Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

FBB lets say BFO's win the lawsuit because a Judge agrees with you regarding the facts. Then what? Are you going to chain off your property to the wet sand? Put up NO TRESPASSING or KEEP OUT signs? Maybe build walls out of concrete? What are you going to do when someone trespasses? You know people will keep coming and spreading out down the beach. Do you think that people will be orderly and stay out? Will you charge a fee and let people use your beach? If you are a realist then you know that human behavior will lead to people resenting BFO's who do not share their beaches. I'm just wondering if you have thought this through? All the facts in the world will not stop the reality of more and more people coming. Neither all the facts in the world nor all the money in the world will not stop hurricanes from coming. You need your community in my opinion to support you when conflicts and disasters come. Will it really give you that much satisfaction to be right? Will it really give you that much satisfaction to own your private beach? If so then there will be a cost and I don't think it will involve money.

FALSE narrative, cotton candy slogan:
"It's not about left and right, it's about right and wrong. It's wrong to exclude the public from any of America's beaches."
Today
on Twitter
on a Socialist account


Straight up TRUTH:
It's not about left and right, it's about right and wrong. It's wrong to exclude the rights of private property ownership (including the freedom to manage crowd density on ones' own property), from any citizen of the US public.
In fact. It's downright illegal.
In addition to being morally wrong.
Sept 25, 1789
on a document governing a republic nation
US Constitution, Amend. V, Sec. 5

Do you care about protecting your property rights?
Don't fall for this dangerously twisted propaganda, aimed at reversing our county's culture.

FALSE narrative, cotton candy slogan:
"It's not about left and right, it's about right and wrong. It's wrong to exclude the public from any of America's beaches."
Today
on Twitter
on a Socialist account


Straight up TRUTH:
It's not about left and right, it's about right and wrong. It's wrong to exclude the rights of private property ownership (including the freedom to manage crowd density on ones' own property), from any citizen of the US public.
In fact. It's downright illegal.
In addition to being morally wrong.
Sept 25, 1789
on a document governing a republic nation
US Constitution, Amend. V, Sec. 5

Do you care about protecting your property rights?
Don't fall for this dangerously twisted propaganda, aimed at reversing our county's culture.

Oh, so glad to see you care, but you left out the rest of the tweet. Straight up truth.

mputnal,
I think you might be fretting a little too much about how BFOs will fare. I respect your tone but feel compelled to “slice and dice” your post, just a little.

FBB lets say BFO's win the lawsuit because a Judge agrees with you regarding the facts. Then what? Are you going to chain off your property to the wet sand?

I don’t think you’ll find any chains in our neck of the woods at Blue Mountain Beach Regional Access. There’s no reason for that to change if CU loses in court.

Put up NO TRESPASSING or KEEP OUT signs?

No Trespassing signs are obviously required to inform the public that parts of the beach are private property. Otherwise they assume it’s all public because most genuinely don’t know what’s public and what’s private.

Maybe build walls out of concrete?

No comment needed.

What are you going to do when someone trespasses? You know people will keep coming and spreading out down the beach.

If and when CU is defeated, the sheriff will have no choice but to press charges if filed, especially against people like Daniel Uhlfelder who intentionally trespass, ignoring the no trespassing signs.

Do you think that people will be orderly and stay out?

.
So far for us, the public has been pretty respectful regarding the signs and all.

Will you charge a fee and let people use your beach?

. Well now you’re digressing a bit into one of the previous topics regarding compromise (of course not one CU proponent made any significant comment (yay or nay and why). There’s no need to compromise if the court case ultimately goes against CU.

If you are a realist then you know that human behavior will lead to people resenting BFO's who do not share their beaches. I'm just wondering if you have thought this through? All the facts in the world will not stop the reality of more and more people coming.

Now I did get a good laugh from that one regarding BFOs being resented. Honestly, I think it’s way too late for that discussion.

Neither all the facts in the world nor all the money in the world will not stop hurricanes from coming.

