Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Correction. To ease EZ imagination.
Dave Rauschkolb, you have a short memory and limited not-credible not-relevant set of CU responses. About as relevant as a streaker at a football game.
#1042 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

#205 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
Reggie Gaskins: "Dave, if it’s that important and you’re so interested in meeting me, getting to know me, understanding who I am... let’s meet in a public discussion/forum in the Seaside Amphitheater with a table & microphones. 1 1/2 hours, You and me, and the public. I’ll bring crackers and cheeses, and drinks. You just show up. Let’s have a public discussion with civil discourse, for once. You game?" Are you game? I'd pay money to see that.

CyberStalking and CyberBullying not cool here. Banned on facebook?
BE BEST

And the nude beach!

My husband and I went skinning dipping in Grayton back in the good ole days!

My husband and I went skinning dipping in Grayton back in the good ole days!

Hell I did that last week.

Hell I did that last week.

You're lucky Huckabee didn't call the cops on you

Hell I did that last week.

Should have called Jerry and Becki they would have brought the camera.

You're lucky Huckabee didn't call the cops on you

He was holding my drawers.

Too many people building on the dunes, too many people disrespecting the resource by leaving trash on the beach and too many people not respecting other people are what destroyed my definition of the 30A legacy.

mputnal, thank you for your post. IMHO 4 million tourists are way too many for our sensitive ecosystem and we need to reduce the number of people. I have never seen such a high volume of false crawls and fewer turtle nests on my walks this year compared to past years.

Maybe, just maybe, all this fighting which is destroying our 30A Legacy (people getting along) might actually be a GOOD thing and end up SAVING our 30A Ecosystem by reducing the number of people. Maybe the sacrifice of our "Legacy" is worth it to save our "Future" for our grandkids. Maybe that is legacy we need to focus?

Yes the state of Florida owns the shoreline, so no issues of walking the entire shoreline, swimming, fishing, surfing, or building sandcastles. The only issue is where you can put beach equipment and day camp. Either on State Property (by permit), on County Property (within guidelines) or on Private Property (by renting or with permission). The CUSTOMARY PROPERTY RIGHTS, which was been around since the USA Constitution was written, was not an issue in the past since there was plenty of room for the number of people visiting the area and if someone was on private property and asked to move, they moved. But now we have too many people, in too small an area, who feel ENTITLED, to sit any where and bring anything they want, which is the root of our problem.

IMHO the reason the BCC is suing the private property owners is so they can have MORE room for MORE people for MORE taxes which will result in MORE destruction. So maybe the all the fighting and lawsuits have an upside?

There is no one alive today when all 26 miles of beach was public property. Some private property was purchased or donated to the State which became State Parks and the County has purchased some property which became Public Beach, but the rest has always been private. There has never been any Public property that became Private due to quiet title, it has only been used to clear up private property titles issues. All beach might be taxed the same ($1.8 Million), one may have more beach front than the one next door, but that does mean that one can conclude there is no tax paid on beach front property. A property a few blocks away from the beach is certainly not taxed at $1.8 Million. But, most importantly, if it is truly Private Deeded Property, then there are US Constitutional and State Property Rights.

The State of Florida has a Property Bill of Rights that may eventually put to rest the issue of a Private Property Owner being able to ask someone to leave their property. If not then I imagine the Supreme Court is going to uphold the USA Constitution. Yes the County can purchase more property, but actually I hope they don't, and just reduce the number of tourists. Maybe turn 30A into a toll road with a free pass for local residences? All other funds would go to help the Ecosystem, with the greatest benefit being LESS PEOPLE. If we have LESS tourists there is more room for Local Residents. The more the County spends OUR money on lawsuits, means the less of OUR money the county has to buy local property, which may ultimately mean LESS people on 30A, which might be the BEST thing.

FLORIDA PROPERTY OWNER BILL OF RIGHTS (http://laws.flrules.org/2019/155)

Your rights and protections include:
1. The right to acquire, possess, and protect your property.
2. The right to use and enjoy your property.
3. The right to exclude others from your property.
4. The right to dispose of your property.
5. The right to due process.
6. The right to just compensation for property taken for a public purpose.
7. The right to relief, or payment of compensation, when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of the state or a political entity unfairly affects your property.

