Back to All About SoWal

Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Reggie Gaskins avatar
Beach Lover
526,505 views2
upload_2019-4-25_8-30-52.jpeg
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.

03BC6F35-C70B-476E-8581-BDFB287ECF68.jpeg

Replies

2,312
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1602
My name is irrelevant.
Bravo! Well said!!
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1603
Many of you power brokers are lawyers and are connected politically.
I'm starting to feel better and better about myself.
We should have a live debate and I agree. On keeping the beaches public side I believe we should have an opponent that is at least equal in debate experience.
Again, you insult Mr. David Rauschkolb. You only can only assume that Reggie is a better debater than Dave because of TWO REASONS:
1. Reggie's posts are much more logical Dave's, backed up with a plethora of facts, not emotions or opinions.
2. Dave refuses to EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE Reggie's challenge to a debate (neither a yes or no reply). It appears Dave knows he might be out of his league even though Dave is the most vocal CU advocate, somewhat effective organizer and the CHAIRMAN of Florida Beaches for All, a co-plaintiff in the customary use lawsuit. A person in that situation should be prepared to take on anyone at anytime in a debate unless they know the topic cannot be effectively debated because of its shear nature.
kayti elliott avatar
Beach Lover
#1604
My name is irrelevant. There are millions of us.

Tell us your opinion. Your posts are all over the place and the only thing i'm sure of is you are trying to stir up trouble.
Really? There are millions of you? In Walton County?
jodiFL avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1605
No, I don't own beachfront property. Why am I supporting the bf owners? It's really none of your business but I have an opinion about it. Is Jensky your real name, not that I give a rat's rear end?
For someone that once called BFOs "snobs", you sure are ingratiating yourself with them......
kayti elliott avatar
Beach Lover
#1606
For someone that once called BFOs "snobs", you sure are ingratiating yourself with them......
In South Walton it isn't necessary to be a BFO to be a snob.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1607
Mr. Brentwood,

On June 19th you made a very disparaging remark to FloridaBeachBum:

....
"Right or wrong you're a bad neighbor and bad for our community."

How nice that would have been to have a person's actual name attached to your vicious attack. I demanded an apology from you since nobody deserves that tone of conversation which was never received. I wouldn't dare say something like that to even Dave Rauschkolb because it just isn't right.

You and people like you are the reasons people like me desire to remain anonymous. As a "well known" BFO owner, just about any comment I make concerning the beach gets attacked by the majority on SoWal. And if my comment isn't even about the beach, the prejudice exhibited toward me as a BFO is obvious. That's why SoWal is only an issues only forum and not one where I would want to socialize and share my real name. And that's been effective for me since 2005.

Names don't matter if you are posting info or even opinions. Until you call out someone opposing you by their real name.
Then you lose credibility.

What choice does one have when addressing another member of SoWal who chooses to use their real name? Makes no sense, James. At least you got part of your thought right, "Names don't matter if you are posting info or even opinions."

And then crying for a debate without showing yourself is downright ridiculous. No credibility at all. And on top if that, trying to put down that person for not agreeing to a fake debate is cowardly.
And while I'm at it, saying beachfront owners are cowards for hiding behind lawyers is not a personal attack. Calling an individual a coward is a personal attack. Might be true, but still a personal attack. Saying someone acted cowardly may fall in between.

So I searched this thread for the word "coward" before I posted this. Funny, IT ONLY SHOWS UP in your post above.

The whole point of Reggie's challenge was because of the constant "put down" by Dave Rauschkolb of the content of Reggie's posts simply because he wasn't using his real name. Acceptance of Reggie's debate challenge would definitely placate Dave's overly concern (and apparently yours) for anonymity. If Dave is so confident regarding customary use, he should jump on the chance to debate it in the open, not just display staged one way conversations. And all admissions go to charity, BTW. Would you attend?

Why do you feel the need to defend Dave Rauschkolb from debate challenges. Are you also insulting him like mputnal? If Dave accepts and Reggie declines, well then I will be eating a lot of crow. But only then.