Agreed (double negatives aside).

You need your community in my opinion to support you when conflicts and disasters come.

Funny how so many people think the BFOs were helped after Hurricanes Ivan and Dennis. Sand, sea walls, walkovers, balcony repairs, etc. were all paid OUT OF POCKET where most of the damage occurred. Didn’t receive any help with any of that. I know it’s a matter of time before we become the next Mexico Beach and that’s what insurance is for. Again, to expect any real “help” from the county is a bit naive. I just ask that they stay out of our way as much as possible during a recovery.

Will it really give you that much satisfaction to be right? Will it really give you that much satisfaction to own your private beach? If so then there will be a cost and I don't think it will involve money.

Just a grammatical correction - we already own the property.

Seems to me you could just as easily flip this question on CU proponents. Instead of CU satisfaction of taking private property without compensation, why not negotiate with the legal fees saved and an increased TDC tax to pay for beach parcels. Everybody wins.

My thinking is this won’t ever happen simply because CU people in charge of things (commissioners, county manager, county attorney, etc., won’t risk the negative light that will shine down on them if they were to back pedal a bit.

Dave R,
You’ve already brought up that poll that means absolutely nothing on the legal and Constitutional stage. You hope that this idiotic poll will appeal to the emotions of your followers by helping them feel more noble than they deserve by following your antics. And somehow bringing it up again invalidates Auburn Fan’s post? Good grief!

Well, peeps, the BFOs that I know who were willing to share are not feeling too generous after the July 4th illegal fireworks displays all over private properties (and public, too). CU advocates need to do some serious work on encouraging respectful behavior from the public. While some of the bigger stuff was cleaned up, there were thousands of small pieces of plastic and cardboard to pick up. Inexcusable.

but you left out the rest

I can see where people might be confused on the question itself.

For the Questions: Do you believe owners of Florida beachfront property should or should not have the authority to ban the public from using the dry sand area above the normal high tide line that adjoins their property?

I would answer "Should Not" the way the question is worded. Maybe the wording is why so many people answered the way they did. Constitutional property rights are only extended to property owners that have a legally deeded title to that property. In this case it looks like the question is asking about property "adjoining" or "next door" to the deeded property and not owned by the property owner. A beachfront property owner would not have the right to tell someone to leave a neighbor’s property (unless asked by the neighbor to convey that message), but a private property owner WOULD have the right to tell someone to leave his own property. That is independent of where the property is located. Similar to the lawsuit won by the Surfriders in California. The public has the right to surf, swim, sunbathe, build sandcastles, etc on Martin Beach, BUT they are NOT ALLOWED to day camp (beach equipment) on the private property adjoining Martin Beach. The public is only allowed to use the portion owned by the State of California. Private property rights are the same (right of exclusion) if the property is owned by the State, County, individual. or even the US Military. Trespassing on military property is not recommended, and the military owns a considerable amount of property in Florida. The (Surfriders) in the California lawsuit did however win the right to "unblock" access to Martin Beach (public beach) that was land blocked by Mr. Khosla. I wonder if Surfriders will mount a lawsuit to "unblock" access to public beach behind gated communities?


So here are a few questions. Can you provide honest and real answers with legal reasons and not sarcastic answers based solely on emotion or entitlement?

1. Do private property owners have the right to ask people to leave who trespass on their legally deeded private property?

2. Do Florida property owners have less constitutional property rights than other US citizens?

3. Does a property owner have fewer constitutional rights if their property is considered desirable by others?

FBB thank you for answering my questions. I understand now that you indeed will not compromise on your principles. IMHO I believe that you represent more of a libertarian ideal than a realistic one. I agree with so many things that you believe except those libertarian principles. You don't want or need the help of this community. I believe I understand why the commissioners had no other choice. If/when the court rules in your favor the CU (maybe they will change the name to something else) activist will double overnight. I agree with you that their tactics leave room for improvement but don't hold your breath on that one. Good luck to you!

