Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

You got that right, especially when he brought up the Nazi analogy. But it should be for everyone else who has any sense of decency. Some things I don’t dismiss as easily as others might.

There are things actual Nazis have said (and done) that you should be able to forgive. Or at least overlook. To continually bring it up says more about you than him.

Vindictiveness, vitriol and vendettas. And more mischaracterizations and lies than I can count. I stand by every word I’ve said. Adios again.

After following a very long thread below, it becomes obvious. Attacking and suing private property owners isn't going to work. Nor or they the problem, they're being scapegoated. Attacking CU activists isn't going to work. Nor are they the solution, too narrow issue focused and combative with personal agendas, creating additional problems.

So, let's look, What are the problems?
1). There are exponentially more new visitors to limited amount of beach
2). County has failed to purchase public beach to keep up with TDC promotion/demand
3). The available public beaches are blocked by commercial chairs
4). There is little to no communication to visitors on available public access and beach
5). There is conflicting information being published and broadcast to all audiences
6). Private beach owners are increasingly exercising their right of exclusion

That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

1). Can't do anything about #1, horse has left the barn.

2). Spend the $50 million they are about to spend suing citizens, on purchasing public beach parcels. Problem solved.

3). BCC is pretending to address. Need an immediate and total ban on unoccupied chairs on public beaches, yesterday. Problem solved

4). Spend TDC available cash on mandatory 1 page trifold: maps, beach rules, and public service info to be distributed at each rental. Include turtle info while at it.

5). Focus on these easy and immediate solutions. Promote the positive action publicly. Demonstrate public leadership for a change. The immediate improvement and elimination of the problem will mute the noisemakers. The Beach Property Owners will relax as the attackers go away. We get back enjoying why we're here. This problem goes away.

6). Once the attacks and noise go away, and the videos and defamation stops, the signs and ropes go back into storage. Just like before.

It really IS THAT SIMPLE. We just don't have the capable local leaders to drive it. It's time that maybe some of our distinguishedand credible national business leaders who have homes here might lend a hand by driving this coalition? I can think of a few.

7). BFO's out bidding the county to block additional public beach.

8). Everyone building monster houses to increase occupancy for rentals.

9). Code enforcement.

10). Sense of entitlement and lack of respect by all.

11). Lack of adequate infrastruture.


The TDC is only part of the problem. Nobody is required to rent out their house. Nobody is required to advertise as being able to sleep 20.

BFO's need to take some ownership to blocking the county including beach clean up as a legal maneuver.

Ropes, chains, signs, vendors and bad behavior (all parties) were an accelerent.

Code enforcement needs to be fortified.

Without bad and reactionary behavior we probably wouldn't be in this mess. Can't regulate this.

Inadequate parking and access. If you are strolling the beach, how are you suppose to know what is private vs. public? Some public is virtually land locked.

You can make your way down a public access and take a few steps to the side and boom, you are now considerered a trespasser.

Rental companies and realtors need take ownership of being part of the problem as well.

The bottom line is cash flow. Not to get off topic but this is relevent. The area (public and private sector) needs revenue outside of tourism and housing/construction.

#7 is spot on. Quit bidding against the county and more public beach is available. Seems that has occurred a couple of times.

Great points Sowal Al and LC Bane.

Something happened in a recent US Supreme Court decision that may just accelerate a "final" decision sooner rather than later on CU. And, IMO, it does not bode well for the county and it's non-BFO residents and visitors. Basically, the ruling says that now property owners do not have to first go through the respective state courts and then go to federal courts regarding property cases. Property owners can now go directly to federal court. (You can be sure that BFOs and their attorneys are discussing this)

Supreme Court Overturns Precedent In Property Rights Case. A Sign Of Things To Come?

Excerpt:

On Friday, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the first of those decisions, a 1985 ruling that required property owners to take their complaints to the state courts first. Instead, the court majority said Knick and other property owners seeking compensation for limits on their property rights may go directly to federal court.


"We now conclude that the state litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden" on a property owner's claim that his or her land has been effectively taken for public benefit without the government paying just compensation, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.

So to your point 2, Sowal Al, about saving the $50MM and using the funds to BUY beachfront. I totally agree. Its not too late for the county to try and strike a deal with BFOs. It could be something simple like 10-20 (this will be negotiated) feet from the wet sand may be used by the public only. No commercial vending. County can (and wont) deal with the vendors on public beaches another day.

