Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Beach Lover

Apr 25, '19 · 7:46 AM526,5052

When you see a PCB or Destin bumper sticker, what thought immediately comes to mind? Probably same for all of us with any time spent here - nice, but it ain’t 30A! Do you remember why you started renting/visiting here? What was it? Remember when you bought your first 30A property? Why here?
Because it was DIFFERENT, right? Remember the words you used to describe it to family and friends as you invited them here? “Private” “Quiet” “Intimate” “Less crowded”. That wasn’t by accident. The entire genetic code of Sowal beaches is because of the private ownership and neighborhood beach personalities.
You could rent “private beach”. You could buy “private beach”. There wasn’t a free for all frat party atmosphere because of unlimited public beach access on the sands. That behavior was regulated by the privately owned property where such behavior was immediately squelched. And yet, by custom, no one was ever “Kicked off” of private beaches because owners don’t do that unless bad actors abuse the privilege.
Walton County has always had more than 50% PUBLIC beach. Still does. That hasn’t changed. There are now deliberately misleading fear tactics out there with scary words like “Quiet Title” and “Privatization”, neither of which have affected one single square inch of public beach, not one. Yet, the mob mentality, orchestrated by local carnival barkers eager for fame and notoriety, and dollars, have mislead the citizens and deliberately tried to divide the community in a shell game of Customary Use.
The fact is that the county outran the capabilities of local Commissioners to plan for growth 20 years ago, and we haven’t improved that talent to deal with it even yet. So the County, in failing to plan beach availability, tried to illegally claim private property as public, without following the laws requiring judicial oversight. The local Good Ol’ Boys overreached their authority and got caught by the adults in Tallahassee. So they then decides to sue 4,800 of Sowal citizens to take their property. That’s right, your tax money is being spent, and a lot of it, to SUE almost 5,000 of your neighbors, and steal what they agreed to purchase at a premium, and have a deed to prove it.
Don’t blame them please, they didn’t want or ask for this fight. They live here and care for these beaches just like you and me. Go meet them, they are truly the eclectic fabric of 30A. The signs they had to put up are just in defense of this new orchestrated public attack against them.
The bottom line is this: The minute you release the public to occupy all of Sowal beaches, you IMMEDIATELY get nasty Destin and PCB problems. How will you feel about that 30A sticker then? Nostalgic? Me too.

Replies

2,312

Beach Lover

Sep 19, '19 · 5:00 PM#1552

"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.

This is the most informed, sane statement on this issue to date.

Beach Fanatic

Sep 19, '19 · 5:10 PM#1553

If the county didn't have to answer to the state, this place would have been burned down and paved over long ago.

Beach Comber

Sep 19, '19 · 5:13 PM#1554

Property owners: "trust us, we'll take care of this place. Now get off it."

Brilliant!

Beach Lover

Sep 19, '19 · 5:36 PM#1555

The SRB private property owners have had the same authority over their deeded private property for generations and it is up to the individual property owner on how many people and who they let on the property and it is their decision if they want to give preference to their family, friends, or guests. That has not changed for 100 years. Some did not care if others were on their property (back then was just a few people and no beach equipment) and others did not want people on their property. Same way today. Some care, some don't. What did changed was the county in 2016 saying private property owners no longer had property rights and then launched a lawsuit that lawyers have collected over 2 millions dollars so far. And do you think the court is going to rule that the county claim of reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute is true? Be honest. Do you think the county has proved those claims?

Beach Fanatic

Sep 19, '19 · 5:45 PM#1556

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).

I see. Wouldn't it be better if the moderator was totally impartial? And no I wouldn't want to moderate because Dave's body guards might have to jump me in the middle of it. I can only take so much.

What's the point in discussing this if Dave, the orator, WON'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE Reggie's challenge to a debate????

Beach Fanatic

Sep 20, '19 · 1:19 AM#1557

Bmbv, I'll be your body guard

Seriously, I don't get why everyone is so jumpy. I don't buy the notion that civility is completely gone. Surely we have could have a live debate instead of this back and forth ghost posting.