Wow! Did you see the article just posted on the Walton County Wave? Check it out.

you indeed will not compromise on your principles

I think many property owners might be willing to return to Ancient Customary Use, 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).

I don't think many (if any) property owners (beach front or non beach front) would be willing to renounce their property rights (in particular the right of exclusion) and give those rights to the BCC. There may be a concern by some of the free for all and chaos that could occur under the exclusive BCC control of property rights. What about non-beach front private properties owners down the street from a restaurant? What if the BCC allowed people to park on their property at no cost (but the property owner would need to fix ruts and pick up trash), or even allow the restaurant to set up extra tables and chairs on their private property, because the restaurant was too crowded for the property they owned, and the county needs the "tourists money" and the restaurant owner wants to expand? Is the BCC allowed to TAKE property rights against the will of ANY property owner? What if the county just paved over that property owners front yard to make parking for the restaurant or a beach access? Would that "reasonable"? This is not the same as "Eminent Domain" but "Taking". The BCC has filed a lawsuit to "take property rights" from beach front property owners. If successful they will expand it to other property owners. Why would they stop? What about taking property to build a new ball park? Of course they would also need to take more property for parking and concession stands. It is for the good of the many and a poll shows most people want free land for a ball park.

If someone is not willing to renounce their private property rights and give them to the BCC for exclusive management, some of properties which have been in the family for generations, then that is a sign of "not willing to compromise on principles"?

I also think you are right that the "CU fight" (formally known as beach nourishment plan to remove property rights) will be reinvented as a constitutional push to remove property rights from a selected targeted population of owners (aka beach front property owners) or maybe as a push "Incorporate 30A" (so they can create new laws to take over beach front property)? Either way this looks like it is going to be long and expensive in terms of money, legacy, and potential further destruction of our sensitive ecosystem.

Survey

Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
I wonder what the poll results would be if the question was;
Do you believe owners of beachfront private property with legal title to the mean high water line have the Constitutional right all private property owners have to private enjoyment of their property?
or Do you think it is acceptable to for the public to occupy private beachfront property with legal title to the mean high water line if the property owner does not invite the public and want exclusive enjoyment of their property for themselves that they pay property taxes on?
Polls are for politicians. Not individual protected Constitutional rights. That's

Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
I wonder what the poll results would be if the question was;
Do you believe owners of beachfront private property with legal title to the mean high water line have the Constitutional right all private property owners have to private enjoyment of their property?
or Do you think it is acceptable to for the public to occupy private beachfront property with legal title to the mean high water line if the property owner does not invite the public and want exclusive enjoyment of their property for themselves that they pay property taxes on?
Polls are for politicians. Not individual protected Constitutional rights. That's

Your post has been haunting me a bit. And that is one always sees surveys of all kinds as well as “over-analyzed” results of these surveys.

But now after seeing the Mason Dixon survey that Dave R keeps posting everywhere, it truly is an eye opening attempt to sway even more of the masses with a VERY MISLEADING question. And that’s the concern...that people who are experts in the science of polls know exactly how to phrase a question in order to influence the results they desire.

“Do you believe owners of Florida beachfront property should or should not have the authority to ban the public from using the dry sand area above the normal high tide line that adjoins their property?”

Sounds like a simple question on the surface. As most of us know here in SoWal, one can own beachfront property and either own or not own the sandy part of the beach.

The above question is undoubtedly phrased in a way that implies the beachfront owner does not own the beach when the “dry sand area” “adjoins their property”.

For anyone to be throwing out this type of poll as having any real credence is being intellectually dishonest. And I’m being very kind right now, very kind.

Let’s abandon CU and go straight to a constitutionally mandated solution which is eminent domain.

Wow! Did you see the article just posted on the Walton County Wave? Check it out.

Do you mean the one where Suzanne Harris may be about to win yet another lawsuit against the county regarding CU and Edgewater Condominiums? Special executive BCC meeting taking place today regarding all of that, BTW.

