about E-O? or HB631?). Additional comment below. [1]

Regardless. If you read the words of the E-O and FS163.035 (HB631) and don’t read anything into the HB631 words, that you want to hear, or don’t want to hear, it seems clear what the intent of HB631 was. To codify Constitutional 5th and 14th Amendment due process private property rights . To prevent any other politically elected FL commissioners from doing what no other FL county had done before, and what Walton commissioners stupidly did, by trying to circumvent a Constitutional taking. [2]

The E-O intent affirmed and clarified public access to Government owned beaches; because all the other FL beaches are protected by the Constitutional due process and private property right of fair market compensation if governments want to take private property for pubic use. [3]

I don’t think the Governor regretted codifying the legal due-process Constitutional right that private property owners deserve. [4][5]

You are welcome to disagree as well but would you explain why if you do?
------------------------------------
[1] When asked to clarify your question; “I suppose it goes to intent (who’s), what the intent (which? E-O or HB631?) was versus what folks think it (E-O? or HB631?) was.” Seem to be confounding the Scott’s E-O and Passadomo’s HB631 and unsure what your point was.

[2] By hiring $425/hour legal consultants to tell Commissioners what they wanted to hear, not listen to the 3 minutes property owners and their representatives were given to object to the (legal?) customary use “evidence”, then unilaterally declare an archaic aristocratic English common law doctrine of custom on private property. Hardly Constitutional legal due process.

HB 631 correctly (1) prevents local governments from using police powers to unilaterally declare public customary use on private property and (2) placed elected government official’s legal claim of public customary use in a disciplined due-process legal setting with the government claimant as the Plaintiff with the burden of proof to show ALL historical English criteria of custom is superior to the Constitutional private property protections.

[3] It was a midterm election year and the progressive antisocial media went into high gear but against all odds the conservative Republican Senate candidate prevailed over a career incumbent Democratic politician. If no one substitute “all” beaches for “public beaches”; you don’t have to be an trained attorney to understand the words of the E-O. What was the intent of the E-O? Does it matter? The E-O is not law and can’t change law (FS163.035). It was as confusing as you wanted to make the E-O out to be; especially if you didn’t understand the words or wanted to incite the masses to fit a CU agenda.

[4] Granted the E-O didn’t not change what already was; the public should have access to all public beaches and HB631 did not change that either. The E-O nor HB 631 change the property title or the Walton Constitution private property rights BFOs have had since 1776 and have today.

[5] Key 2018 Governor Executive Order statements (of fact);
“Florida Constitution provides that the title to [all 825 miles of foreshore] beaches below the mean high water line is held by the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, in trust for all the people”
“HB 631 as enacted by the Florida Legislature does not privatize or close access to any public beach in Florida”
“it is critical that there be no room for confusion regarding access to public beaches in Florida”
“all agencies headed by an official ... not to adopt any rule restricting public access to any Florida beach that has an established recreational customary use” [Did not and does not include private owned beachfront in 33 other FL coastal counties (67 total FL counties).]
FDEP and Parks “ensure that access to Florida's public beaches is not restricted so that families and visitors can continue to enjoy our world-class public beaches”
“I hereby urge all ... county and municipal governments, to refrain from adopting any ordinance or rule that would restrict or eliminate access to Florida's public beaches.”
“I hereby urge all State Attorneys ... to take appropriate actions to ensure that the ability of the public to access Florida's public beaches”

Edited

Bob Wells avatar
Beach Fanatic
#726
Suppose I am giving you my opinion, like everyone else. I have come to a conclusion just because you have a certain belief it is not incumbent upon me to believe that way too. At the same time, expression of my opinion is not my intent to sway you from yours. I have not laid out a legal precedent to inform anyone as you have, ad nauseam, and as I have said, I am more than willing to wait for the courts to rule. I will be more than willing to accept its verdict even though I won't pretend it will be over, whichever way Judge Green rules. So to conclude this, I believe that customary use exist, I believe it will cost money to prove it, I believe my tax dollars will be used to litigate it, I think it sucks that there is a division within our community. Just my opinion.

Bob, not clear what your intent or point was. “You remember when Governor Scott did this (this what? E-O 18-202?) and what Senator Passidomo had to say?” (say about E-O? or HB631?). Additional comment below. [1]

Regardless. If you read the words of the E-O and FS163.035 (HB631) and don’t read anything into the HB631 words, that you want to hear, or don’t want to hear, it seems clear what the intent of HB631 was. To codify Constitutional 5th and 14th Amendment due process private property rights . To prevent any other politically elected FL commissioners from doing what no other FL county had done before, and what Walton commissioners stupidly did, by trying to circumvent a Constitutional taking. [2]

The E-O intent affirmed and clarified public access to Government owned beaches; because all the other FL beaches are protected by the Constitutional due process and private property right of fair market compensation if governments want to take private property for pubic use. [3]

I don’t think the Governor regretted codifying the legal due-process Constitutional right that private property owners deserve. [4][5]

You are welcome to disagree as well but would you explain why if you do?
------------------------------------
[1] When asked to clarify your question; “I suppose it goes to intent (who’s), what the intent (which? E-O or HB631?) was versus what folks think it (E-O? or HB631?) was.” Seem to be confounding the Scott’s E-O and Passadomo’s HB631 and unsure what your point was.

[2] By hiring $425/hour legal consultants to tell Commissioners what they wanted to hear, not listen to the 3 minutes property owners and their representatives were given to object to the (legal?) customary use “evidence”, then unilaterally declare an archaic aristocratic English common law doctrine of custom on private property. Hardly Constitutional legal due process.

HB 631 correctly (1) prevents local governments from using police powers to unilaterally declare public customary use on private property and (2) placed elected government official’s legal claim of public customary use in a disciplined due-process legal setting with the government claimant as the Plaintiff with the burden of proof to show ALL historical English criteria of custom is superior to the Constitutional private property protections.

[3] It was a midterm election year and the progressive antisocial media went into high gear but against all odds the conservative Republican Senate candidate prevailed over a career incumbent Democratic politician. If no one substitute “all” beaches for “public beaches”; you don’t have to be an trained attorney to understand the words of the E-O. What was the intent of the E-O? Does it matter? The E-O is not law and can’t change law (FS163.035). It was as confusing as you wanted to make the E-O out to be; especially if you didn’t understand the words or wanted to incite the masses to fit a CU agenda.

[4] Granted the E-O didn’t not change what already was; the public should have access to all public beaches and HB631 did not change that either. The E-O nor HB 631 change the property title or the Walton Constitution private property rights BFOs have had since 1776 and have today.

[5] Key 2018 Governor Executive Order statements (of fact);
“Florida Constitution provides that the title to [all 825 miles of foreshore] beaches below the mean high water line is held by the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, in trust for all the people”
“HB 631 as enacted by the Florida Legislature does not privatize or close access to any public beach in Florida”
“it is critical that there be no room for confusion regarding access to public beaches in Florida”
“all agencies headed by an official ... not to adopt any rule restricting public access to any Florida beach that has an established recreational customary use” [Did not and does not include private owned beachfront in 33 other FL coastal counties (67 total FL counties).]
FDEP and Parks “ensure that access to Florida's public beaches is not restricted so that families and visitors can continue to enjoy our world-class public beaches”
“I hereby urge all ... county and municipal governments, to refrain from adopting any ordinance or rule that would restrict or eliminate access to Florida's public beaches.”
“I hereby urge all State Attorneys ... to take appropriate actions to ensure that the ability of the public to access Florida's public beaches”

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.

New posts