You just summed it up

Regardless of who's right or who's wrong, regardless of who wins or who loses;

The very process of this ridiculous public fight will guarantee that...
"Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy"

To whom it may concern:
Thank you for your efforts and paid expense for flying the banner as such on July 1st.
My only concern is the grammatical tense may already be in error.

Ridiculous

Stone Cold J I agree with you and also appreciate your post very much! If there is an area of disagreement I believe it would be the right to exclude people on the "beach" by wealthy people who have removed themselves from the common people (community), government (except when it benefits them) and justify their wealth as being completely fair and equal in our present day economic system. In my interactions with many (not all) wealthy people I believe they feel superior to most. If you go back and read FBB you will find a very good example of this. I believe that all people have common behaviors (emotional) and common purpose (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). The problem with wealth is that it monopolizes resources because well why not if you can figure out out to manipulate the system. Okay then there are the problems with behavior on both sides of this and many other issues. Houston we have a problem. We all justify our wants, want more than we need and in the end die without figuring out that we missed an opportunity to evolve into a fair and equal society. I call this reality. Both wealth and extremism has destroyed this community. Human behavior has always needed room for improvement so nothing has changed there except there are more humans and more behavior. We can manage human behavior with rules and consequences of breaking those rules. Wealth and extremism is not as easily managed because they have either power or high emotion with large numbers of people. BPO's have the power (in my opinion) to privatize the beach but the consequences of that will not be what they think. I believe they have an opportunity to get this right before it goes to eminent domain or possibly worse. They seem not interested in looking at this from a community perspective. People including myself do not trust wealthy people to decide who can use the beach behind the very structure that already has damaged the ecosystem AND blocks our views of those gorgeous sunsets, colors and water. Water is fascinating to humans and we must have access to it. I believe the people will fight this beyond the Supreme Court until the State has no choice but to take the property thru eminent domain.

I believe the people will fight this beyond the Supreme Court until the State has no choice but to take the property thru eminent domain.

mputnal, thank you for your post. This is good dialog and nice that we have exchanged posts attacking the position but not the person. The problem is that BPO's do indeed own deeded private property. They are not "privatizing" the beach. It has been private property, is still private property, and unless sold or donated to the county or State will remain private property. Being Private Property owners they have Federal and State property rights (until changed by Judge Green) that do include Right of Exclusion. Just because the current "Sherriff" won't arrest people for trespassing while the case is in court does not mean private property rights don't exist. Just like non BPO's private property owners have property rights. You don't have less private property rights if you buy next to a State Park, beach front, or a cow pasture (until ruled by Judge Green, but the US Supreme Court might overturn that one).

I can tell you have a deep seeded mistrust of the wealthy people, some of which might be BPO's. I understand that. Many of the BPO's are families that purchased private property decades ago from other private property owners and would not consider themselves in the "wealthy" group. They have gotten along for decades with local residents and tourists until the number of visitors became greater than the area can bear and people (under the direction of activists) feel they are now ENTITLED to IGNOR property rights and common sense. Just because someone does not like a class of people does not mean they can pin a star on their shirt and take away their possessions.

The County can buy property with or without Eminent Domain. But we also need to monitor the BCC very closely. A few years ago they purchased property across from Stinky's for $7.2 million, $1 million more than appraised valued. And it is still not available for public use today. Wonder who and how many people got paid off in that deal? The county could have bought that same property 2 years earlier when it was on the open market for $3.2 million. Yes the county can purchase property but they can't take away property rights without compensation.

I can tell you have a deep seeded mistrust of the wealthy people, some of which might be BPO's. I understand that. Many of the BPO's are families that purchased private property decades ago from other private property owners and would not consider themselves in the "wealthy" group.