IMO if the county continues to push for all or nothing, we may very well end up with nothing backed up by a federal court ruling....

For the record, I am not a BFO and use public beach accesses frequently. When I walk my dog on the beach, he is always on a leash, and I pick up after him. I am not afraid to confront dog owners who let their dogs run wild and don't pick up after them.

It will take a lot of public input for the BCC to look for solutions other than the lawsuit at this point, especially with the prevalent "no compromise" attitudes that prevail with the most vocal contingents. I believe that a beach share type program would have worked with enough education and enforcement, but neither of those occurred in a sufficient way during the CU Ordinance to convince anyone that a beach share program could actually be successful. When the County decides to make some hard decisions about beach vending and the growing problem of density, coupled with tent cities and beach spreading, we might have a chance of sharing again.

Great points Sowal Al and LC Bane.

Something happened in a recent US Supreme Court decision that may just accelerate a "final" decision sooner rather than later on CU. And, IMO, it does not bode well for the county and it's non-BFO residents and visitors. Basically, the ruling says that now property owners do not have to first go through the respective state courts and then go to federal courts regarding property cases. Property owners can now go directly to federal court. (You can be sure that BFOs and their attorneys are discussing this)

Supreme Court Overturns Precedent In Property Rights Case. A Sign Of Things To Come?

Excerpt:

On Friday, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the first of those decisions, a 1985 ruling that required property owners to take their complaints to the state courts first. Instead, the court majority said Knick and other property owners seeking compensation for limits on their property rights may go directly to federal court.


"We now conclude that the state litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden" on a property owner's claim that his or her land has been effectively taken for public benefit without the government paying just compensation, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.

So to your point 2, Sowal Al, about saving the $50MM and using the funds to BUY beachfront. I totally agree. Its not too late for the county to try and strike a deal with BFOs. It could be something simple like 10-20 (this will be negotiated) feet from the wet sand may be used by the public only. No commercial vending. County can (and wont) deal with the vendors on public beaches another day.

IMO if the county continues to push for all or nothing, we may very well end up with nothing backed up by a federal court ruling....

For the record, I am not a BFO and use public beach accesses frequently. When I walk my dog on the beach, he is always on a leash, and I pick up after him. I am not afraid to confront dog owners who let their dogs run wild and don't pick up after them.

The court overturning precedent in that case could be just the tip of the iceberg and the property rights issue will be small potatoes if they decide they can overrule precedent in other cases (i.e. Roe vs.Wade and others). We have hundreds of years of precedent that could just be GONE in the blink of an eye because a few justices decide they know better than all those before them how the law should be decided/interpreted.

Its not too late for the county to try and strike a deal with BFOs. It could be something simple like 10-20 (this will be negotiated) feet from the wet sand may be used by the public only. No commercial vending. County can (and wont) deal with the vendors on public beaches another day.

I disagree. It is too late for Commissioners to strike any deal with BFOs. The Commissioners CU MHW-Line in the sand has been drawn. Significant BFO CU legal fees have accumulated already. Me and many BFOs are angry about the antisocial media shaming, the Commissioners' war on property rights, and any deal - I do not trust them as far as I can throw them. The only "deal" for me and many BFOs is to respect private property rights BFOs have had since 1776 and have today and enforce the laws to the legal property boundaries. "It really is that simple." The public has 825 miles of Florida foreshore to share forever. Any public dry sand "easement", much less 10 or 20 feet from the water, is not a compromise for not litigation public CU of private property and a non-starter for many BFOs.

"I agree about one thing the Commissioners have politically boxed themselves into a corner, antisocial media have repeated over and over (intentionally?) false property rights and CU misinformation, the time to "compromise" is past, and the best solution at this time is for a court to determine if Walton BFO's private property rights are superior to an anarchic English common law public customary use of American private property or not; based on the evidence and law. Which does not include CU or no-CU effect on the local economy." #888 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Monday July 1, Main gathering at Ed Walline County Beach Access; or any Walton County owned public beach. Stand in the wet sand with your backs to the water and join hands for 10 minutes at 12:00 pm to celebrate the shared history of our beaches in Walton County; Customary Use. Be respectful, have fun. A peaceful gathering of friends, family, kids

.

