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
Dawn avatar
Beach Fanatic
#777
See the Advertisements on the Right and Bottom? They are not free. Guessing pay SoWal by number displayed or clicked.
Wrong guess.
Beach Lover
#778
Property rights advocates is what I've called myself and BFOs before - not activists < that's your word. You have an opinion about the "tone" and BFOs have an different opinion - so we are even on opinions. Is your opinion superior to any other opinion? If so why?
"Invading this forum aggressively en mass" Really? Invading? En mass? According to Rauschkolb there's only 8 BFOs . If credible facts are considered "aggressive" - so be it.

What am I up to? 144?
With each one you dig your hole deeper.
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#779
Wrong guess.
Don't just say wrong. Are the Ads free? Educate us with the right Ad facts please.
Lake View Too avatar
SoWal Insider
#780
Property rights advocates is what I've called myself and BFOs before - not activists < that's your word. You have an opinion about the "tone" and BFOs have an different opinion - so we are even on opinions. Is your opinion superior to any other opinion? If so why?
"Invading this forum aggressively en mass" Really? Invading? En mass? According to Rauschkolb there's only 8 BFOs . If credible facts are considered "aggressive" - so be it.

What am I up to? 144?
Since we are getting nostalgic and going back through early posts, you started out in post #10 calling everybody that disagreed with you “ignorant”. Remember? And since I had not posted yet, I doubt I can be accused of setting the tone. Facts are a b**ch.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#781
I know you are but what am I? On and on....

It’s bad enough but expected and somewhat tolerated that BFOs are labeled as mean, greedy, arrogant, aholes, self-righteous, egocentric, old rich people, Scrooge, gaslighters, bloviators, etc., etc., etc.

But

James Brentwood, you definitely crossed the line in my book, and in a very bad way. I believe you genuinely owe @FloridaBeachBum and the rest of us for that matter, an apology.

Calling yourself a property rights activist sets a false tone. The title of this thread sets a negative and false tone. Invading this forum aggressively en masse sets a bad tone.

Right or wrong you're a bad neighbor and bad for our community.

And you have just proven WITHOUT A DOUBT that we have already lost our 30A Legacy among other things.
Lake View Too avatar
SoWal Insider
#782
I know you are but what am I? On and on....

It’s bad enough but expected and somewhat tolerated that BFOs are labeled as mean, greedy, arrogant, aholes, self-righteous, egocentric, old rich people, Scrooge, gaslighters, bloviators, etc., etc., etc.

But

James Brentwood, you definitely crossed the line in my book, and in a very bad way. I believe you genuinely owe @FloridaBeachBum and the rest of us for that matter, an apology.



And you have just proven WITHOUT A DOUBT that we have already lost our 30A Legacy among other things.
You continue to blame others for your mistakes. That is precisely why this thread has generated so much animosity.
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#783
Since we are getting nostalgic and going back through early posts, you started out in post #10 calling everybody that disagreed with you “ignorant”. Remember? And since I had not posted yet, I doubt I can be accused of setting the tone. Facts are a b**ch.
Is that the best you have? Me making a general statement about CU facts will not persuade "the" ignorant?
Do you think that use of ignorant is synonymous with rude or is rude?
Definition. lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified or not polite or showing respect.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-older-people-think-ignorant-means-rude
I'm fifty four years old. I have never considered the words "Ignorant" and "Rude" to be synonymous. Ignorant is a lack of education or knowledge. Rude is the breaking of social customs in a way that would be considered offensive.
For example: In the US we are taught to finish our plate when eating. In some households it is considered rude not to finish your plate as it would signify you didn't like what was served to you. In Russia, China and the Philippines it is considered rude to finish your plate off. Your host will interpret that as meaning that you are still hungry and they failed to provide you with enough food. If you did this while visiting Russia it would likely stem from being ignorant of the custom. If you did this while being aware of the custom as an insult to your host this would be rude. Therein lies is a difference.

How about before #10? #5 bob bob '"30A" people are greedy, entitled, spoiled... A different breed.' #9 Jenksy "you are part of the problem and should leave." That's rude and disrespectful "tone".

What did you do at any point of the thread to change "the tone"? You are responsible for your own words and your "worst reflexes". No one else.