And most of them I know and hear from are cool. They are my neighbors. They love the beach and would never dream about banning people. They are embarrassed by people like you (how many names do you use on the internet?) who spend all their time and money making all beachfront owners look bad. Many also rent their homes and think what you are doing is stabbing them in the pocketbook.

You should sit down and shut up.

I'm good with giving you reasonable compensation. I'm not good with people justifying their good fortune at the expense of others. I am also not good with a group of people who have damaged our resource with buildings and then get to decide what human values are more important. It is really not the wealth but rather how wealth hoards resources by utilizing the power of that wealth. Therefore my deep seeded mistrust is the abuse of power, the superior belief that one group of values are important over others and how the justification of good fortune allows one to believe in his/her superiority over others.

The State of Florida "owns" the "shoreline". If I were a lawyer for the County that is where I would start (of course it is not this simple). I would then argue the State or County decides what if any setbacks should be between the State or County owned Shoreline and the adjacent private property owners. Someone can look this up but when it comes to waterfront isn't it at least 50 feet in Walton County? I really don't know and do not have time today to look it up so anyone feel free to correct me. Let's say it is 50 feet just for conversation. Within that 50ft of a constantly changing shoreline the adjacent private property owner should not be able to "exclude" anyone. If you have read all my post I believed at one time that a compromise would be that private property owners should be able to exclude anyone within their deeded title even when a property line is adjacent to the shoreline. It did not take me long to figure out why that will not work. FBB reminded me of how people can justify inequality and unfairness. My father owned a lot and built a house and a dock into a large lake in Georgia. He chose his lot and dock in a very good fishing area. People who fish in boats would come right up to the dock and fish ALL day. It drove my father crazy as it would most people yet he never felt like he had a right or a justification to tell people to leave. These fishermen would sometimes throw their trash into the water and get hung up and leave fishing line and lures with hooks in the water so I understand what you say about the disrespect. BUT, Once a person goes down the path of human right justification or a "legal" right to tell another person that you are not allowed to enjoy the same resource that he/she enjoys well that is asking for trouble. It is not fair that all BPO's are lumped into this one category but unless the lawsuit is broken into individual claims then there is nothing we can do about that. A MUCH bigger unfairness is when private property owners "exlude" anyone for anything on that 50ft setback area between the shoreline and their property line which is stated on the deed.

Why does this issue need to be politicized? Why call people socialist? Is our representative democracy in trouble because people want fair and equal distribution of resources or because people just want something for nothing (entitlements)? We all should check our motives at the door. I don't buy either side of the great big political divide. We are all human. We are all Americans. We are all "part" of a community. We all live and die the same way biologically. The constant ranting about who is right and why is nothing but wasted time because we could be doing something productive like finding ways to share our resources with a sense of good will. Why is that so hard? The shaming and the name calling needs to stop. It serves no good purpose. A happy community is a happy life...

Let me try again with the post from #979

Can we find one item to discuss that might have common agreement?

What about - Remove 3rd Party Chair Vendors from Regional Beaches Memorial Day to Labor Day and use only TDC ATTENDED chair vendor points and limit the number of TDC rentals available. Rent by the hour and not the day and don't set up equipment until people are at the beach and remove the beach equipment (chairs/umbrellas) when people leave.

How about it Emerald Drifter, Truman, Reggie, Bob, Dave FBB, Auburn Fan, mputnal, others?

Is there ANYTHING we might all agree and support?

Let me try again with the post from #979

Can we find one item to discuss that might have common agreement?

What about - Remove 3rd Party Chair Vendors from Regional Beaches Memorial Day to Labor Day and use only TDC ATTENDED chair vendor points and limit the number of TDC rentals available. Rent by the hour and not the day and don't set up equipment until people are at the beach and remove the beach equipment (chairs/umbrellas) when people leave.

How about it Emerald Drifter, Truman, Reggie, Bob, Dave FBB, Auburn Fan, mputnal, others?

Is there ANYTHING we might all agree and support?

I support everything you said about beach chair vendors. The fact that they have been able to get away with setting up dozens of beach chairs and umbrellas that never get rented has contributed to the beachfront owners issues. The vendors force people to Set up east and west in front of the beachfront owners homes. Additionally the beach chair vendors are very aggressive if you dare to set up a chair near any of their set up’s. I was personally bullied a few weeks ago in Blue Mountain Beach..where I live..when I placed my chair next to a vendor set up

outofadream, thank you very much for your feedback. Anyone else? Does this make sense? Is this something the BCC should implement?

Of course there is always common ground and that is my point in this discussion. Check the idealogical or political agenda at the door then come to the round table to discuss the relevant issues. Beach equipment vending, density, trash, beach behavior and how to share the beach equally and fairly should be the relevant issues. However now we have a lawsuit that only serves to delay the process of these issues being solved. If one side is hell bent on CU and the other side is hell bent on property rights then all we are doing is fighting about who is right. Throw in the political stuff and it now becomes about who is wrong and why and of course all the name calling from both sides. Property rights supporters even suggests that it is un-American to believe in anything other than than Constitutional Rights. CU supporters even suggest that it is in-human to believe in anything except Human Rights. Both sides are hypocritical. I say that the two sides need to stop the name calling and mediate. I get that is hard to do when "feelings" are hurt but in my humble opinion I believe that the BFO's should be the first ones to step up to the plate and give up something as they watch their exclusive sunsets from their building that blocks those sunsets from others and damaged a fragile ecosystem. The CU supporters need to stop ridiculing and shaming well anyone and sit down at the table and listen because BFO's have legitimate complaints. The 30A legacy no matter the definition is gone forever. Accept it. Move on with the next legacy...

Beach equipment vending, density, trash, beach behavior and how to share the beach equally and fairly should be the relevant issues.

mputnal, why wait 10 years to do anything if we can make progress on common ground on something that will make a short term difference? According the FBFA Lawyer, the BCC lawsuit against BPO's could be in the court for 10 years or longer. We should not wait 10 years to address things we can change today that does not violate perceived Federal or State Constitutional Rights (Judge Green will rule if the BCC lawsuit violates State or Federal Property Rights, but I am sure both sides will appeal what ever decision he makes to the next higher court). I like your list. I think (but could be wrong) beach equipment vending might be the one with the most common ground and something that the BCC could implement at the next meeting (if full support and requested by local citizens),

Does a complete ban effective Memorial Day 2020 of 3rd party beach vendors on Public Beach from Memorial Day through Labor Day each year and having TDC provide attended chair service during this period (which may also could be very beneficial with density, trash, and beach behavior) have the support from the various groups?

Is Beach Equipment Vending something we can all agree and have the BCC take action?

So, yes, beach chair vendor rules reform is obviously quickest relief, evidenced hundreds of times in this thread. Or, The county could buy more beach AND ACTUALLY ALLOW PUBLIC TO USE IT. Yet, FBFA, has not proposed either of these to immediately relieve this pressure. Hmmmmm, that would open up miles of beach, that's what they want, right? Or is it?

Let's be careful, however, in our desire for fix, to not come from the wrong premise. Facts:

BPO's Have been aggressively sued by county, costing millions $$$
BPO's Have been publicly aggressively besmirched by CU agitators
County is not fixing the root cause deficiency in leadership
Fla Legislature just enacted Florida Bill of Property Rights.

Before we get carried away with only one side giving up so much ground, a new development shines light on the future of this case. This is a new baseline from which Judge Green must start.

Sunday morning education:

According to government watch, citizen advocates: Florida Coastal Property Rights, Florida property owners have reason to celebrate

PROPERTY OWNER BILL OF RIGHTS
CHAPTER 2019-155
House Bill 1159

Your rights and protections include:
1. The right to acquire, possess, and protect your property.
2. The right to use and enjoy your property.
3. The right to exclude others from your property.
4. The right to dispose of your property.
5. The right to due process.
6. The right to just compensation for property taken for a public purpose.
7. The right to relief, or payment of compensation, when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of the state or a political entity unfairly affects your property.

Section 4. This act shall take effect July 1, 2019. Approved by the Governor June 26, 2019. Filed in Office Secretary of State June 26, 2019

Ridiculous!?! Not much....