Article

Poppaj if CU loses in court wouldn't the State then have no choice but to protect the economics of tourism by turning to eminent domain for beach property? If the State allows BFO's to manage the beach front then the beach eventually becomes private. How would that work for tourism? Of course BFO's could then individually fight for compensation. After my exchange with FBB and others I believe that BFO's are interested in two things: Privatizing the beach or compensation for loss of privatizing the beach. They are definitely not much interested in community per their own statements. I believe that will likely be what happens if CU loses. Hmm what is the "best use" of beach front property? Chair rentals? Sunbathing?

Threads merged. Please keep it respectful and on topic.

So, I’m back from hunting wild boar in the Outback. I see that my original post title has been changed. Didn’t know that happened in an honest environment? Hmmmmm... The intent of that very descriptive title was to to drive discussion and raise an eyebrow. To make y’all think outside the normal banter.

“Customary Use will Destroy Our 30A Legacy”
The initial post described in detail that thought line.
It generated record views and replies. Now admins merged my two posts.

Why do these tracks generate such noise?
Because regardless of who wins, the fight itself, the very aggressive CU political campaign, and now the defense of property rights from ambush videos and misinformation, is tearing our wonderful community apart. Long time friends, club members, church members, neighbors, are judging each other by one yardstick; Your Stand on CU. A pathetic result of over zealous political ambitions. SERIOUSLY? Aren’t we better than that?

CU is NOT a thing. It’s NOT worth destroying our way of life here. It is definitely NOT a solution that will work in SoWal for all reasons you’ve read here.
People, rise up above the gutter There are 3 problems:

- Bad and inept leadership at county level
- Too many tourists for current public beach network
- Beach chair vendor problem of blocking beach

There are many feasible solutions that make sense.
Let’s address common sense solutions and fiscally responsible options. CU is waaaaaaay down the list on possible fixes. Why destroy our community on a Hail Mary socialist taking of private property, causing permanent harm to our community, when adults could step in in solve for X?

Somehow, the worst possible solution, this pipe dream of CU, got traction in social media in an echo chamber of censored propaganda. And yes admins, that description is quite accurate based on definitions of those words! Why are we focused on a political pipe dream that can’t win, even if it wins, get it? And if you read the tea leaves, the CU thing is unraveling at many levels.

See You on the beach. Hopefully without having to guess on which side of this charade you stand. Maybe we can get back to talking about number of turtle nests, or headliners for next Songwriter Festival, maybe even which bridge will be out this winter. But for God’s Sake, give this dying CU side show a rest....

mputnal, BMBV had a good reply to the dramatic conclusions to #1002 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
"Are you going to chain off your property to the wet sand? Put up NO TRESPASSING or KEEP OUT signs? Maybe build walls out of concrete?"

What percentage of the 1,193 BFOs parcels in the past decades and since 2016 have posted signs (as is their Constitutional First Amendment right to do), chained off property (which is regulated except where a court has permitted), or enforced their right to private enjoyment?
FactorFiction has made the point multiple times and asked the questions on many occasions with no credible CU response.
Customary Use of SoWal Beaches: Contact Governor Scott
Federal Lawsuit Could Bar Public from Beaches and Recreation Areas
Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

"Neither all the facts in the world nor all the money in the world will not stop hurricanes from coming."
How many hurricanes have there been in Walton since 1941? Walton beaches recover after time and are not much different today. That's the risk BFOs take, pay insurance for, and 30A BFOs will pay for recovery just like past decades.

"human behavior will lead to people resenting BFO's who do not share their beaches." If respect for property rights replaced resentment; most of us will all get along like before 2016.
Education of property rights and appropriate behavior with prompt consistent law enforcement will change "human behavior".
Why have you not asked; Will it really give Commissioners and CU believers satisfaction to be right?

This is a passionate discussion and we need to keep it respectful without personal attacks. If you don't understand the difference between jabs and attacks then you will not enjoy our forum.

Thread titles are sometimes edited when they are all caps, confusing, too long, etc. They aren't intentionally edited to skew one way or the other. I changed the title to make it more inviting for to all to participate. I'm not even sure what a 30A Legacy is, or means, and may change it again to an even simpler "Customary Use Discussion".

This is a passionate discussion and we need to keep it respectful without personal attacks. If you don't understand the difference between jabs and attacks then you will not enjoy our forum. Thread titles are sometimes edited when they are all caps, confusing, too long, etc. They aren't intentionally edited to skew one way or the other. I changed the title to make it more inviting for to all to participate. I'm not even sure what a 30A Legacy is, or means, and may change it again to an even simpler "Customary Use Discussion".

Thanks Kurt. Looking back over posts from previous years, you posted and provide feedback more often. It's helpful to understand why the SoWal forum is the way it is and works the way it does. Please see my Conversations about my ongoing account delay problems and resolutions.

#1016 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
mputnal you ask valid questions to the Eminent Domain CU "solution".

"State [Florida] then have no choice but to protect the economics of tourism ... ?" Commissioners and legislators always have a political choice - and tax payer consequences.
I think CU economic predictions are not based on evidence/facts and are not credible. There is no evidence that Commissioners' or other's South Walton ghost town predictions are anything other than voodoo economic beliefs and fear mongering. Look at the TDC tourist tax data since 2016. It is beach Supply and Demand or Density. "It is just that simple."
More tourists visiting South Walton in month of May
Walton County spring tourism numbers up
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 have never had customary use ordinances (nor do 65 other counties) and the real estate market is increasing as well as Walton's. Look at the data.
Even if there is a downturn, the supply has never meet demand (thanks too to TDC $20,000,000 annual marketing) and beach demand and property values will continue to appreciate - just like after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. #29 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

"State [FL] ... turning to eminent domain (ED) for beach property?" It would not be the State of Florida turning to ED anyway. The same Florida legislators that saw the legal need for a private property due-process law to stop other FL counties from doing what Walton Commissioners did to "take", by declaration of 5 elected politicians, without going to court FIRST? The Commissioners would have to make that CU ED choice and pay for it. State nor local Governments can not go to court willy-nilly for eminent domain takes on any private property for any reason; and they have to pay fair market value; billion$. Properties that governments use police-power to regulate or condemn to take does not mean it has no monetary value or no taxable value - unless you can provide facts to the contrary. The open free market determines the value. Just like the 220 ft, 1.5 acre Dune Allen parcels Commissioners paid $7,400,000 for in 2016. More than a $1,000,000 over the appraised values. BCC approves purchasing Dune Allen property for regional access

"I believe that BFO's are interested in two things: Privatizing the beach or compensation for loss of privatizing the beach." NO! You can not (A) "Privatize" already Private beachfront property! (B) BFOs don't want money for public use![1] You truly do NOT understand what BFOs "are interested in". Me and most BFOs only want everyone to respect our property rights, that include private enjoyment and use, if they so choose. Only then maybe BFOs would be willing to share, or not, but if Commissioners/CU believers want to force BFOs to share with everyone by litigating an ancient English legal doctrine of custom, you have lost most of us, and that is what has angered and motivated over 50% of the 4,671 BFOs to spend their own money to legally intervene in Commissions litigation.

BFOs "definitely not much interested in community" The "community" definitely not much interested in respecting property rights and the law "per their own [CU believers] statements."
' "best use" of beach front property?' How about the beachfront owner's use and enjoyment they paid for and pay the property taxes on for those bundle of rights?

[1] But if the Commissioners are going to charge the public for beach access, to mange the demand/density as has been suggested, the Commissioners had better compensate the BFOs for public use of their property. I like the idea of "Park" model to mange "density" but would not be workable without being able to control access like at the State Parks.

FBB I assume you are one individual with a set of facts that I mostly agree with but not all. After reading your posts it is obvious that you do not trust community CU activism's purpose or local government. I understand why but we disagree on your belief that once you are certified as owner of the beach that suddenly you will find that community matters and "share" the beach. Just about all of your statements of fact is that you "own" the beach and are the sole decider in how that beach will be used because you paid for it. Maybe "you" would share the beach but how do you know that EVERY BFO would follow your lead? The People should not risk losing the beach to private ownership. The County should not risk losing the beach to private ownership. The State should not risk losing beach to private ownership. If we do risk that BFO's will share the beach then it is a matter of time before only wealthy people would enjoy the beach. Our economic system is skewed in favor of wealth. You say that you just want RESPECT but at the same time you say you are a REALIST. You know that people do no always behave respectfully and we can both wish it were not so but human behavior is a mixed bag. Some people respect some people don't. Even people with good intent sometimes don't behave respectfully. Just like ForF said about the fireworks that many of the BFO's are not so inclined to be generous after a display of disrespect. I understand that taxpayers would pay for eminent domain and that is why there would be a renewed activism to keep the beach public. You may win this court battle but the war is just beginning. IMHO and NOT all-knowing opinion I believe BFO's should have thicker skin to manage both disrespectful beach goers and Community Activist wanting ALL beach to be public. I have given you reasons why I believe this. I think your community would agree with you about lowering density and increasing infrastructure. BFO's have an "opportunity" and maybe your best leverage of getting what you want in terms of a settlement. You believe the Constitution to be absolute yet there is only one absolute. We like to say there are two but it seems that many in the wealthy class find a way to avoid the 2nd one. If the Constitution is absolute then Eminent Domain for beach property is very likely. How a court will determine compensation will be the next big lawsuit.

FBB I assume you are one individual with a set of facts that I mostly agree with but not all. After reading your posts it is obvious that you do not trust community CU activism's purpose or local government. I understand why but we disagree on your belief that once you are certified as owner of the beach that suddenly you will find that community matters and "share" the beach. Just about all of your statements of fact is that you "own" the beach and are the sole decider in how that beach will be used because you paid for it. Maybe "you" would share the beach but how do you know that EVERY BFO would follow your lead? The People should not risk losing the beach to private ownership. The County should not risk losing the beach to private ownership. The State should not risk losing beach to private ownership. If we do risk that BFO's will share the beach then it is a matter of time before only wealthy people would enjoy the beach. Our economic system is skewed in favor of wealth. You say that you just want RESPECT but at the same time you say you are a REALIST. You know that people do no always behave respectfully and we can both wish it were not so but human behavior is a mixed bag. Some people respect some people don't. Even people with good intent sometimes don't behave respectfully. Just like ForF said about the fireworks that many of the BFO's are not so inclined to be generous after a display of disrespect. I understand that taxpayers would pay for eminent domain and that is why there would be a renewed activism to keep the beach public. You may win this court battle but the war is just beginning. IMHO and NOT all-knowing opinion I believe BFO's should have thicker skin to manage both disrespectful beach goers and Community Activist wanting ALL beach to be public. I have given you reasons why I believe this. I think your community would agree with you about lowering density and increasing infrastructure. BFO's have an "opportunity" and maybe your best leverage of getting what you want in terms of a settlement. You believe the Constitution to be absolute yet there is only one absolute. We like to say there are two but it seems that many in the wealthy class find a way to avoid the 2nd one. If the Constitution is absolute then Eminent Domain for beach property is very likely. How a court will determine compensation will be the next big lawsuit.

Wow, just Wow. So succinctly put and spot on.

Wow! Did you see the article just posted on the Walton County Wave? Check it out.

Do you mean the one where Suzanne Harris may be about to win yet another lawsuit against the county regarding CU and Edgewater Condominiums? Special executive BCC meeting taking place today regarding all of that, BTW.

Article

From the above article: “The county, as evidenced through previous litigation, has already recognized that such recreational customary use has not been present on Edgewater’s private beach property,” the motion states.

And from the Walton County Wave Facebook page:

James Lince - ..and on every neighborhood subdivision private beach where the County signed off and approved the private beach with "no rights to the public" - that too interrupted any claim of "customary use". What's amazing is that Larry Jones completely missed all these legal real property transactions in writing his Master's thesis, and that Theriaque completely missed these in his recommendations to the County.

Suzanne Corretti Harris - County decided to take no action on Edgewater last night they felt that they could not have a crack in their case or it look would be bad for their suit Edgewater will sue both attorneys and will also sue in Federal Court under the new law that was just passed. As the song goes “ and the beat goes on “.

Suzanne Corretti Harris - We shall see. I think we will spank Theriaque like a baby in court but we shall see.

mputnal, you did not answer the previous #1019 question about how many of the 1,193 beachfront parcels are posting signs or fences or are keep people off their beachfront? 50%? 25%? less than 1%? Why not? What would you base your answer on?

You and other CU believers can not make informed decisions or opinions without accurate factual credible information. No one "certifies" anyone as a beachfront owner. Not a credible statement. The legal deed identifies who the legal private property owner is. You clearly do not understand or accept 1,193 parcels are privately owned. I do not know how else to say BFO have ALL the bundle of property rights since the original land grants or patents and have today. BFOs have the sole private use and enjoyment of private property protected by the American Constitution from government "take" and American law from public trespass. NO matter how many times you, FBFA, or social media say owner do not - until proven in court FIRST.

The Government can not, and are not, "risk loosing the beach to private ownership." You can not lose something that is not yours to lose. Beachfront has been and is already privately owned. "It is just that simple." The Commissioners and tax payer's risk is that BFOs prevail and they have to pay both sides of the legal fees and have no other choice than respect private property rights.

BFOs are defendants with all the sticks of property rights and have nothing to prove, or compromise unless BFOs think they will not prevail in court. If the arguments in court are anything like in the public forum or FBFA misrepresentations; I'm not too worried. And neither should any BFO reading this forum. There might be an activist judge or judges; like Tona-Rama, that was a 3.5 to 2.5 ruling against a public prescriptive easement, but 1974 Tona-Rama also did not go to the Supreme Court of the US.

What do you consider "wealthy"? How do you define the "wealthy class"?
How much money someone has in the bank? Net worth? How much someone paid for private property? Our family paid just over 6 figures many decades ago. We have paid much more in property taxes. Can someone be wealthy in family and friends and not in money? Money is but a tool that establishes value people place on services and property. Money is not "bad"; the love of money is bad. Can someone be wealthy in family and friends and not in money? I am wealthy - because I have a loving family and great friends. Our family has a valuable property according to the real estate market but I can't buy groceries with it - does that make me wealthy/rich?

We have gone to school and worked hard. Nobody gave us anything. Nor do we expect anything to be given. We have risked and invested in the economy that has help grow opportunities for others and have made a legal return greater than the losses Can you name another economic system that can give opportunity to more people to succeed if they try? Socialism? Any American could have done the same as we have and achieved the same results. I reject your and CU believers portrayal of BFOs as rich, greedy, or selfish; we v. them, rich v. poor, if you have what I want ... you should give it to us (forced sharing) because that's what we BELIEVE, your sand ... is my sand. That's sounds a lot like a political/economic system that has a 100% failure rate and result in more government control of Life, Liberty, and individual Pursuit of Happiness. Ask the Venezuelans.

I don't think you understand the eminent domain process and I'm not concerned.

I started this before Dave Rauschkob's reply. I'm not retired or wealthy enough to not have to work during the day to pay taxes to fund Commissioners' litigation. But Dave Rauschkob's reply confirms to me the lack of understanding and respect for American private property rights and law. That the only CU solution to determine if the ancient English common law doctrine of customary use is superior to Constitutional private property protections from Government taking, is for the courts to decide. If BFOs prevail and the "people" resent and do not respect the courts ruling; we have bigger problems than public customary use of private property. CUnCourt.