I disagree. It is too late for Commissioners to strike any deal with BFOs. The Commissioners CU MHW-Line in the sand has been drawn. Significant BFO CU legal fees have accumulated already. Me and many BFOs are angry about the antisocial media shaming, the Commissioners' war on property rights, and any deal - I do not trust them as far as I can throw them. The only "deal" for me and many BFOs is to respect private property rights BFOs have had since 1776 and have today and enforce the laws to the legal property boundaries. "It really is that simple." The public has 825 miles of Florida foreshore to share forever. Any public dry sand "easement", much less 10 or 20 feet from the water, is not a compromise for not litigation public CU of private property and a non-starter for many BFOs.

"I agree about one thing the Commissioners have politically boxed themselves into a corner, antisocial media have repeated over and over (intentionally?) false property rights and CU misinformation, the time to "compromise" is past, and the best solution at this time is for a court to determine if Walton BFO's private property rights are superior to an anarchic English common law public customary use of American private property or not; based on the evidence and law. Which does not include CU or no-CU effect on the local economy." #888 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Sorry you have so much anger that you have abandoned the ability to see a way to a win-win.

Sowal Al started a great thread where I HOPE people will offer their idea of SOLUTIONS, at least on this thread.

I hold to the belief that SoWal can be a harmonious place again. I mean, what is the approximate number of summers any of us have left on Earth and do you want to spend them stressed out about all this?

Dear @Emerald Drifter,

I now have very little hope for real any SOLUTIONS to the CU issue outside of court. Suggestions were made on the previous locked thread with little to no acknowledgement or feedback by CU folks. And NO COMPROMISE is the mantra of CU “leaders”. And besides all the name calling (a plethora of names BTW) by CU proponents, well some things never change. And here’s more of why I see it this way:

If something is “criminal”, then it must be because someone has done something that is “criminal” thus making them a “criminal”.

So a couple of days ago, Dave Rauschkolb posted on Walton County Visioning Facebook page,

“It’s just a travesty that people can’t go to the beach whatever they want. It’s criminal really.”

With his obvious disdain for private property rights advocates, he, in essence, has labeled them as criminals. Yet another name (name calling) has been added to the list. Please show me where I’ve misinterpreted his statement.

Sorry you have so much anger that you have abandoned the ability to see a way to a win-win.
I mean, what is the approximate number of summers any of us have left on Earth and do you want to spend them stressed out about all this?

Drifter, if I came up to you and kicked you between the legs and then sued you; do you deny you would be angry at me? Or would you “abandon the ability to see a win-win?" why I kicked you between the legs?
Thank you for your "sincere concern" but no need to worry on my account. But I’m perfectly content and at peace viewing the beach and ocean, sipping a cold drink, from our air-conditioned beachfront private property our family has owned for many decades while reading and posting on SoWal as you do too.

Already answered bob bob concern for me to relax previously.
“Enjoying and relaxing on our own quiet private beachfront our family has used and chosen to share with many for many decades. But if property rights prevail in court - I'll reconsider. You can thank the Walton Commissioners and anti-social media for that.”
#466 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

And Lakeview Too concern. “I commune with and enjoy the beach and the sea every time I'm on our beachfront, that our family has owned for many decades, before Seaside, and try to forget about Commissioner's inept governance, disrespectful public beach behavior, and anit-social media lies and shaming just because someone is a beachfront owner who believes in private property rights. Oh well back to nature. Just saw a pod of dolphins swim by as did the people walking the public foreshore.”
#631 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Drifter, if your, FBFA, or Commissioners’ win-win is for BFOs to cede 10-20 feet of their fee-simple private property to the public; you have an uninformed unrealistic CU biased sense of the definition win-win. Solution is to respect existing private property rights Walton BFOs have always had and have today and start from there. "It really is that simple."

Monday July 1, Main gathering at Ed Walline County Beach Access; or any Walton County owned public beach. Be respectful, have fun.

Please do not Stand Your Sand like the Florida Beaches for All attorney has done on multiple occasions and posted on CU social media. Be respectful.


Signs are a First amendment right of speech of EVERY Walton private property owner has as ruled by federal court.

Signs on the beach are a dick move.