Edited

Beach Fanatic
#1608
bmbv, your post are revealing your character:

1. Dishonest
2. Deceiving
3. Inaccurate
4. Demeaning
5. Dish it out but can't take it
6. Antisocial
7. Anti-community
8. Always hiding behind something

You can stop trying to justify your fake name. I understand why you chose it and why you hide your real name. It's okay. I think we have the picture of who you are and what you represent.
Reggie Gaskins avatar
Beach LoverAuthor
#1609
This original story was from the heart, as a family of generations living on 30A beach specifically. The Walton County Weirdness has hijacked all critical thinking and valuable discussion. Even this title was changed by admins because Dave couldn’t handle the message.

Thank you BMBV, your sanity and support of adult discussion are needed in this propaganda onslaught. Stop trying to argue with those incapable of linear arguments or cogent thought.

But here’s a correction folks, I don’t believe I’ve ever used the word debate. I’m pretty sure I’ve always offered to Dave, a calm, relaxed, public DISCUSSION. Table and chairs, stage, microphone, wine and cheese. And no, I’m not a professional debater, far from it. But we know he can’t accept that invite. End of story.

You see, that way, the community would find that I am not a BPO monster, I’m just a guy with a family that cares about and gives back heavily to the communities in which we live and work. I’ve never kicked anyone off of any beach, quite the opposite. Hearing my story in public, uncovering my identity on my terms, uncensored, would silence the attackers long enough to hear the clean message. All the crazies would still attack me, but honest and logical folks meeting me would support the honest discussion that I promote. Solving problems is fun, on and from both sides, working together.

Notice the closing of my last 5 posts!!! I’ve been asking for discussion!!! And they received none, nada, only personal garbage, innuendo, emotional trash, and childish diversions.

So after the many recent blatant censorship episodes here and across all local media, and the crazy conspiracy theories now ruling this thread, there’s no point in attempting to solve anything here. I’ll continue my work where an honest reality lives. Cheers.

Because evidenced by the division here alone, regardless of who wins,
This fight over
CU Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

Edited

Beach Fanatic
#1610
bmbv, your post are revealing your character:

1. Dishonest
2. Deceiving
3. Inaccurate
4. Demeaning
5. Dish it out but can't take it
6. Antisocial
7. Anti-community
8. Always hiding behind something
9. Speaks for other people
10. Slice and Dice which is not nice

You can stop trying to justify your fake name. I understand why you chose it and why you hide your real name. It's okay. I think we have the picture of who you are and what you represent.
Beach Fanatic
#1611
Reggie, calling The People "crazies" represents who you are and I understand why you use a fake name to post your anti-social messages. I would very much look forward to an "honest reality" in the form of a live debate between you and an unknown opponent. I assume you understand why keeping your opponent unknown is fair right?

Listen Reggie, I agree with you that this forum does not always bring out the best behavior in people but we really do not have to be enemies. Let us all stop with this me is good and you is bad kind of thinking and posting. You have only really brought out the worst in people like bmbv. I would think you can do better at making friends and not enemies. I do not disrespect you and I understand your complaints but like my grandmother taught me there is ALWAYS two sides to every argument. We both can be better listeners so why not lets stop fighting so hard on this and figure out something that works?
Beach Fanatic
#1612
FBB, thank you for helping me prove my point of who is representing community and who is representing anti-community. Again, we do not have to keep fighting to be right so hard. The lawsuit will correct those deeds so why not both sides get together for a community fish fry and have a live but respectful debate? My message is that we should be friends not enemies. Just seems like more fun to me...
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1613
Mark, I disagree with your and other CU believers derogatory mis-characterizations of beachfront owners. “You have only really brought out the worst in people like bmbv.” Disagree. No more than you, Dave Rauschkolb, and other CU believers have. Regardless of your, and other CU believers, other opinions that may be included in posts, that I may or may not be commenting on, I can only click a comment on the whole post.