Very interesting response Reggie. Very predictable. You are certainly good at educating us on property rights. I believe we got it. Is it possible to learn something else or is that all there is...

Very interesting response Reggie. Very predictable. You are certainly good at educating us on property rights. I believe we got it. Is it possible to learn something else or is that all there is...

If you follow the logic and reality of this thread, you’ll realize the extreme flaw in the normal CU discussion. Property law is a foundational concept of our civilized existence. CU is not even a thing. In constitutional law. Yet, people want to START by assuming CU concept, when it is merely a fringe idea.

It’s not that property law vs CU is the argument, That’s what agitators are framing. It’s that property law exists and evidenced by post above, is the law of the land. The solution to beach overcrowding are many. We need to START there.

It’s not property law vs CU. It’s that county policy has failed the citizens and visitors, by not planning for the volume. Solutions include

Vendor rules
Beach purchases
Parking/facilities planning
Private beach access with permission

CU is waaaaay down the list on readable and reasonable solutions. Let’s start there. THAT is reality.

I take issue with starting with legal property owners needing to give something up to start this process.

I do NOT, however, feel compromise is not necessary. But I’m repeating myself.

Is it possible to learn something else or is that all there is...

mputnal, I absolutely hope there is something else that we can learn, and that is how to REDUCE the number of tourists. I know that is not a popular topic among those building Mega Rentals, making millions by having the BCC change our long term development plans to destroy wetlands and increase housing density, or those business spending millions of dollars to expand their restaurants and stores.

WE ARE NOT ALONE IN THE TOURIST DENSITY PROBLEM! Look at the MSN article yesterday about the tourists in Venice in the link below

Morning Coffee Results in a $1,000 Fine and Expulsion From Venice

"Venice, which for decades has been inundated with tourists from all over the world eager to see its unique architecture and experience its lifestyle, has struggled with overtourism. As for other popular destinations, the crowds have been both a blessing, bringing in much-needed revenue, and a curse, invading every inch of public space.

As far back as 1987, the local authorities capped the number of tour buses carrying day-trippers into the city. But a new wave of tourism fueled by cheap airline fares has not made things easier, and Venice has taken strict measures to address the problem. New rules include fines for urinating in public, wearing indecent clothing and eating in public places other that restaurants and cafes.

The struggle echoed that of Rome, where the authorities have imposed heavy fines and added officers to stop people from wading into the city’s famous fountains. At the height of a heat wave in Europe last summer, two people skinny-dipped in the fountain at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, prompting a police hunt for the culprits.

Matteo Salvini, the country’s hard-line interior minister, called the men “idiots,” telling them “Italy isn’t their bathroom.”

The largest, most visible symbols of the onslaught of tourists on Venice’s canals have been cruise ships that carry hundreds of people into the heart of the historic center. Campaigners pushed through new regulations last year to divert the behemoths to a passenger port on the mainland, farther from the city’s fragile lagoon.

But on a recent Sunday morning, a cruise ship plowed into a smaller tour boat and a wharf on a canal, injuring four people. Critics said the accident highlighted the need for regulation.

“Venice must be respected, and the rude people who think they can come to the city and do whatever they want must understand that, thanks to the girls and boys of the local police, they will be taken, sanctioned and removed,” Luigi Brugnaro, the mayor of Venice, said in a statement.

30A is not alone having more tourists than can be managed! Nearly every major tourist spot in the world is experiencing the same thing. We CANNOT let the BCC to promote a free for all! We MUST figure out soon how to REDUCE the number of tourists before we do even more damage.

We must stop the power brokers who want to make millions of dollars at our expense by exploiting and destroying our unique ecosystem!

Yes, I certainly hope we can learn something else before it is too late...

What I have learned is that BPO's are only interested in winning this lawsuit and the CU supporters are only interested in keeping all beaches open to the public. At this point there seems to be NO room for compromise. This lawsuit will certainly be appealed by either side. So, please tell me how BPO's win anything until after the appeals that will take years?