Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Quit trying to fabricate some class war between "The People" and "BPOs". Beach property owners are people too. Take your divisive speech elsewhere - it's tiresome. Earlier you said you were done with this thread. Be a man of your word, Mark.

AF, be a man/woman and stop hiding your name.

I responded back to Kathryn because it seemed she was asking me a question. I responded to you because you are not being truthful in that CU supporters or public beach supporters (they may or may not be one and the same) are promoting bad beach behavior. If I am wrong prove where anyone has said that bad beach behavior is okay.

You have really been drinking the cool aide of political divisiveness. I do not believe in a class war. I do believe that wealth has power and this power must not be abused by controlling our beach resources. If you keep trying to change my message I will keep posting. Up to you.

FLORIDA PROPERTY OWNER BILL OF RIGHTS


This Bill of Rights does not represent all of your rights under Florida law regarding your property and should not be viewed as a comprehensive guide to property rights. This document does not create a civil cause of action and neither expands nor limits any rights or remedies provided under any other law. This document does not replace the need to seek legal advice in matters relating to property law. Laws relating to your rights are found in the State Constitution, Florida Statutes, local ordinances, and court decisions. 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.



So, I’m glad that BlueMountain Beach Vagrant brought up the topic of this property owners bill of rights for Florida.

No one can dispute that property either on the beach or close to the beach has more value than property that is a long ways from the beach. The beachfront owners paid for the view and convenience of being right on the beach and non-beachfront owners certainly pay for the convenience of being a walking distance from a usable beach.

So number seven is quite an interesting component of this Florida Property Owners Bill of Rights. Effectively, any non-beachfront owner whose property values may go down or rental incomes may decrease as a result of this, the legislative action of House Bill631, may be in a position to seek “right of relief or payment of compensation” because this new law, if they are located near a beach access that prior to HB631 had wide-open use.

In the event that the action of House Bill631 unfairly and negatively affects the value of their non-beachfront property because the valuable walk up unlimited use that they previously enjoyed no longer exists and if it can be proved that their values are negatively affected and their rental incomes decrease this could set up a large number or class of people that could be affected and seek legal action for compensation.

I would say the tide of this Legislation moves the sands in both ways in this instance. You can’t protect one class of people and not another. I would say many hundreds if not thousands of property owners who don’t own on the beach could effectively make the case that their property has been unfairly affected by House Bill 631.


It’s right here in black and white:

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

Dave Rauschkolb, you should stick to serving Mai Tai alcoholic beverages at your beach-view 30A business and not legal opinions. Or did this real property rights “belief” come from the FBFA attorney who should know better?
What rights were taken by the Government from the inland property owners that is incorporated in their title as describe by the deed? None. No take, no Government compensation.
I’m not even an attorney and understand your legal “belief” is baseless malarkey and irrelevant except to the CU antisocial medial campaign of misinformation.
Let’s have some facts and not baseless opinions please. Let the emotional shutdowns and baseless class warfare conspiracies begin.

Dave Rauschkolb, you should stick to serving Mai Tai alcoholic beverages at your beach-view 30A business and not legal opinions. Or did this real property rights “belief” come from the FBFA attorney who should know better?
What rights were taken by the Government from the inland property owners that is incorporated in their title as describe by the deed? None. No take, no Government compensation.
I’m not even an attorney and understand your legal “belief” is baseless malarkey and irrelevant except to the CU antisocial medial campaign of misinformation.
Let’s have some facts and not baseless opinions please. Let the emotional shutdowns and baseless class warfare conspiracies begin.

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

AF, be a man/woman and stop hiding your name.

How dare you limit the The People's and BFO's choices to just two genders! ALL THE PEOPLE demand more sexual identities than just "man/woman". THE wealthy, powerful, politically connected, hired assassins of compromise, entitled, string pullers, disrespectful, angry, politicized impostors, BS pie eaters, oppressive, deceptive, dishonest, not from here, ALL deserve more.

So, I’m glad that BlueMountain Beach Vagrant brought up the topic of this property owners bill of rights for Florida.

No one can dispute that property either on the beach or close to the beach has more value than property that is a long ways from the beach. The beachfront owners paid for the view and convenience of being right on the beach and non-beachfront owners certainly pay for the convenience of being a walking distance from a usable beach.

So number seven is quite an interesting component of this Florida Property Owners Bill of Rights. Effectively, any non-beachfront owner whose property values may go down or rental incomes may decrease as a result of this, the legislative action of House Bill631, may be in a position to seek “right of relief or payment of compensation” because this new law, if they are located near a beach access that prior to HB631 had wide-open use.

In the event that the action of House Bill631 unfairly and negatively affects the value of their non-beachfront property because the valuable walk up unlimited use that they previously enjoyed no longer exists and if it can be proved that their values are negatively affected and their rental incomes decrease this could set up a large number or class of people that could be affected and seek legal action for compensation.

I would say the tide of this Legislation moves the sands in both ways in this instance. You can’t protect one class of people and not another. I would say many hundreds if not thousands of property owners who don’t own on the beach could effectively make the case that their property has been unfairly affected by House Bill 631.


It’s right here in black and white:

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

I know you don't really believe that non-BFO are entitled to compensation because of HB-631. So was it supposed to be funny? Did your real estate buddy put you up to this very feeble (and I'm being nice) argument? You know, the other surfing dude.

Real estate professional who sold a non-beach front property across the street from a public access says to the buyer, "Yes you have beach access."

Same real estate professional after buyer discovers they never had beach access beyond the 50 foot width and now there is no room to set up because it's too crowded, "Don't worry, my buddy Dave Rauschkolb is going to sue Walton County to get you money because HB-631 devalued your property."

There's always a minor detail that screws things up: HB-631 did absolutely nothing to change the legal status of ANYONE's property. And that's the TRUTH (click if you missed it the first time).

Are people still signing affidavits claiming that they have had free access to the beach for two hundred years?

BMBV, you might not believe it but the words I choose to use are quite gentle especially considering the dark view of The People in your words and your message. Trust me I grew up in a small rural town and I have a rather large selection of words that I could have used. My redneck roots would have a field day with your message of The People being unworthy and inferior to your high and mighty position in life. I would repeat your words but I am getting bored with your negativity.

I thought you were interested in a show all tell all debate? What happened?

AF, bmbv prefers me to acknowledge your identity differently. I don't think he thinks before he types so if okay with you we will leave it like it is.

How dare you limit the The People's and BFO's choices to just two genders! ALL THE PEOPLE demand more sexual identities than just "man/woman". THE wealthy, powerful, politically connected, hired assassins of compromise, entitled, string pullers, disrespectful, angry, politicized impostors, BS pie eaters, oppressive, deceptive, dishonest, not from here, ALL deserve more.

Kathryn, we all better sign an affidavit that states that we the people want public beach forever. If you do not own beach front property then I am confused on why you would want private beaches. Why would you want future generations of your family to have limited (very limited) access to our beaches?

Kathryn, we all better sign an affidavit that states that we the people want public beach forever. If you do not own beach front property then I am confused on why you would want private beaches. Why would you want future generations of your family to have limited (very limited) access to our beaches?

Smells funny in here.

Quit trying to fabricate some class war between "The People" and "BPOs". Beach property owners are people too. Take your divisive speech elsewhere - it's tiresome. Earlier you said you were done with this thread. Be a man of your word, Mark.

Kathryn, we all better sign an affidavit that states that we the people want public beach forever. If you do not own beach front property then I am confused on why you would want private beaches. Why would you want future generations of your family to have limited (very limited) access to our beaches?

I prefer to go to PCB.

BMBV, you might not believe it but the words I choose to use are quite gentle especially considering the dark view of The People in your words and your message. Trust me I grew up in a small rural town and I have a rather large selection of words that I could have used.

You might have to dig down in your "redneck" chest of articulate words. You've just ahout exhausted your other supply.

I would repeat your words but I am getting bored with your negativity.

Now that's funny! Thanks!

I thought you were interested in a show all tell all debate? What happened?

I'm all for David Rauschkolb debating Reggie per his challenge and money for admission going to charity. Thought I've been very clear about that.

AF, bmbv prefers me to acknowledge your identity differently. I don't think he thinks before he types so if okay with you we will leave it like it is.

Nope.
I just don't want you depriving The People from any entitlement such as the right to choose genders. Now think that parody went over your head - but not surprised.

Bmbv, I don't think you would appreciate my redneck vocabulary but I will give you a hint...never mind I might get banned

Live debate update: Looks like bmbv is a no show.

I will leave the gender identity issues for the experts like you. I did not see any complaints from AF so I think I covered it.

If Bob Bob is right looks like AF has no identity at the moment...

If Bob Bob is right looks like AF has no identity at the moment...

Are you saying AF is banned? If so what for? Is there a way to see on-line who is banned? I saw some AF posts yesterday afternoon but don't see them now. Guess some of those posts hit to close to home for someone.

“…the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.“

Manifesto of the Communist Party
Karl Marx, 1848

Live debate update: Looks like bmbv is a no show.

You have this delusion that you think I’ve inserted myself into this debate challenge.
FACTS (truth)
1. Dave is the chairman of Florida Beaches for All (FBFA).
2. FBFA is a co-plaintiff with the County suing over 1100 parcels representing SEVERAL THOUSAND private property owners.
3. Reggie starts this thread, the one you said you had posted the last post on this subject, BTW.
4. Dave Rauschkolb criticizes Reggie for not using “real” name (as if that makes a difference).
5. Reggie challenges Dave to a live debate because of all the continued non-sense along with smoke and mirrors being perpetuated by Dave and FBFA, which Dave leads.
6. I totally concur that this would be a great fundraiser for charity.

What’s obvious is obvious. You fully know that David Rauschkolb doesn’t have it in him to debate Reggie in a live forum. I’ll say it again, Dave is good on stage when there’s a one way conversation.

If I were Dave, I would be offended by your posts. That is, you also don’t believe in Dave’s debating skills, regarding CU on a level playing field. That’s why you’re blowing smoke by arbitrarily injecting me into the debate instead of Dave and then say I’m a “no show”. All of this to take the light off of your prestigious leader of FBFA, Dave, who refuses to EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE Reggie’s challenge - MUCH LESS accept it.

SCJ, man that communism stuff does not work on us rednecks like it use to. Ya'll better find another way to spread fear because a communist take over is out of date.

I have no idea what happened to AF. I was just repeating Bob Bob.

“What belongs to no one is wasted by everyone. What belongs to one man in particular is the object of his economy and care.”
James Wilson

James Wilson, an author of the Constitution, wrote that without recognition of private property, “the tranquility of society would be perpetually disturbed by fierce and ungovernable competition for the possession and enjoyment of things, insufficient to satisfy all, and by no rules of adjustment distributed to each.”

Bmbv, my offer was for you to moderate a televised debate to keep it fair (in case you lose I don't want you to complain about the officiating). Since you and Reggie want a debate (I wanted a water squirting duel) both you and Reggie should not back out now. Your participation will be simple: Read the questions presented from both sides. The identities of both Reggie and Opie (who will represent public beaches) will remain unknown until the debate. Can't you feel the excitement of putting your face to all your words? You know where I am if you want to drop by and work out the details. I already have about 10 questions but I am thinking we should each have about 25 questions. What are your thoughts?

"The Natural Resources of our County are in danger of exhaustion..." Teddy Roosevelt

"The Natural Resources of our County are in danger of exhaustion..." Teddy Roosevelt

I agree.

I think the Natural Resources are in much better hands with individual private property owners than the county or large developers.

This lawsuit is about taking property rights without compensation on property that has been private for generations. The county is going to make a free for all for the economic benefit of some businessmen and developers (AKA power brokers). That would dramatically increase the rate of exhaustion of our natural resources.

The county's lawsuit states that is it ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute, but did not provide any evidence . Some affidavit saying someone stayed on some beach, somewhere along a 26 miles stretch, that may have been public or private property, or saw someone else on the beach that may have had or may not have had permission from the owner to be there, doesn't count. Although there may be differences of opinion if it is reasonable (some may think is not reasonable for people to own property next to the GOM), however both Dave and Sydney have stated that CU has been interrupted and the lawsuit defense proves this is under great dispute. Certainly Dan's Public Radio interview, YouTube videos, and Mother Jones interviews prove the dispute. And Dan is on the plaintiff side! Note EACH of those requirements must be shown true in a court of law for the county to take the property. Do you think the county can PROVE removing property rights without compensations is reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute in a court of law? Be honest.

The county can purchase properties and turn them into public beaches, but I am not sure that is a good idea. I think the natural resources of SOWAL are more in danger of exhaustion under control of the county than the control of private property owners. Do you fully trust the county? Look at the beach property across near Stinky's. It was purchased for $3MM and then sold to the County 3 years later for over $7MM, and way above appraisal, and a few years later still waiting for it to open. Wonder who made money on that deal? Why didn't the county buy it 3 years earlier at half the price? Right now people dig and leave craters on SRB public beaches which can harm people and turtles. The TDC can't even force people to fill up the holes when they leave. And you think the TDC is going to regulate behavior? What about spending money on a new TDC home, without inspections, purchased over appraisal, only to find out after closing it does not pass code and must be torn down? Do you think the county is best to manage our Natural Resources with a free for all, unlimited access, by unlimited numbers of people, with unlimited beach equipment?

I think the State would do a better job of managing property than the county ever could from an ecological view point. Like when the SRB community came together to have the State purchase the Topsail property. At least that way density, ecological management, and to some extent behavior, will be controlled. Note that the Topsail property and other State/Federal property is not in the law suit by the county. Why? If CU is really true, shouldn't it apply equally over all 26 miles of beach front? If you want to go to the State Park, you buy a pass (or during high season the TDC buys them for the public) and the State Parks limit the number of people and enforces rules and behavior. If you don't behave or follow the rules you are kicked out and not allow back in the park. It is not a free for all.