Is derogatory mis-characterizations of BFO all you and CU believers have to add? Just like antisocial media posts, CU believers “see” and “hear” what they want and not the facts or law. Your CU beliefs are not credible or relevant to the Walton commissioners’ litigation. Your belief of a CU revolt or Government private property eminent domain condemnation - is a not reality. I am interested in the facts, history, law, and other private property rights informed opinions. That’s the only reason I watch this thread - and to learn about the CU believers illusions of truth and law.

CUnCourt were the public-use of private-property rights “debate” will be decided at Walton tax payers and beachfront property owner’s expense (many millions). Are you, or any CU believer, willing to put your money where your mouth is in Walton Commissioners’ CU litigation? Like 650+ beachfront parcel owners (2,300? property owners) have. If not I’m not to worry about your belief in CU revolts.

Edited

kayti elliott avatar
Beach Lover
#1614
Let me get this straight. If someone happens to own a condo unit in a beachfront condominium they're being sued. Is that correct?
Beach Fanatic
#1615
FBB, I believe in public beaches. You believe in private beaches. I want to believe we could have both. We can't. Both sides are to blame. I do not want to justify anything I have said that is negative or derogatory because it is wrong. I admit that I am not always right. I did try to see your side of things. I did try and show respect. But my last post to bmbv was wrong and disrespectful. I apologize to him and all the readers of this thread. There is no excuse on my part. Respect is a discipline and I failed. I hope I will do better.

I don't understand your logic of blame. Our resources are disappearing. Who is responsible? Who has control over the resource is very important. We do need civil discussion. I hope that we all can learn something in a forum like this but we all should want to have respect for each other. This is not a war. We are NOT enemies. We all want to enjoy this valuable resource. If there is a will there is a way...
bob bob avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1616
Mark, I disagree with your and other CU believers derogatory mis-characterizations of beachfront owners. “You have only really brought out the worst in people like bmbv.” Disagree. No more than you, Dave Rauschkolb, and other CU believers have. Regardless of your, and other CU believers, other opinions that may be included in posts, that I may or may not be commenting on, I can only click a comment on the whole post.

Is derogatory mis-characterizations of BFO all you and CU believers have to add? Just like antisocial media posts, CU believers “see” and “hear” what they want and not the facts or law. Your CU beliefs are not credible or relevant to the Walton commissioners’ litigation. Your belief of a CU revolt or Government private property eminent domain condemnation - is a not reality. I am interested in the facts, history, law, and other private property rights informed opinions. That’s the only reason I watch this thread - and to learn about the CU believers illusions of truth and law.

CUnCourt were the public-use of private-property rights “debate” will be decided at Walton tax payers and beachfront property owner’s expense (many millions). Are you, or any CU believer, willing to put your money where your mouth is in Walton Commissioners’ CU litigation? Like 650+ beachfront parcel owners (2,300? property owners) have. If not I’m not to worry about your belief in CU revolts.
I believe beaches should be public, all beaches everywhere. The beach in SoWal should never have been sold. It was a mistake. I look for the courts to correct the mistake. I don't believe that a gulf front lot will be any less valuable whether the beach is on the deed or not.

Beachfront owners will win if they outspend the opposition. Perhaps outside groups will get involved and take it out of our hands.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1617
Thank you BMBV, your sanity and support of adult discussion are needed in this propaganda onslaught. Stop trying to argue with those incapable of linear arguments or cogent thought.
Your words are sincerely appreciated (says this groupie ).

But here’s a correction folks, I don’t believe I’ve ever used the word debate. I’m pretty sure I’ve always offered to Dave, a calm, relaxed, public DISCUSSION. Table and chairs, stage, microphone, wine and cheese. And no, I’m not a professional debater, far from it.
I stand corrected.

I’m in on the all admissions go to charity part...any excuse to drink. One rule would have to be adhered to....no interruptions from the peanut gallery including me - maybe only questions/comments via notes ahead of time and Dave and Reggie get to choose which ones to discuss.

In this environment, maybe Dave will actually consider Reggie’s outreached hand for a face to face, framed as a discussion, not a debate. And who knows? Maybe something genuinely positive will occur.
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1618
Kayti Elliott, “Let me get this straight. If someone happens to own a condo unit in a beachfront condominium they're being sued. Is that correct?”
Yes.