Edited

Beach Fanatic
#784
LVT I do agree with you on this subject. What I don't agree with is disrespect in any form. I believe that wealthy people are so good at justifying their privileges that they miss the point of humanity. Unfortunately the reason I have changed my mind is because I have tired of the insults coming from the CU side. It escalates conflict and destroys compromising negotiations. The democratic party loses hundreds of thousands of votes because of the use of foul language, shaming and insulting that comes from that side. When they lose elections they spend their entire time insulting, shaming and vilifying instead of preparing for the next election. I vote democrat 90% of the time because of the environment and social programs but I am certain they will keep losing unless they start spending more time connecting to rural people and less time shaming. I only bring up the politics because I believe that politics is the reason for our break down in communication by creating an agenda instead of creating an atmosphere of compromise. The only agenda these days are to win. We are not interested in compromise so I blame politics. Both sides have agenda and uncompromising principles which destroys democracy. I do NOT want our beach resource being controlled by wealthy people but we could not find a way to compromise and now this will be determined by a court based on facts. Is CU doctrine legal? I say that it should be but it is no longer up to us and we can argue this until there is nothing but destructive behavior left. IMO CU has established precedent in our court system and the court will decide in favor of CU but who knows. One side will win and the other side will lose and the hate from the losing side will grow. We no longer live in a debate with facts and accept compromise society. We only care about principle. I hope CU wins in court but I will accept the courts decision regardless just as I do all political elections. The beginning of the end of what made 30A special is rooted in this discussion and IMO both sides are responsible.
Auburn Fan avatar
Beach Lover
#785
You, BeachSandpiper, have made 20 posts, new member only on this thread, Reggie, 52, Florida Beach Bum wins the prize with well over 100 (140) all by him/herself. Virtually all of his/her posts are related to this issue as a new, Feb 19, 2018 member. I think MMB Vagrant, a SoWal veteran, is a semi close second at 107. Auburn Fan 41, He/she has only made one other post on a different thread. This one thread seems to be holding his/her interest the most as a new member. I'm at 31 if I counted right. Fishing Fool, 13 posts, new member, only posting on this thread.

The fact that you study these metrics so closely is quite revealing. The fact that you try to use the metrics to discount the facts is also revealing.

As if you are desperately afraid who might actually be reading the true facts that have been presented in this thread.

(If any of it is not true, go ahead and point it out, instead of presenting meaningless statistics as an obvious attempt to distract the intelligent, rational reader.)
Lake View Too avatar
SoWal Insider
#786
dead horse.
Dave Rauschkolb avatar
Beach Fanatic
#787
dead horse.

......and another thing. ; )

Edited

Dave Rauschkolb avatar
Beach Fanatic
#788
The fact that you study these metrics so closely is quite revealing. The fact that you try to use the metrics to discount the facts is also revealing.

As if you are desperately afraid who might actually be reading the true facts that have been presented in this thread.

(If any of it is not true, go ahead and point it out, instead of presenting meaningless statistics as an obvious attempt to distract the intelligent, rational reader.)


In context, I was inspired by a private beach activist's interest in the number of posts made by a CU proponent earlier in this thread. You folks seem to think this is a ground breaking "epic" thread. I was merely pointing out most of the posts are coming from the same 8 to 10 Private beachfront advocates talking to yourselves; congratulating yourselves, whoever you are with an intermittent interjection from CU advocates. It would be "epic" if you could convince the 600 give or take other beachfront owners to chime in. Nope. Perhaps you can convince them at some point but really, as I have been saying "a handful" of you are active and vocal and I will give you credit, effective up to this point using your power, influence and money to tip the scales, legislatively speaking to your side but I promise that will change. We aim to stop that train and restore the balance of shared beaches for all. I will say this thread has been useful or I should say "revealing" in that your strategies are wide open for all to see. Thanks for all the info. Meanwhile intelligent, rational readers will focus on the "Shifting Sands."
Beach Lover
#789
In context, I was inspired by a private beach activist's interest in the number of posts made by a CU proponent earlier in this thread. You folks seem to think this is a ground breaking "epic" thread. I was merely pointing out most of the posts are coming from the same 8 to 10 Private beachfront advocates talking to yourselves; congratulating yourselves, whoever you are with an intermittent interjection from CU advocates. It would be "epic" if you could convince the 600 give or take other beachfront owners to chime in. Nope. Perhaps you can convince them at some point but really, as I have been saying "a handful" of you are active and vocal and I will give you credit, effective up to this point using your power, influence and money to tip the scales, legislatively speaking to your side but I promise that will change. We aim to stop that train and restore the balance of shared beaches for all. I will say this thread has been useful or I should say "revealing" in that your strategies are wide open for all to see. Thanks for all the info. Meanwhile intelligent, rational readers will focus on the "Shifting Sands."
Might be one lawyer/owner and a few sock puppets.
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#790
......and another thing. ; )
Cute. The meaningless metrics distraction was fun (not) so lets get back to facts.
"... denying the public's right [Where is that public right? In the Constitution? Please provide credible facts to that public "right" to private property or the statement is legally false or wrong. Or do you mean, public privilege, like driving an automobile on Government property?] to use and enjoy our beach [Intentionally wrong again legally. Do you mean beach that private property owners' paid for the legal title to, pay annual property taxes on, that fund Walton schools?] as we have since time immemorial [is time the only CU criterion or can anyone name and define any other CU criteria?] are determined to paint this as a private property rights issue." [The legal paint brush is black and white. Because the Commissioners' CU litigation is ONLY about private property rights!]

I hear over and over CU emphasis "time immemorial", personal beach use for decades, and used for hundreds of years. The ancient English criteria describe by English aristocrat, jurist, judge Sir William Blackstone legal "Commentaries"... "that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary". In the ancient land of England, that "memory" went back as for as 1192 when the King William the Conqueror ruled England by force. The USA is only 243 years old.

Florida courts have used the term "ancient" and FS163.035 uses "ancient". Can you educate us on what ancient means? What does time immemorial mean? As long as any Walton Commissioner has been alive as more than one Commissioner has claimed?

2007 Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. Trepanier v. Volusia commented on the CU criteria of time; "If the only source of a right claimed as "custom," is that a certain thing has been done in a certain way in a certain place for so long that no one can remember when it wasn't done that way, the inability to offer evidence of the custom suggests the weakness of the claim."

"They [BFOs] can't build on the sand and there is no tax assessments directly attached to that sand." Patently, false, wrong, and untrue.
Or if you can not show any CREDIBLE facts for this false untrue CU belief why should anyone believe your in-credible statement?

"How can they [BFOs] claim ownership and exclusion on shifting sand they can't contain?" Ownership is in the title DEED to the MHWL, 0.74 foot elevation in Walton shown on a legal survey, survey monuments, and physical property boundary markers (like the TDC vendor zone markers on Walton owned beaches?) required by the Walton County Sheriff 2015 trespass Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). How can BFOs claim ownership? Property RIGHT of private use and enjoyment protected by the Constitution. Where is that public RIGHT to use private property again?

Edited

bob bob avatar
Beach Fanatic
#791
Cute. The meaningless metrics distraction was fun (not) so lets get back to facts.
"... denying the public's right [Where is that public right? In the Constitution? Please provide credible facts to that public "right" to private property or the statement is legally false or wrong. Or do you mean, public privilege, like driving an automobile on Government property?] to use and enjoy our beach [Intentionally wrong again legally. Do you mean beach that private property owners' paid for the legal title to, pay annual property taxes on, that fund Walton schools?] as we have since time immemorial [is time the only CU criterion or can anyone name and define any other CU criteria?] are determined to paint this as a private property rights issue." [The legal paint brush is black and white. Because the Commissioners' CU litigation is ONLY about private property rights!]

I hear over and over CU emphasis "time immemorial", personal beach use for decades, and used for hundreds of years. The ancient English criteria describe by English aristocrat, jurist, judge Sir William Blackstone legal "Commentaries"... "that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary". In the ancient land of England, that "memory" went back as for as 1192 when the King William the Conqueror England by force. The USA is only 243 years old.

Florida courts have used the term "ancient" and FS163.035 uses "ancient". Can you educate us on what ancient means? What does time immemorial mean? As long as any Walton Commissioner has been alive?

2007 Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. Trepanier v. Volusia commented on the CU criteria of time; "If the only source of a right claimed as "custom," is that a certain thing has been done in a certain way in a certain place for so long that no one can remember when it wasn't done that way, the inability to offer evidence of the custom suggests the weakness of the claim."

"They [BFOs] can't build on the sand and there is no tax assessments directly attached to that sand." Patently, false, wrong, and untrue.
Or if you can not show any CREDIBLE facts for this false untrue CU belief why should anyone believe your in-credible statement?

"How can they [BFOs] claim ownership and exclusion on shifting sand they can't contain?" Ownership is in the title DEED to the MHWL, 0.74 foot elevation in Walton shown on a legal survey, survey monuments, and physical property boundary markers (like the TDC vendor zone markers on Walton owned beaches?) required by the Walton County Sheriff 2015 trespass Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). How? can BFOs claim ownership? Property RIGHT of private use and enjoyment protected by the Constitution. Where is that public RIGHT to use private property again?
You probably now have the record for words per post. Obviously a lawyer. Do you have a deed that says you own the beach?
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#792
You folks seem to think this is a ground breaking "epic" thread.
I think thou protests too much about metrics, maybe for the reason previously given by @Auburn Fan post:

"The fact that you study these metrics so closely is quite revealing. The fact that you try to use the metrics to discount the facts is also revealing.
As if you are desperately afraid who might actually be reading the true facts that have been presented in this thread.”


It would be "epic" if you could convince the 600 give or take other beachfront owners to chime in. Nope.

Don’t tell me they are all over on your Facebook pages. Damn, am I missing a great party?

Those 600+ you mention are just motions to intervene. When you consider the number of people such as in Rosemary Beach, Watercolor, Seaside HOAs, Alys Beach, Watersound, mult-owner condominiums, each with only one motion PER PARCEL, it’s actually much much more than just 600+ people. Now that’s one metric that’s truly worth revealing and sharing.

But that’s your job as a chief CU spokesperson - skewing or obliterating facts.

I will say this thread has been useful or I should say "revealing" in that your strategies are wide open for all to see.

Thanks for the compliment. Didn’t realize there were any legal strategies presented here that revealed facts that any marginal attorney would not already know, including your attorney, chief antagonizer and Nazi analogizer.

Edited

FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#793
Perhaps you can convince them at some point but really, as I have been saying "a handful" of you are active and vocal and I will give you credit, effective up to this point using your power, influence and money to tip the scales, legislatively speaking to your side but I promise that will change. I will say this thread has been useful or I should say "revealing" in that your strategies are wide open for all to see. Thanks for all the info.
Yes, Dave Rauschkolb, BFOs have revealed our secrete strategy. How could we be so ignorant revealing the facts?
Simple strategy. BFOs are defendants and don't have to prove anything. Only show that the Constitution rights are superior to archaic English custom common law. The Walton tax payer is the one who could be funding all the litigation and Commissioners' and your unfounded CU beliefs.

Me and the other "handful" including 650+ beach parcels (4,761 total) BFOs, are laypersons, but have studied the facts and the law, and hired, what 30(?), of the most experience legal professionals in Florida. I wonder what the legal professionals can do in court with all the property right facts and CU "evidence" I'm probability not even aware of. I'm sure the FBFA attorney will be a great help to the Walton $425/hr and County staff attorneys. Glad to help.

Edited

FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#794
You probably now have the record for words per post. Obviously a lawyer. Do you have a deed that says you own the beach?
There is soooo much CU posts to expose to the light of facts.
Yep, all the way back to the original Government land grant. Includes the MHWL. All on the Walton Clerk of Court public site. So do 1,193 other BFOs. But not one Seaside 30A business has a deed to the beach dunes much less the dry sand to the MHWL. It is an intentional untruth if any beach-view business claims to have a legal property interest to intervene in the Commissioners' litigation as a beachfront owner. Might read that again in case you hear it somewhere else.

Said it before, will say it again. I'm a layperson like you; well, not like you, I do my homework. And before you say it again, I'm not Huckabee. bob bob what have you contributed to the thread?

Edited

BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#795
What have you contributed to the thread?
19 posts so far and a total of 44 “sentences”. That’s 2.3 sentences per post. @bob bob at least wins the grand prize for succinctness. :clap:

How’s that for metrics?

Sorry @FloridaBeachBum.
FactorFiction avatar
Beach Fanatic
#796
In context, I was inspired by a private beach activist's interest in the number of posts made by a CU proponent earlier in this thread. You folks seem to think this is a ground breaking "epic" thread. I was merely pointing out most of the posts are coming from the same 8 to 10 Private beachfront advocates talking to yourselves; congratulating yourselves, whoever you are with an intermittent interjection from CU advocates. It would be "epic" if you could convince the 600 give or take other beachfront owners to chime in. Nope. Perhaps you can convince them at some point but really, as I have been saying "a handful" of you are active and vocal and I will give you credit, effective up to this point using your power, influence and money to tip the scales, legislatively speaking to your side but I promise that will change. We aim to stop that train and restore the balance of shared beaches for all. I will say this thread has been useful or I should say "revealing" in that your strategies are wide open for all to see. Thanks for all the info. Meanwhile intelligent, rational readers will focus on the "Shifting Sands."


Strategy? I suppose you are right if facts and the Constitution are "hidden" strategies.

Seems to me that focusing on shifting sand is another CU diversion since metes and bounds legal descriptions on deeds and surveys don't rely on where the sand shifts. I'll grant you that the MHWL is not visible with the naked eye and since it is a 19 year average, it does move slightly; however, the criteria for the line is well defined, clear and set in statute. As the CU advocates also like to pound into the sand, CU is NOT about who owns the property or whether sand shifts, it is about PROVING the legal criteria of customary use. Seems that the property rights advocates like dealing with facts and CU advocates like dealing with one emotional issue after another, while refusing to address the factual questions that the property rights advocates are asking.

Maybe intelligent, rational readers will step back and take a look at the discussion and information and have an informed discussion with some of the beachfront owners. I have and I've been pleasantly surprised that the mantra of "wanting to kick everyone off their property" is more fiction than fact.
Auburn Fan avatar
Beach Lover
#797
You, BeachSandpiper, have made 20 posts, new member only on this thread, Reggie, 52, Florida Beach Bum wins the prize with well over 100 (140) all by him/herself. Virtually all of his/her posts are related to this issue as a new, Feb 19, 2018 member. I think MMB Vagrant, a SoWal veteran, is a semi close second at 107. Auburn Fan 41, He/she has only made one other post on a different thread. This one thread seems to be holding his/her interest the most as a new member. I'm at 31 if I counted right. Fishing Fool, 13 posts, new member, only posting on this thread.

Since you are apparently so interested in metrics, here's a few more:

Dave Rauschkolb has posted 33 comments on this thread alone, from April 27 - June 20, 2019, and yet...

In comparison, Dave Rauschkolb has posted 35 times TOTAL in the entire last YEAR anywhere on SOWAL forum, prior to Reggie's original post.

Prior to this thread of Reggie's, Dave Rauschkolb had posted a total of only 3 comments anywhere on the entire Sowal forum in 2019.

Since Reggie's original post, Dave Rauschkolb made a 3 other original posts on SOWAL, generating a combined total of only 5 replies from other members.

Any other metrics you want to discuss, Dave?
Better yet, now let's get back to the original discussion at hand.

Finally something we can agree on with LV2.
The horse is dead.
:banging:

Edited

PoppaJ avatar
SoWal Insider
#798
Since you are apparently so interested in metrics, here's a few more:

Dave Rauschkolb has posted 33 comments on this thread alone, from April 27 - June 20, 2019, and yet...

In comparison, Dave Rauschkolb has posted 35 times TOTAL in the entire last YEAR anywhere on SOWAL forum, prior to Reggie's original post.

Prior to this thread of Reggie's, Dave Rauschkolb had posted a total of only 3 comments anywhere on the entire Sowal forum in 2019.

Since Reggie's original post, Dave Rauschkolb made a 3 other original posts on SOWAL, generating a combined total of only 5 replies from other members.

Any other metrics you want to discuss, Dave?
Better yet, now let's get back to the original discussion at hand.

Finally something we can agree on with LV2.
The horse is dead.
:banging:
Dave has been a member since 2005 and posted on a number of topics and has been active in giving back to the community including hosting the annual CVHN Hurricane Party. What’s your record?
Auburn Fan avatar
Beach Lover
#799
Here's my new favorite metric:

5- 4​

US Supreme Court
Knick v. Township of Scott, 17-647
June 21, 2019
This new ruling changes the way "takings claims" are litigated nationwide.
Property owners seeking just compensation now get the fast lane.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#800
Here's my new favorite metric:

5- 4​

US Supreme Court
Knick v. Township of Scott, 17-647
June 21, 2019
This new ruling changes the way "takings claims" are litigated nationwide.
Property owners seeking just compensation now get the fast lane.

Interesting! Again, I believe CU will fall flat on its face forcing the county into their 3rd and final game plan (their 1st game plan was the rejected beach nourishment that would have resulted in the “new” part of the beach becoming public).

And the final game plan will be eminent domain.

Of course, as I’ve already mentioned, when (not if) the county pursues this course, they will offer pennies on the dollar on the truth worth of beach front property. It would appear, that this type of action by the county could end up in federal court rather than in state and local courts in a “fast track” way that @Auburn Fan mentions.

BTW, this is GOOD NEWS for ANYBODY who owns private property ANYWHERE.

From Wikipedia (confess I had to look it up):
Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with compensation for private property owners when the use of that property is taken from them by state or local governments, under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The immediate question asks if private land owners must exhaust all state-offered venues for mediation before seeking action in the federal courts. The case specific addresses the Court's prior decision from the 1985 case Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, which had previously established that all state court venues must be exhausted first, but which has since resulted in several split decisions among circuit courts. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2019 to overturn part of Williamson Countythat required state venue action be taken first, allowing taking-compensation cases to be brought directly to federal court.

Edited

Reggie Gaskins avatar
Beach LoverAuthor
#801
5 - 4 vote on a well argued legitimate constitutional legal battle.
I predict an 8 - 1 vote on defeating a Socialist Entitlement reach like CU.
WWRD?

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.

New posts