SCJ, I have always believed that private property owners are the best stewards of the land...until I started reading the message from your group. I realized that I need to reevaluate who private property owners are and more specifically BFO's. It did not take long for your group to reveal who you are. You are anti-government, anti-social (public), politically connected and wealthy (or connected to wealth) with superior elitist beliefs. My revelation was complete when Reggie used blasphemy in his post in response to my questioning of his credentials. Obviously your group does not use real names because you are hiding something. You are not honest about the reasoning for hiding behind the fake names. Okay some on the CU/Public Beach side also hide their names...but they have been posting for a long time and your group only very recently. So, what does all that mean? It means that We The People should not trust any of your words. It's that simple. You can post and post and post but it will not matter. If you want to be an authority of fact you will have to reveal who you are and why you believe that The People are unworthy to have public beach. Until that happens your words are insignificant and irrelevant to the problems we have in this community.

You asked a question about whether you should be in charge of our beach resource or the County. The answer is simple and overwhelmingly obvious: NOT YOU!

Beach Fanatic

Sep 20, '19 · 3:17 AM#1558

Honestly, have you become Dave Rauschkolb’s surrogate?

Beach Fanatic

Sep 20, '19 · 5:36 AM#1559

Bmbv, I wish you would read my post because I would not have to keep repeating myself. I do not know Dave. I have never met Dave. All I know is what has been posted in this forum regarding his opinion and believe regarding our beaches. When I first started reading this thread I was on the side of respectful behavior and private and public beaches working together. As I have said it did not take long for me to smell the BS coming from the private beach side. Please take notice that I am trying not to use the term power brokers because it seems to antagonize the heck out of your group especially Reggie. I have no idea who Reggie is but I do know what he believes and I oppose his beliefs. That said, I do not disrespect him or you.

If you really understood my message you would know that I probably have very little in common with Dave EXCEPT public vs private beach. I no longer follow either political party. Honestly, neither side represents me anymore. The left is too left and the right is too right and the people are too divided. Anyway I have no political agenda except to point out that we should not be so divided on issues and that we must compromise our principles to all get along. Constitutional principles are important but not at the expense of The People's access to our beautiful beach resource. You know that wealth has the ear of both political parties. You know that wealth owns the majority of our resources. You know that wealth will continue to own more and more of our resources. I congratulate their success but leave the beach to The People.

I'm Very sorry about those deeds, very sorry for a very few beach users being disrespectful, very sorry that the county has over developed but you BPO's should not ever have exclusive control over this resource. If the beaches are private then it would be 1000 times worse than over development relevant to the happiness of The People. You disagree and I can still respect that but I believe we can correct over development however we can not correct the loss of this resource to private ownership.

Respect is the single most important thing that we have to have in a civil society. Both sides have been disrespectful. I have tried not to disrespect anyone but you might disagree and I am listening. You are trying too hard to make me and my opinions your enemy. You are trying even harder to make Dave your enemy. It would be wonderful if we all would stop with all the male ego and belief that we are entitled to be right all the time and just listen. You and I probably are not as good at listening as we both would like to believe

Beach Comber

Sep 20, '19 · 5:39 AM#1560

We interrupt this broadcast with a public service message:
These are Rich People's Problems. There are actually difficult issues we need to deal with. Beaches belong to everyone. Now let's move on to more important stuff.

Skunky

Sep 20, '19 · 12:36 PM#1561

The SRB private property owners have had the same authority over their deeded private property for generations and it is up to the individual property owner on how many people and who they let on the property and it is their decision if they want to give preference to their family, friends, or guests. That has not changed for 100 years. Some did not care if others were on their property (back then was just a few people and no beach equipment) and others did not want people on their property. Same way today. Some care, some don't. What did changed was the county in 2016 saying private property owners no longer had property rights and then launched a lawsuit that lawyers have collected over 2 millions dollars so far. And do you think the court is going to rule that the county claim of reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute is true? Be honest. Do you think the county has proved those claims?

Unless I missed something, or don't fully understand the timetable involved with such matters, the motion to dismiss the county's lawsuits has not been honored, so it might not be the slam dunk you imply.

Beach Fanatic

Sep 20, '19 · 2:28 PM#1562

You and I probably are not as good at listening as we both would like to believe

Yep.

You are trying too hard to make me and my opinions your enemy.

You are kidding me, right?

Beach Lover

Sep 20, '19 · 8:04 PM#1563

Unless I missed something, or don't fully understand the timetable involved with such matters, the motion to dismiss the county's lawsuits has not been honored, so it might not be the slam dunk you imply.