Dear @Emerald Drifter,

I now have very little hope for real any SOLUTIONS to the CU issue outside of court. Suggestions were made on the previous locked thread with little to no acknowledgement or feedback by CU folks. And NO COMPROMISE is the mantra of CU “leaders”. And besides all the name calling (a plethora of names BTW) by CU proponents, well some things never change. And here’s more of why I see it this way:

If something is “criminal”, then it must be because someone has done something that is “criminal” thus making them a “criminal”.

So a couple of days ago, Dave Rauschkolb posted on Walton County Visioning Facebook page,

“It’s just a travesty that people can’t go to the beach whatever they want. It’s criminal really.”

With his obvious disdain for private property rights advocates, he, in essence, has labeled them as criminals. Yet another name (name calling) has been added to the list. Please show me where I’ve misinterpreted his statement.

I see your point being, indirectly, being named a criminal.

I left the "Visioning and Quality of Life" page several weeks ago, and frankly, I don't miss it. It has turned into a complaint and whining forum. Despite all of the turmoil and increased problems that come with more people, this place is still amazing. There are a LOT of folks in the hinterlands that would wonder why anyone would have a bad day living in SoWal.

As for private property rights, it is THE cornerstone of personal liberty in our country and I was glad to see SCOTUS open up that path to defense of personal property. But getting back to Sowal Al's spirit in the OP; we must find those who will seek a win win. It's still not too late.

Signs on the beach are a dick move.

You mean like this?

I see your point being, indirectly, being named a criminal.

I left the "Visioning and Quality of Life" page several weeks ago, and frankly, I don't miss it. It has turned into a complaint and whining forum. Despite all of the turmoil and increased problems that come with more people, this place is still amazing. There are a LOT of folks in the hinterlands that would wonder why anyone would have a bad day living in SoWal.

As for private property rights, it is THE cornerstone of personal liberty in our country and I was glad to see SCOTUS open up that path to defense of personal property. But getting back to Sowal Al's spirit in the OP; we must find those who will seek a win win. It's still not too late.

There are others who are no longer on that page that follow Walton County for All page and/or Walton County WAVE group. You might want to check those out.

BACKFIRE
Please, do it all $ummer long.

I thought this was going to be a producrive thread for a minute.

More blog material I suspect. Oh well. Aaaand bye.

Its not too late for the county to try and strike a deal with BFOs. It could be something simple like 10-20 (this will be negotiated) feet from the wet sand may be used by the public only. No commercial vending.

I appreciate the tone of your posts thus far in this thread.

Looking at one of your suggestions highlighted above, might you also be looking at all this in the exact same light as many CU proponents, with a sense of entitlement? IOW, why should that distance be measured from the wet sand? Why not offer the public the use of private property on the back part of the beach instead? Of course, there would need to be some sort compensation for this as well.

But you, I and everyone else who understand the position of Dave Rauschkolb, Dave Uhlfelder and most other CU proponents, realize COMPROMISE is NOT in their vocabulary and won’t happen, period.

If CU is ultimately defeated in court (which is predicted by me), then the only choices we, as a community, have is to implement the 6 bullet points that are contained in the first post of this thread (at a minimum).

So here’s more of the misinformation being perpetuated by Dave Rauschkolb. We know that people who read SoWal are much more informed than those on some of the other Facebook pages.

Again, one of the 4 criteria to validate customary use is definitely not economics or the economy of any kind. From a legal perspective, it’s not even debateable at all.

So on FB again, more misinformation is allowed to continue to roll along without any rebuking comment from Dave Rauschkolb:

D.H. - “Customary use is the only way to maintain the economy that S Walton County has grown to depend on. To say nothing of beach economies everywhere”

Dave Rauschkolb - “amen to that. whatever happens here will happen in the rest of florida and America; that's why CU must prevail.”

Can it be any more obvious regarding the amount of pandering along with misinformation that goes on? So many people being misled by the “leaders”.

So here’s more of the misinformation being perpetuated by Dave Rauschkolb. We know that people who read SoWal are much more informed than those on some of the other Facebook pages.

Again, one of the 4 criteria to validate customary use is definitely not economics or the economy of any kind. From a legal perspective, it’s not even debateable at all.

So on FB again, more misinformation is allowed to continue to roll along without any rebuking comment from Dave Rauschkolb:

D.H. - “Customary use is the only way to maintain the economy that S Walton County has grown to depend on. To say nothing of beach economies everywhere”

Dave Rauschkolb - “amen to that. whatever happens here will happen in the rest of florida and America; that's why CU must prevail.”