Walton County sent (by certified mail, signature required) notice of intent to litigate old English common law public “customary” use of private beachfront property to 4,671 beachfront owners on 1,193 beachfront parcels. Twice because Walton legal was unable to verify all notices in the first 4,671 owner mail out. Walton commissioners including at least one non-beachfront Seaside 30A business owner notice.

According to Government public records. Over 650+ beachfront-parcel owners have filed as defendants to intervene against Walton commissioners lawsuit. Parcels are owned by individuals, spouses, condo HOAs, and corporations. Unknown if anyone has summarized the number of owners for each parcel that is intervening. On average that is 3.9 owners per parcel. Or at LEAST 2,535 private property owners, on average, that are Defendants spending many tens of thousands of dollars each of their personal money to defend their Constitutional property rights from Walton Commissioners CU litigation to protect their Constitutional private property rights. If property owners prevail Walton tax payers may have to pay beachfront owners’ legal fees as well (not that the Walton commissioners or CU believers care; it’s only every Walton tax payer’s multi-millions of dollars, not their personal money at risk).

At least 2 private beachfront “defendant” owners have filed to intervene FOR Walton commissioners (the Plaintiffs) CU litigation. At least one non-beachfront (beach-view only, does not own from the Seaside beach dune seaward to the MHWL) Seaside 30A LLC owner “defendant” is interviewing FOR Walton commissioners’ CU litigation. Non-profit FBFA, Inc., is intervening, representing the public FOR Walton commissioners’ litigation. Unclear why; because the public CU interest is already represented by Walton commissioners. All three property owners and FBFA intervening FOR Walton commissioners’ private property CU litigation are represented by attorney Daniel Uhlfelder. Who is a very vocal CU "warrior" active on CU social-media and previous Walton commissioners’ CU public meetings before and after 2018 HB631 protected property owner Constitutional due process became Florida Statute 163.035.

So yes, the condo HOA that owns private beachfront in common for the resident owners, usually have to get approval from the condo owners to represent their property interests, and share the legal expense, against Walton commissioners’ CU litigation against their private real property interests.
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1619
Mark Putnal, "FBB, I believe in public beaches. You believe in private beaches." The difference is you believe and BFO have American property law facts. 1,193 beachfront owners have legal title, most to the MHWL or ECL, with ALL legal property rights. You "believe" in CU. On what basis? Personal opinions are not relevant except maybe on social media. Beachfront owners have the Constitution and law (not a belief) that states there is NO public use of private property without the owner's consent. Just like your or anyone else's waterfront property. There is NO distinction between highly desirable beachfront property rights and any other private property rights. The Walton commissioners, the Plaintiff, have the de novo burden of proof. Not private beachfront property owners.
Beach Fanatic
#1620
Fbb, there is a lawsuit that will correct the deeds. Just wondering what you think about a community fish fry?
Beach Fanatic
#1621
Does anyone on either side of the public vs private beach debate agree to a community fish fry? If we care about civility what better way to get to know each other than an old fashioned mullet and grits fish fry like they do up there in Niceville. Reggie, FBB, Bmbv, SCJ, AF, Kathryn and all the private beach supporters along with all the public beach supporters like myself should all put our faces with our words, smile and shake hands human to human. We can let each side have equal time on stage to voice their thoughts and respectful opinions. You know like a community that cares about more than just being right but is trying to find peace and civility with their neighbors. Listen if we can't do something like this we have a bigger problem than public vs private beach. The court will decide the legal stuff so why not let the court do it's job while all of us in the community do our job at being neighborly!
Bob Wells avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1622
Does anyone on either side of the public vs private beach debate agree to a community fish fry? If we care about civility what better way to get to know each other than an old fashioned mullet and grits fish fry like they do up there in Niceville. Reggie, FBB, Bmbv, SCJ, AF, Kathryn and all the private beach supporters along with all the public beach supporters like myself should all put our faces with our words, smile and shake hands human to human. We can let each side have equal time on stage to voice their thoughts and respectful opinions. You know like a community that cares about more than just being right but is trying to find peace and civility with their neighbors. Listen if we can't do something like this we have a bigger problem than public vs private beach. The court will decide the legal stuff so why not let the court do it's job while all of us in the community do our job at being neighborly!
In fairness, I personally believe it has gone to far with all that has been said to really think people would be able to meet without it getting heated.
Beach Fanatic
#1623
Bob, it is truly unfortunate but you are probably right and the cause of this division speaks to both sides. In the old days I think we were able to manage a fish fry for gods sake. What is wrong with us? Apparently we do not value respect and civility as much as we do our principles. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of my principle... I guess happiness in over-rated huh?
Dave Rauschkolb avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1624
Bob, it is truly unfortunate but you are probably right and the cause of this division speaks to both sides. In the old days I think we were able to manage a fish fry for gods sake. What is wrong with us? Apparently we do not value respect and civility as much as we do our principles. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of my principle... I guess happiness in over-rated huh?

I’ll organize and pay for the fish fry as soon as our beaches are reaffirmed for customary use and no person may be excluded from any beach in Florida. It might take a long time but then again it might not but in either case it’ll be worth the wait.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1625
What is wrong with us? Apparently we do not value respect and civility as much as we do our principles.
....says the pot to the kettle.

I’ll organize and pay for the fish fry as soon as our beaches are reaffirmed for customary use and no person may be excluded from any beach in Florida. It might take a long time but then again it might not but in either case it’ll be worth the wait.
BTW, that’s “ACKNOWLEDGMENT” enough for me along with your obviously implied answer of NO to Reggie’s invitation.

Oh Dave, you do know that you have followers on your FBFA Facebook that STILL BELIEVE (very recent comment) that public beach was converted to private beach via quiet title. You nor any of the others made absolutely no attempt to correct that propagated lie. IMHO, your FBFA Facebook page is a sham as I don’t see one dissenting opinion on there unlike here on SoWal. Oh yeah, how could there be? You guys are always right. Bet it feels good to be in control...being able to delete any follower that doesn’t meet your expectations. Talking about war time propaganda.
Beach Lover
#1626
I’ll organize and pay for the fish fry as soon as our beaches are reaffirmed for customary use and no person may be excluded from any beach in Florida. It might take a long time but then again it might not but in either case it’ll be worth the wait.

For the last 100+ years, prior to 2016, the ancient customary use was not use private property over the objection of the property owner. This was the same for every single private property in Walton County, and indeed the State of Florida. Prior to 2016 the BCC NEVER said, or implied, that property rights (right of exclusion) no longer apply in Walton County. Never happened. Just like the FBFA promotion that Public Property was purchased for $400 Quiet Title. Never happened. Or that FBFA promotion that Vizcaya was Public Property that was made Private by HB 631 in 2016. Never happened.

Is there ANY evidence that property rights (in particular the right of exclusion) somehow never existed in Walton County prior to 2016?

Dave, don’t be intimated or embarrassed, The People want to know why Walton county is spending millions of dollars on your battle cry of No Compromise No exceptions. They want to know why you threw Bill Fletcher under the bus, a man who has given so much to Walton County, without the expectation of a financial business reward.

Dave, do you think the county has proved (are even answered the questions) that removing property rights (right of exclusion) is reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute?

Note: That does not mean anyone is getting kicked off the beach. That means it is up the property owner who or how many are allowed on their private property, just like it was for 100+ years prior to 2016.

The easy “compromise” is to buy private property and donate it to the State and make your own rules as part of the donation. Did you ever wonder why cars are allowed on Grayton State Park beach and not Topsail? Or the county can purchase property and turn into public beach (not recommended since IMHO the county currently is not able to manage or protect the unique ecosystem and will turn it into a free for all driven by development dollars). Or we can rally as a community and support purchase of the land like we did with Topsail. The State will protect the ecosystem and manage the density. Or we can continue like we have the 100+ years prior to 2016 and people can use private property with the approval of the owner, or they can go to a public beach, or they can go to a State Park, just like Walton County has been doing for 100+ years.

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.

New posts