There is no slam dunk in this lawsuit. I have lost count on the number of motions to dismiss already filed. There are lots of them in the over 1000 court documents filed so far on this lawsuit brought by the county against every single private beach front property owner in Walton County. Not one of the filed motions to dismiss have yet to be ruled by the Judge (in other words not one of them have been ruled out by the Judge). It could take months before he rules on ANY of them.

Since it looks like the leader of the FBFA disagreed with one of my previous posts. I will ask the questions again to any FBFA representatives, do you think the county has proved (or even provided any evidence) that the lawsuit by the county to take away private property rights (the right of exclusion) is reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute?

Go ahead and give an answer and be honest. That is 3 of the 4 criteria that MUST be PROVED and HAVE been CLAIMED by the PLANTIF (which now includes FBFA which Dave represents and help found). Ancient is the 4th criteria (of which all must be met). I don't think i have seen any evidence in the submitted court documents of unlimited people using beach equipment on private property against the will of the property owners on 30A, but let's set that one criteria aside for now and focus on the other 3 criteria. I know that is a tough question, but so far THAT question has costs thousands of people millions of dollars, and it has never been answered.

Another question, if FBFA is a PLANTIFF in a lawsuit against thousands of people, making the claim that unlimited people using beach equipment on private property against the will of the property owners, is Ancient, Reasonable, Without Interruption, and Free from Dispute, is found to be frivolous (AKA no evidence provided to make that claim), does that mean the FBFA (as a Plaintiff) has liability for the legal fees? So far estimated at the $2 Million mark but could go to $50 Million or more according the FBFA lawyer.

Come on Dave, The People and the BFO's and others that just read this forum for general information to make up their own mind, REALLY want to know YOUR answer.

To the admins. Those are honest questions seeking real answers from FBFA representatives (of which Dave is known as a founder and vocal supporter of the lawsuit) which has cost millions of dollars so far and will continue to cost millions until the Judge rules or dismisses the case. .Please let this post stand without deleting or banning.

Beach Fanatic

Sep 20, '19 · 8:19 PM#1564

There is no slam dunk in this lawsuit. I have lost count on the number of motions to dismiss already filed. There are lots of them in the over 1000 court documents filed so far on this lawsuit brought by the county against every single private beach front property owner in Walton County. Not one of the filed motions to dismiss have yet to be ruled by the Judge (in other words not one of them have been ruled out by the Judge). It could take months before he rules on ANY of them.

Since it looks like the leader of the FBFA disagreed with one of my previous posts. I will ask the questions again to any FBFA representatives, do you think the county has proved (or even provided any evidence) that the lawsuit by the county to take away private property rights (the right of exclusion) is reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute?

Go ahead and give an answer and be honest. That is 3 of the 4 criteria that MUST be PROVED and HAVE been CLAIMED by the PLANTIF (which now includes FBFA which Dave represents and help found). Ancient is the 4th criteria (of which all must be met). I don't think i have seen any evidence in the submitted court documents of unlimited people using beach equipment on private property against the will of the property owners on 30A, but let's set that one criteria aside for now and focus on the other 3 criteria. I know that is a tough question, but so far THAT question has costs thousands of people millions of dollars, and it has never been answered.

Another question, if FBFA is a PLANTIFF in a lawsuit against thousands of people, making the claim that unlimited people using beach equipment on private property against the will of the property owners, is Ancient, Reasonable, Without Interruption, and Free from Dispute, is found to be frivolous (AKA no evidence provided to make that claim), does that mean the FBFA (as a Plaintiff) has liability for the legal fees? So far estimated at the $2 Million mark but could go to $50 Million or more according the FBFA lawyer.

Come on Dave, The People and the BFO's and others that just read this forum for general information to make up their own mind, REALLY want to know YOUR answer.

To the admins. Those are honest questions seeking real answers from FBFA representatives (of which Dave is known as a founder and vocal supporter of the lawsuit) which has cost millions of dollars so far and will continue to cost millions until the Judge rules or dismisses the case. .Please let this post stand without deleting or banning.