Can it be any more obvious regarding the amount of pandering that goes on? So many people being misled by the “leaders”.

The economy is an issue, locals care about it. So do second homeowners, rental owners, including most beachfront owners. I don't get from your post that anyone is trying to make the economy part of the legal debate. But rather a practical part. Every issue your opposition brings up doesn't have to be part of legal debate.

Apparently the last thread was locked because it became personal. Let's stay on the issue instead of beating on specific people so we can keep the discussion going please.

The economy is an issue, locals care about it. So do second homeowners, rental owners, including most beachfront owners. I don't get from your post that anyone is trying to make the economy part of the legal debate. But rather a practical [political] part. Every issue your opposition brings up doesn't have to be part of legal debate.

Public CU of private property is a legal doctrine and ONLY a legal debate. Public use of all of Walton's and the US beaches is a belief or political agenda. The Government can tell private property owners HOW to use their property; Commissioners can NOT tell private property owners WHO can use their private property. "It is just that simple."

The CU impact on the local economy is a political BELIEF, not based on any facts, and the WHY Commissioners' only legal solution to shift the public beach demand burden to private beachfront owners, without compensation, for their decades of inept management of Walton County growth and public beach supply v. demand disaster Commissioners have created and antisocial media has aggravated this agenda by demonizing BFOs. I guess Commissioners just believe their own $20,000,000 a year TDC beach marketing that all Walton beaches are publicly owned beaches available to everyone - except the ones who pay taxes on it.

There is NO evidence since 2007 when the Commissioners first contemplated CU or since April 1, 2017 ordinance or July 1, 2018 due-process state law, that public customary use of private property, has had or will have any affected on tourism; with or without CU. Just look at the Walton TDC TDT bed taxes. Sometimes (baseless) doom and gloom could be a (antisocial media) self fulfilling prophecy though.

The TDC bed tax is UP 17.8% YTD.
The Commissioners and outspoken CU believers must have used voodoo economics to "predict" impending economic ghost town if CU is not legal. NO credible facts support economic ghost town predictions.
January 2019 TDC TDT Report #96 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
April 2019 TDC TDT Report #646 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
April 5, 2019 Report: Walton County top-performing local economy in Florida

Okaloosa and Bay counties do not have customary use ordinances (nor do 65 other counties) and the real estate market is increasing as well as Walton's.
That Walton real estate and economy will collapse is baseless (fact-less) fear mongering. Even if there is a downturn the supply will not meet demand and property values will continue to appreciate - just like after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
#29 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Beach Supply and Demand
#552 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#668 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Apparently the last thread was locked because it became personal. Let's stay on the issue instead of beating on specific people so we can keep the discussion going please.

If an individual makes a statement of belief, opinion, or facts in the public forum; should the forum not be able to respond by name to express a different belief or dispute the belief with credible facts to the contrary and NOT be labeled as a personal attack or bullying - especially with credible facts? It has not be someone speaking for a group (or maybe he has) that has made controversial in-credible CU or property rights statements and repeat them over and over again ad nauseum. The question is and has always been; Why does anyone believe in CU and what justifies CU litigation against 1,193 private property beachfront parcels and 4,671 BFOs?

And if you want to talk about personal attacks how about all the BFO name calling most would never say in front of their mother or children. Where's the concern and outrage about that?

If an individual makes a statement of belief, opinion, or facts in the public forum; should the forum not be able to respond by name to express a different belief or dispute the belief with credible facts to the contrary and NOT be labeled as a personal attack or bullying - especially with credible facts? It has not be someone speaking for a group (or maybe he has) that has made controversial in-credible CU or property rights statements and repeat them over and over again ad nauseum. The question is and has always been; Why does anyone believe in CU and what justifies CU litigation against 1,193 private property beachfront parcels and 4,671 BFOs?

And if you want to talk about personal attacks how about all the BFO name calling most would never say in front of their mother or children. Where's the concern and outrage about that?

There is a difference between sticking to the issue and responding respectfully, and cyber bullying. I am assured that what has been going on here will not be allowed to continue. If your aim is to get banned and cry fowl then carry on.

Our constructive forum here has always been an asset to our community. The beachfront owners that have invaded recently in a coordinated campaign are not welcome here unless they can't post respectfully and without attacking people.