WTF

Beach Fanatic

Sep 20, '19 · 8:49 PM#1565

In summation, some BFO's are banning the people that clean their houses, maintain their landscaping, repair their plumbing, keep the a/c and heat operating, keep the water flowing, serve their food and drink, pick up their trash, educate their children (I'm sure I missed a couple) from using the beaches of Walton County Florida that they had been enjoying without conflict for generations.

Hard to fathom, isn't it?

Beach Lover

Sep 20, '19 · 8:52 PM#1566

In summation, some BFO's are banning the people that clean their houses, maintain their landscaping, repair their plumbing, keep the a/c and heat operating, keep the water flowing, serve their food and drink, pick up their trash, educate their children (I'm sure I missed a couple) from using the beaches of Walton County Florida that they had been enjoying without conflict for generations.

Hard to fathom, isn't it?

THE UNWASHED YOU PEOPLE NEED TO KEEP TO YOURE TRAILERS!!!

Beach Fanatic

Sep 21, '19 · 3:13 AM#1567

Another question, if FBFA is a PLANTIFF in a lawsuit against thousands of people, making the claim that unlimited people using beach equipment on private property against the will of the property owners, is Ancient, Reasonable, Without Interruption, and Free from Dispute, is found to be frivolous (AKA no evidence provided to make that claim), does that mean the FBFA (as a Plaintiff) has liability for the legal fees? So far estimated at the $2 Million mark but could go to $50 Million or more according the FBFA lawyer.

That truly is an interesting question. The first instinct is to say if they were found “co-liable” for the plaintiff fees, that FBFA would just simply file bankruptcy and that’s that. But that’s just an educated guess.

Edgewater Condominiums has already filed for attorney fees from the county and its counsel (which they will get IMO). I did not see where the filing mentioned FBFA.

BTW, if Edgewater does win (and I think they will - click here), does it not weaken the county’s position with all other properties? In the end, what really is the difference between Edgewater and any other gulf front property that has deeded title to the mean high water line and associated private property rights? I do understand it might be a little different if they received beach nourishment. But the county is still going after their property north of the ECL (erosion control line) as well in the CU lawsuit by default.

Which brings up yet another question. Why did the county include all those parcels that received beach nourishment? The public already has a right to use the beach south of the ECL (where everybody wants to be anyway). My theory is they know that the added beach will eventually erode back to the starting point and then the public WILL NOT have open access. Re-nourishment is supposed to “fix” that but who knows what will happen when that occurs. And therefore the county is trying to cover their bases. It’s the only thing that makes sense in that regard. It’s probably cheaper to just “steal” the beach north of the ECL via CU than it is to throw more sand out there re-creating the public beach south of the ECL.

Edited Sep 21, '19 · 3:31 AM

Beach Lover

Sep 21, '19 · 5:48 AM#1568

How did the citizens of Walton County every get by before the "activist" crusaders for truth and justice came to save us from the mean old rich people?

Beach Fanatic

Sep 21, '19 · 5:56 AM#1569

Dissenting views expressed on any issue either from Americans or organizations in America is what makes America America. We will not be intimidated, influenced or discouraged in any way into submission by threats, veiled threats, personal attacks or otherwise.

Edited Sep 21, '19 · 6:17 AM

Beach Fanatic

Sep 21, '19 · 5:59 AM#1570

Yep.

You are kidding me, right?

Of course I am kidding you! It is the nature of us humans to make enemies right?

The County has allowed over development of our little island. You and your group has benefited the most from that short sighted and economically motivated decision to approve your exclusive buildings adjacent to the coastal shoreline. Since we are going to be enemies I say that the State should lay claim to all shoreline AND dune systems that nature meant as a barrier to the mainland. If the county was wrong to approve your exclusive buildings then that error must also be corrected. If someone builds on someones else's property because of a faulty deed recording then what do you think the State will do? Sovereign submerged land management will need to be revisited for each development approval. How does rising sea levels affect these permit approvals? Was all permits required approved? If so, who approved them and did they have absolute authority? So, now you BFO power brokers may have another problem to deal with because this game is going in to overtime...just like you power brokers wanted...no compromise...fight to the end. But, you should know that there is always the option of compromise (settlement) to your exclusive beach demands.

Beach Lover

Sep 21, '19 · 6:22 AM#1571

Dissenting views expressed on any issue either from Americans or organizations in America is what makes America America. We will not be intimidated, influenced or discouraged in any way into submission by threats, veiled threats or otherwise.

Dave, asking honest questions, that are the core of the lawsuit, of which FBFA is a PLANFIFF, and you have supported with rally cries of No Compromise, and you are regarded a FBFA leader and founder, should not be intimidating, especially since FBFA is leading the charge and millions of dollars of the people of Walton County are at risk.

Do you think the county has proved (or even provided any evidence) that the lawsuit by the county to take away private property rights (the right of exclusion) is reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute? If so please explain your answer or provide any evidence.

Beach Fanatic

Sep 21, '19 · 6:56 AM#1572

Trained Weather Folks can barely predict the weather accurately 3-4 days out (50% correct at best).... How are these clowns predicting our demise 12-50 years out.......#HowLongCanYouThreadWater

Beach Lover

Sep 21, '19 · 8:17 AM#1573

If the beach is public property, why not cover them with solar panels and put up offshore windmills. That would make it easier for the government to ban fossil fuels. I also understand that there are devices that harness the energy of waves. That would solve the problem of people wanting to go to the beach.

Beach Fanatic

Sep 21, '19 · 8:55 AM#1574

Trained Weather Folks can barely predict the weather accurately 3-4 days out (50% correct at best).... How are these clowns predicting our demise 12-50 years out.......#HowLongCanYouThreadWater

Science is good.

Beach Fanatic

Sep 21, '19 · 10:08 AM#1575

Dissenting views expressed on any issue either from Americans or organizations in America is what makes America America.

Does not make dissenting baseless emotional uninformed customary use "beliefs" factual, based on American Constitution, American rule of law, any more believable (except to those who don't know any different), or relevant to Walton private property rights.

Who is "We" will not be intimidated"? Who is making "threats, veiled threats, personal attacks"?
#421 "Game On!" Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Beachfront private property owners will not be intimidated by CU antisocial media, influenced by CU intentional misinformation or discouraged by class warfare conspiracies in any way into submission by threats, veiled threats, personal attacks or otherwise from those with no real property skin in the game.

CUnCourt

Stone Cold J, Dave Rauschkolb has been asked to explain CU beliefs with facts over the years and on this thread previously #236 but there is no explination or facts or basis in law. Just I "believe" in my version of CU.

#236 Dave Rausckolb can you please explain just ONE of the four or more criterion of ancient English customary use and what evidence you think applies to any of the 1,192 Walton private beach parcels to justify your positions?
Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

#243 Can you describe how any legal criteria of customary use applies to private property? Why would any beachfront owner identify themselves so Ulhfelder and others can pick a fight and taunt law enforcement on anti-social media?
Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

#249 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#502 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#543 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#647 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#660 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#728 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#722 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#790 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#833 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#859 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#883 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#950 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#1012 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#1243 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

And Dave Rauschkolb calls others "delusional"???
#1406 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Beach Fanatic

Sep 21, '19 · 11:34 AM#1576

Does not make dissenting baseless emotional uninformed customary use "beliefs" factual, based on American Constitution, American rule of law, any more believable (except to those who don't know any different), or relevant to Walton private property rights.

Who is "We" will not be intimidated"? Who is making "threats, veiled threats, personal attacks"?
#421 "Game On!" Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Beachfront private property owners will not be intimidated by CU antisocial media, influenced by CU intentional misinformation or discouraged by class warfare conspiracies in any way into submission by threats, veiled threats, personal attacks or otherwise from those with no real property skin in the game.

CUnCourt

Stone Cold J, Dave Rauschkolb has been asked to explain CU beliefs with facts over the years and on this thread previously #236 but there is no explination or facts or basis in law. Just I "believe" in my version of CU.

#236 Dave Rausckolb can you please explain just ONE of the four or more criterion of ancient English customary use and what evidence you think applies to any of the 1,192 Walton private beach parcels to justify your positions?
Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

#243 Can you describe how any legal criteria of customary use applies to private property? Why would any beachfront owner identify themselves so Ulhfelder and others can pick a fight and taunt law enforcement on anti-social media?
Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

#249 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#502 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#543 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#647 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#660 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#728 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#722 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#790 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#833 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#859 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#883 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#950 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#1012 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#1243 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

And Dave Rauschkolb calls others "delusional"???
#1406 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy