Back to All About SoWal

Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Reggie Gaskins avatar
Beach Lover
526,504 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.

Replies

2,312
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1652
So rehashing the issue at Edgewater Condos
From above article:
.................................
A motion provided with the letter states that Walton County “acknowledged (in the 2009 settlement agreement) that Edgewater’s beachfront property has been historically at all times for the exclusive, private use of Edgewater’s owners and guests.”
.................................

So what actually differentiates Edgewater from any other private property in all of Walton County regarding a “property” that has been historically at all times for the exclusive, private use of “property’s owner(s) and guests?

I just find it curious that it took another lawsuit back in 2009 for the county, itself, to actually state what should be already factually legal. However, it appears that Edgewater will shut down CU in court at least on their beach because of this additional affirmation by the county that private property is indeed private.

IMO, if Edgewater does prevail, it surely would open the line of questioning and legal challenges... “Why would Edgewater‘s property be any more private than any other private property in Walton County?” It would be a precedent against CU if Edgewater wins, IMHO.

Edited

kayti elliott avatar
Beach Lover
#1653
My parents used to own a condo on 30a. Not on the beach but there was a beach access across the road. It was our happy place when I was a lot younger but as South Walton became the hot spot for folks in Atlanta and other places and it became more crowded, it became another world. The last time I went to the beach in South Walton, it wasn't fun because there were so many people and later in the day there was so much trash on the beach left by "the people" on "The People's Beach". A couple of months ago, a friend asked me to go with her to Seaside to see some of her friends who were there on vacation. I couldn't believe the crowds and traffic. We couldn't even find a place to park. What on earth is the allure of South Walton to be the subject of such division?
Beach Fanatic
#1654
Kathryn, you make an excellent point with your philosophical question. One answer is that society has changed from placing more value on the individual than on the community. Some may call this a Western Philosophy or Culture. We are all a part of this culture but some have taken it to a new level. After reading much of what Reggie and others have written in this thread I became aware of just how far people will go to justify their individual success by putting people in two categories: winners and losers. Reggie's message is that we should all be ashamed of being losers if we support public beaches. It was not enough for people like Reggie to build on a sand dune which destroys habitat and blocks views and access of the resource. Exclusive use in property ownership is a very important principle that allows all of us protections BUT this is about the BEACH which is part of the resource that attracts people to South Walton. Reggie believes he owns the beach. Others believe The People own the beach. I have always been in the middle and desire to have a civil society where we compromise our principles. Now that we are in a lawsuit (all of us) there can be no compromise. Since compromise is off the table this thread has become a means of dispensing fear. It is not about solving the problems of crowds and traffic and beach behavior. It has become about winning and losing. Fear has been tossed around like a cheap emotion. We had an opportunity to put our principles aside and solve issues like you refer to. But, now we are divided and must choose a side. Reggie helped me decide. Public beaches must win this for future generations to have access to the South Walton Beaches.
Truman avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1655
My parents used to own a condo on 30a. Not on the beach but there was a beach access across the road. It was our happy place when I was a lot younger but as South Walton became the hot spot for folks in Atlanta and other places and it became more crowded, it became another world. The last time I went to the beach in South Walton, it wasn't fun because there were so many people and later in the day there was so much trash on the beach left by "the people" on "The People's Beach". A couple of months ago, a friend asked me to go with her to Seaside to see some of her friends who were there on vacation. I couldn't believe the crowds and traffic. We couldn't even find a place to park. What on earth is the allure of South Walton to be the subject of such division?
This should have been your first post. (Seaside is not the place to judge anything except the current fashions and morals of Atlanta)

The people who own across the street are the ones who suffer greatly from "private" beaches. Often they go to the nearesst access and only have 50 feet of beach. And it is often overcrowded. Surely in the summer. Locals and visitors have issues in the summer months, and Spring Break. Most locals don't go then.

Overcrowding of Florida communities has been happening for more than a century. SoWal is one of the last coastal communities in Florida (actually The US) to see development. It was fun while it lasted but rather than get angry at progress you have to learn to roll with it, or move. Or your life will be miserable.

It's each persons choice, but if things that are inevitable and beyond your control get you upset then you have to change yourself. If you are unwilling or unable to change then you will not be happy and that is a shame because life is fleeting.

In my experience if you're a beach bum at heart, you are able to change. If your life is ruled by deeds and dollars, you want others to change, which is an endless source of frustration and disappointment.

Thus endeth the lesson. :wave:

Edited

Beach Fanatic
#1656
Truman, that is a very good lesson! We may all know this to be a truth but it never hurts to be reminded so thank you! Blaming and shaming is not productive. Places change. People change. Life is short. Adaptation is our means of survival. If we had leaders who would lead us into the future instead of remaining in the past it would certainly help...
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1657
Blaming and shaming is not productive.
Says the kettle to the.....
Oh wait, I’ve already said that.
FactorFiction avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1658
Just out of curiosity, what would you do if you knew the real names behind the pseudonyms? Would you thank them for their honesty? Would you suddenly give more credence to their words? Would you defend their right to express their opinion without being demeaned or villainized for their views? What would you do if someone proposed a collective sit in on their property?

I have a pseudonym because when I joined several years ago, it seemed that most people had one. I followed suit. If you go back and look, I think you'll find that I don't use my anonymity to make personal attacks, call names, or demean people. I own my words, regardless of the name by which I am known. Seems that all this focus on names is a diversion from sticking to the facts of the topic.

Edited

FactorFiction avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1659
"I wish we would all devote the time and energy that goes into bickering and fighting into a campaign for beach etiquette and education for protecting our beach ecosystems and wildlife." (from my comment above).
Interesting that focusing our energies on improving behaviors, educating, and enforcement instead of arguing about what is going to be determined in court doesn't get much traction. Does that mean that working on behaviors and density that caused the issues in the first place is not worth our time and energy? Credit is due to the people who DO try to educate, lead by example, and enforce what they can, but for the people who love to complain and stir up conflict, but not help, no pass for you. For the ones who spread mistruths when you don't even go to the beach or you've only read, but not experienced problems on the beach, no pass for you. For the ones who create animosity and conflict when there isn't any in a number of places on the beach, no pass for you either. If you, personally, have not had a problem, don't assume that what you hear and read is even true or includes all the pertinent facts.

How many of you actually participate in trying to improve the situation? Attend meetings pertaining to vending, beach activities, and other matters that affect our beaches and our community? Make suggestions in writing (email counts) to the BCC (the buck stops with them)? Set a good example on the beach? Encourage others to be aware of their surroundings and be courteous to others on the beach? R-E-S-P-E-C-T is the key word. Respect for our beaches, our environment, our wildlife, and other people on the beach, both residents and visitors.

We're better than this animosity and conflict as a steady diet. At least I'd like to think so.
Beach Fanatic
#1660
FOF, speaking for myself I appreciate and respect the honesty of people using their real names. I also agree with you that it makes little difference if there are no personal attacks, no blaming others, no shaming others, no demeaning others and no repetitive quoting of the same facts. I have read many of your posts and I do not feel that you do any of those things and are able to disagree with others without personally attacking or bullying. The general answers to your questions are yes. However when you hide your identity and then go on the attack you lose all credibility. Being kind is our mission in life. It is just too easy to go off mission when you hide behind a fake name.

Reggie talks about linear thinking which is a straight line from a point (property rights) to a point (exclusive use of the beach). I believe it misses the point of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ALL people as it relates to our beaches. I believe it benefits Reggie to use linear thought but not so much for us losers (his word). I understand why it is necessary for the structure and order of linear thought but "life" has multiple starting points and ending points. Non linear thinking is necessary to expand the search for truth especially when linear thinking only solves the problem for a few. You prefer to talk about "sticking to the facts of the topic" as long as we all agree on the starting point and ending point. But, we do not agree. IMO this is not a straight line topic which benefits a few at the expense of many. If you believe that this topic exists in a neat little box of constitutional rights then I would disagree. Reggie believes that economic fairness and human equality is a fantasy and that he has earned the privilege of his personal private beach. He did not stop there as he expanded the topic into people just wanting something for nothing. This is why linear thinking does not work for this topic. Once he expanded the topic it is now expanded into non linear thinking. Now please answer my question: do you believe in exclusive use of our beaches and why?
Beach Fanatic
#1661
FOF, speaking for myself I appreciate and respect the honesty of people using their real names. I also agree with you that it makes little difference if there are no personal attacks, no blaming others, no shaming others, no demeaning others and no repetitive quoting of the same facts. I have read many of your posts and I do not feel that you do any of those things and are able to disagree with others without personally attacking or bullying. The general answers to your questions are yes. However when you hide your identity and then go on the attack you lose all credibility. Being kind is our mission in life. It is just too easy to go off mission when you hide behind a fake name.

Reggie talks about linear thinking which is a straight line from a point (property rights) to a point (exclusive use of the beach). I believe it misses the point of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ALL people as it relates to our beaches. I believe it benefits Reggie to use linear thought but not so much for us losers (his word). I understand why it is necessary for the structure and order of linear thought but "life" has multiple starting points and ending points. Non linear thinking is necessary to expand the search for truth especially when linear thinking only solves the problem for a few. You prefer to talk about "sticking to the facts of the topic" as long as we all agree on the starting point and ending point. But, we do not agree. IMO this is not a straight line topic which benefits a few at the expense of many. If you believe that this topic exists in a neat little box of constitutional rights then I would disagree. Reggie believes that economic fairness and human equality is a fantasy and that he has earned the privilege of his personal private beach. He did not stop there as he expanded the topic into people just wanting something for nothing. This is why linear thinking does not work for this topic. Once he expanded the topic it is now expanded into non linear thinking. Now please answer my question: do you believe in exclusive use of our beaches and why?
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1662
Seems that all this focus on names is a diversion from sticking to the facts of the topic.
That’s a fact, JACK!
kayti elliott avatar
Beach Lover
#1663
The obsession with "fake names" by those who aren't towing the CU line has gotten silly. We know that the leader of the pack enjoys his celebrity, but some people don't. Why not insist that EVERYONE use their real names?
Beach Fanatic
#1664
Kathryn, what line are you towing: Exclusive private beaches for a few or Public beaches for many? Also, who is the leader of what pack? It sounds like you believe that public beach supporters are a pack of dogs or something?

Okay, I insist that EVERYONE use their real names :)
Beach Fanatic
#1665
Kathryn, what line are you towing: Exclusive private beaches for a few or Public beaches for many? Also, who is the leader of what pack? It sounds like you believe that public beach supporters are a pack of dogs or something?

Okay, I insist that EVERYONE use their real names :)
Beach Fanatic
#1666
Names are an old topic on this forum and the internet in general. It's been covered on this thread a few times. IT IS VERY SIMPLE.... The issue on this thread and this particular topic is anonymous people claiming to be residents coming on and bashing real community members and calling them out by their real names. The real people who live in SoWal and have the guts and accountability to stand up for their community.

The anonymous people started this thread to grind their axe and get retribution against the real people. They've been kicked off of every other internet site so came here to spew their hatred and propaganda. They have no credibility because they are using fake names to attack real people. That loses them all credibility. They have been called out in return by the real people and continue to hide. That is cowardly.

On other topics and in normal threads, use a fake name all you want as long as you abide by internet etiquette and the rules of the forum. Also sock puppets are not allowed which I have no doubt there is at least one beach front owner on this thread using sock puppets. It's easy to tell after so many posts. The fact that they registered at the same time is telling. Also they don't post on any other threads except customary use threads. A couple of "private beach" posters were members before last fall. They are the only ones I don't suspect as sock puppets..
kayti elliott avatar
Beach Lover
#1667
I get it. If you don't support the "correct side" on this and other issues, you aren't welcome on SoWal. Why not just vet users and require identification and other "proof". Or make it simple. Just ban those who aren't on the CU train. It would really be fun for all of you if everyone agreed on everything. I live in Walton County but I don't live South of the bay. Besides, one of CU righteous ones who also uses a fake name has already told me that I was here only to make trouble. I've also had a post deleted for a personal attack and I simply asked a question to someone who said they had never been to Oregon to see the "people's beach". I asked, "What's keeping you from going there?" That's a personal attack? I simply don't think "customary use" is the law. I also don't think that people should be sued for something they have no control over, like condo owners who happen to own a unit in a beachfront development.
Dave Rauschkolb avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1668
Re-posting with a few modifications. I’ve shown this to a handful of beachfront owners and they are liking it.

The only compromise I can see is eliminate vending on public, county owned beaches, not as a consolation to make private beaches an easer pill to swallow but to rightly keep the public county owned beaches available for people to set up wherever they wish. They can order rental chairs but they have to be delivered and set up wherever there’s a spot; no designated real estate for vendors.

Then, work with the BCC and Beachfront owners to set tighter restrictions on the dry sand within 500 to 800 feet of those county owned beach accesses on either side. No tents, no large gatherings, no night parties...only ghost crab chasing with the kids at night. But the dry sand in those areas with restrictions are open to the public to use within the law with strict enforcement and a hot line for beachfront owners to get quick results if anyone gets out of line.

Beyond 500 to 800 feet, fewer restrictions because no one walks with all their stuff that far. The "interior" beachfront owners complain the least because people just don't walk long distances dragging their stuff. I truly believe this could set the clock back. Restore the garbage pickup AND "leave no trace" and eliminate the private property, no trespassing signs. Signage would be needed to set the rules plainly and clearly. I truly believe the lawsuits could go away with something like this that addresses the behavior with rules and enforcement where the biggest complaints come from Beach front owners, near Public Beach accesses. Behind beachfront owners homes the beach front owners could get priority placement and register their beach chairs with the county so they will always have a place to set up behind their homes and close to the water; front tier. But, they would not be able to exclude anyone from the sand behind their homes unless they’re breaking rules.

Do a pilot program and try it.

Edited

FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1669
Since you do not own private beachfront property, the hundreds of “interior” private properties 500 to 800 feet from county owned beach accesses are not yours; I can understand why you and CU believers “believe” that is “fair”. It is not your real property. Is occupying the “interior” miles of private properties without the owner’s consent Constitutional? Please answer this one and why. Goes to your credibility and relevance. I don’t expect you to because your Constitutional justification is - you just “believe” public access of private property beachfront is just and partisan CU polls say so.

So which is it 500 feet or 800 feet on either side of public beach access? Does that include beach accesses that are public right of way to the foreshore only? Like at Vizcaya? Most BFO parcels are 50 feet wide. That 300 foot makes a difference of about 12 private property parcels at each County beach access that get “special” protections from uninvited and disrespectful people for the private property owner’s enjoyment, who paid a premium and they, not the public, pay taxes on to the MHWL in their deed. How many County beach access are there? About 56 as of today? Beach and Bay Access Locations That’s about 56 x 12 = 624 parcels that get “special” private property protections. Let’s not get sidetracked about the lack of political will and law enforcement of private property rights.

I assure you as FACT, if people are not willing to walk more than 500 to 800 feet as you state, they WILL “cut” through and across upland private property from 30A and public roads (clearly trespass) that they think is not occupied to get to private beaches. By the time they trespass and get to the private beach the Sheriff won’t do anything about north-south private property trespass. Even with security video evidence.
#581 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

You have no real property skin in the game, have no facts, and no ideal what you are talking about, and not credible. Just a belief you are “right” and BFO are wrong which has no relevance in Walton BCC litigation against 4,761 private Walton property owners. CUnCourt.

Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
Customary Use of SoWal Beaches: Contact Governor Scott
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1670
Re-posting with a few modifications. I’ve shown this to a handful of beachfront owners and they are liking it.

The only compromise I can see is eliminate vending on public, county owned beaches, not as a consolation to make private beaches an easer pill to swallow but to rightly keep the public county owned beaches available for people to set up wherever they wish. They can order rental chairs but they have to be delivered and set up wherever there’s a spot; no designated real estate for vendors.

Then, work with the BCC and Beachfront owners to set tighter restrictions on the dry sand within 500 to 800 feet of those county owned beach accesses on either side. No tents, no large gatherings, no night parties...only ghost crab chasing with the kids at night. But the dry sand in those areas with restrictions are open to the public to use within the law with strict enforcement and a hot line for beachfront owners to get quick results if anyone gets out of line.

Beyond 500 to 800 feet, fewer restrictions because no one walks with all their stuff that far. The "interior" beachfront owners complain the least because people just don't walk long distances dragging their stuff. I truly believe this could set the clock back. Restore the garbage pickup AND "leave no trace" and eliminate the private property, no trespassing signs. Signage would be needed to set the rules plainly and clearly. I truly believe the lawsuits could go away with something like this that addresses the behavior with rules and enforcement where the biggest complaints come from Beach front owners, near Public Beach accesses. Behind beachfront owners homes the beach front owners could get priority placement and register their beach chairs with the county so they will always have a place to set up behind their homes and close to the water; front tier. But, they would not be able to exclude anyone from the sand behind their homes unless they’re breaking rules.

Do a pilot program and try it.

I read this post 5 times. For the life of me I cannot see what in this “compromise” gives beachfront owners anything that they don’t already have. At least you’re consistent. You did say NO COMPROMISE many times before. And now you’re presenting a veiled hint of some sort of “compromise” when in fact there is none. You’re good.

I think your beach front owner friends are just being kind to you in their supposed agreement. NO BFO I know would think this is a compromise or benefits them in any way.

On the flip side, I’m hearing rumors 3rd hand from counsel that the county is going to have to seriously reevaluate their position on CU on going after the entire beach as presented in their case (wouldn’t be a big surprise to anyone truly objective in this debate). Perhaps that’s what inspires your so-called “compromise”?


Stickem up! Give me all your money!
All my money?
Ok, ok. I’ll compromise. Give me half your money.

Edited

Dave Rauschkolb avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1671
Since you do not own private beachfront property, the hundreds of “interior” private properties 500 to 800 feet from county owned beach accesses are not yours; I can understand why you and CU believers “believe” that is “fair”. It is not your real property. Is occupying the “interior” miles of private properties without the owner’s consent Constitutional? Please answer this one and why. Goes to your credibility and relevance. I don’t expect you to because your Constitutional justification is - you just “believe” public access of private property beachfront is just and partisan CU polls say so.

So which is it 500 feet or 800 feet on either side of public beach access? Does that include beach accesses that are public right of way to the foreshore only? Like at Vizcaya? Most BFO parcels are 50 feet wide. That 300 foot makes a difference of about 12 private property parcels at each County beach access that get “special” protections from uninvited and disrespectful people for the private property owner’s enjoyment, who paid a premium and they, not the public, pay taxes on to the MHWL in their deed. With all due respect the sand behind you home is not taxed and saying is is does not make it so. Also, there are laws that govern trespassing on upland property and legal recourse when they do. How many County beach access are there? About 56 as of today? Beach and Bay Access Locations That’s about 56 x 12 = 624 parcels that get “special” private property protections. Let’s not get sidetracked about the lack of political will and law enforcement of private property rights.

I assure you as FACT, if people are not willing to walk more than 500 to 800 feet as you state, they WILL “cut” through and across upland private property from 30A and public roads (clearly trespass) that they think is not occupied to get to private beaches. By the time they trespass and get to the private beach the Sheriff won’t do anything about north-south private property trespass. Even with security video evidence. Also, there are laws that govern trespassing on upland property and legal recourse when they do. Just because you have not gotten satisfaction in the past there are plenty of ways to keep people from traipsing over or on your private access to the beach;.
#581 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

You have no real property skin in the game, have no facts, and no ideal what you are talking about, and not credible. Just a belief you are “right” and BFO are wrong which has no relevance in Walton BCC litigation against 4,761 private Walton property owners. CUnCourt.

Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
Customary Use of SoWal Beaches: Contact Governor Scott



I suspect you are in the category of beachfront owners who live near a beach access or are a strong private property right proponent or both. I respect and understand your opinion to the extent that you probably wish you had not purchased near a beach access and you are upset when the public entertains themselves on the sand behind your house (sometimes behaving badly, but mostly not.)

When I build a home in Rosemaary beach in 2000 I had a beautiful home overlooking quiet, pastoral tennis courts. The only noise was people having fun, the whack of the tennis balls and the occasional expletive when a shot went awry. I built my home right on the eastern border of Rosemary; it's the one with the solar panels. The lots just off Rosemary remained unbuilt for 9 out of the 14 years I lived there. Then, one by one a rental home went up, each with a courtyard with a pool. They were attractive enough as the first developers was wise to imitate the archetecture of Rosemary. A few were built then the real estate crash idled them and were eventually all were completed. I sold in 2013. Why? Because of the noise and increased traffic on Winston Lane. Every home with a pool rented out? "Marco, Polo" times 10 and parties resounded across the tennis courts daily and nightly. So my point is I enjoyed peace and quiet for many years then it all went South. I could have fought that land being developed tooth and nail to protect my sanctuary and keep people off it or accepted the noise and remained living there or went on to a quieter neighborhood. I chose the latter.

I have spoken to several beachfront owners who don't live near a beach access and they don't take as extreme a portion as those who live near a beach access. My suggestions for a compromise attempts to address that and are a stab at trying to find and offer a solution that would be helpful in stopping all this nonsense. I believe that if a plan something like what I suggested had been implemented none of this would have happened and we would not be spending valuable life time banging away on our keyboards on SoWal. You can't exclude people from the beaches. You just can't. Just my view but I assure you that notion is not the minority opinion.

Finally, your's and other's out of hand dismissal of my suggestions say a few things.
1. Nothing will change your mind.
2. You are so embittered at me for having the audacity to challenge excluding people from our beaches that anything I say you will challenge and you would never support suggestions I make.
3. Your strong, combative position places you in the extreme minority opinion even among beachfront owners. I believe you will be alienated or perhaps already are by the myriad of opinions beachfront owners have on the issue. I have spoken to many and I have to enlighten you that many beachfront owners don't agree with your position.

So, unless a compromise is reached nothing you or I say here is relevant and it will be decided in court. My personal opinion is that Eminent Domain is not a compromise. I think that has been the end game of the small group of beachfront owners who are driving this. Just my opinion but I too might be in the minority opinion on that one.

Edited

FactorFiction avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1672
Re-posting with a few modifications. I’ve shown this to a handful of beachfront owners and they are liking it.

The only compromise I can see is eliminate vending on public, county owned beaches, not as a consolation to make private beaches an easer pill to swallow but to rightly keep the public county owned beaches available for people to set up wherever they wish. They can order rental chairs but they have to be delivered and set up wherever there’s a spot; no designated real estate for vendors.

Then, work with the BCC and Beachfront owners to set tighter restrictions on the dry sand within 500 to 800 feet of those county owned beach accesses on either side. No tents, no large gatherings, no night parties...only ghost crab chasing with the kids at night. But the dry sand in those areas with restrictions are open to the public to use within the law with strict enforcement and a hot line for beachfront owners to get quick results if anyone gets out of line.

Beyond 500 to 800 feet, fewer restrictions because no one walks with all their stuff that far. The "interior" beachfront owners complain the least because people just don't walk long distances dragging their stuff. I truly believe this could set the clock back. Restore the garbage pickup AND "leave no trace" and eliminate the private property, no trespassing signs. Signage would be needed to set the rules plainly and clearly. I truly believe the lawsuits could go away with something like this that addresses the behavior with rules and enforcement where the biggest complaints come from Beach front owners, near Public Beach accesses. Behind beachfront owners homes the beach front owners could get priority placement and register their beach chairs with the county so they will always have a place to set up behind their homes and close to the water; front tier. But, they would not be able to exclude anyone from the sand behind their homes unless they’re breaking rules.

Do a pilot program and try it.

I've seen some places on the beach that don't seem to have many issues even with substantial stretches of private beach. What I have noticed is that more of the people on those beaches seem to be minimalists, similar to "old time" beach use. Most seem to:

Use towels or chairs and an umbrella or two, but don't use tents
Are actually AT the beach rather than setting up early, but coming and going during the day, effectively reserving the beach rather than using it.
Don't smoke
If they are drinking, it isn't obvious by their behavior or by leaving trash
May dig small holes or build sandcastles, but flatten them before leaving the beach
Engage in water activities like using boogie boards, paddle boards, etc.
Leave nothing but footprints when they leave

While these areas don't have 100% minimalist use, they probably have 80+%. They also seem to have at least occasional beach ambassadors who help educate on turtles, holes, etc. With some actual enforcement, I'd expect that percentage to increase.

Funny how it sounds like it used to be before we got so many vendors and people setting up the "daycamps" that some have referred to in this thread. Just my opinion, but I think that it will be a tough sale to get beach owners to give up the RIGHT to exclude even if they never use it a single time. While there have been well meaning county employees and Commissioners throughout Walton County's history, I don't know a single person who would want local government to give free reign to the general public to be on their property. I think it is also clear that Walton County has yet to make the kind of investment in enforcement and demonstrate the will to enforce that would give confidence that restrictions would be enforced. On the other hand, thank goodness, there are seemingly quite a few beach owners who have no issue with people respectfully enjoying the beach seaward of their homes even with the conflict and animosity that exists in some circles today.

I know I sound like a broken record, but focusing on behavior and education may be a more effective path right now given that CU is in court. Even if a compromise is possible, I expect it will take substantial time, effort and good will on both sides.
Dave Rauschkolb avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1673
I've seen some places on the beach that don't seem to have many issues even with substantial stretches of private beach. What I have noticed is that more of the people on those beaches seem to be minimalists, similar to "old time" beach use. Most seem to:

Use towels or chairs and an umbrella or two, but don't use tents
Are actually AT the beach rather than setting up early, but coming and going during the day, effectively reserving the beach rather than using it.
Don't smoke
If they are drinking, it isn't obvious by their behavior or by leaving trash
May dig small holes or build sandcastles, but flatten them before leaving the beach
Engage in water activities like using boogie boards, paddle boards, etc.
Leave nothing but footprints when they leave

While these areas don't have 100% minimalist use, they probably have 80+%. They also seem to have at least occasional beach ambassadors who help educate on turtles, holes, etc. With some actual enforcement, I'd expect that percentage to increase.

Funny how it sounds like it used to be before we got so many vendors and people setting up the "daycamps" that some have referred to in this thread. Just my opinion, but I think that it will be a tough sale to get beach owners to give up the RIGHT to exclude even if they never use it a single time. While there have been well meaning county employees and Commissioners throughout Walton County's history, I don't know a single person who would want local government to give free reign to the general public to be on their property. I think it is also clear that Walton County has yet to make the kind of investment in enforcement and demonstrate the will to enforce that would give confidence that restrictions would be enforced. On the other hand, thank goodness, there are seemingly quite a few beach owners who have no issue with people respectfully enjoying the beach seaward of their homes even with the conflict and animosity that exists in some circles today.

I know I sound like a broken record, but focusing on behavior and education may be a more effective path right now given that CU is in court. Even if a compromise is possible, I expect it will take substantial time, effort and good will on both sides.

"Focusing on behavior and education" and Enforcement truly is the key FF. Agree on all points except I think many beachfront owners would give up the right to exclude provided there is a workable, fair framework to solve this.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1674
"Focusing on behavior and education" and Enforcement truly is the key FF. Agree on all points except I think many beachfront owners would give up the right to exclude provided there is a workable, fair framework to solve this.
Disingenuous.
If so, why are BFOs forced to court with FBFA as co-plaintiff against all BFOs with you as chairman of FBFA?
Stickem’ up!
Dave Rauschkolb avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1675
Disingenuous.
If so, why are BFOs forced to court with FBFA as co-plaintiff against all BFOs with you as chairman of FBFA?
Stickem’ up!

HB631...Goodby
Dave Rauschkolb avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1676
"The thoughtful and collaborative approach overcame some initial skepticism among the property owners. Ultimately, all of them agreed to transfer their waterfront rights to the city. “I think local government might take a lesson from this,” Euclid Councilmember Daryl Langman told me last year. “Treat your residents as equals and offer them a fair deal. Things get done much more quickly that way.”"

This Lake Belongs to Everyone


A city on Lake Erie convinced its waterfront property owners to give the public their waterfronts for free. It’s a case that could transform the Great Lakes forever.

By: Daniel McGraw
Civic Engagement
The site of Euclid’s future waterfront trail. Credit: City of Euclid
the public has access to most beaches. In the Great Lakes states, however—where powerful industrialists snapped up waterfront properties long ago—beach ownership is, for the most part, in the hands of the owner of the property abutting it.

“Having four miles of shoreline in a city with more than 50,000 people, and those people having little access to the lake never made much sense to me,” says Euclid Mayor Kirsten Holzheimer Gail.


These pigs have been put out for pannage, the practice of releasing livestock into the forest so they can feed on nuts and berries. It’s a ritual dating back to common lands. Credit: Jim Champion/Wikipedia
Lots of laws around public access to land and water make little sense. We live in a world where private ownership is the default and public access a novelty. It wasn’t always this way. In England, much land was once categorized as “common”—owned by a lord but used by neighboring residents and landless peasants alike. The U.S., too, was once a rambling-friendly country. When slavery ended, however, Southern landowners restricted newly freed blacks from utilizing once-common land. And the rise of new agricultural techniques led to more enclosed farms. Little by little, America became a place where private interests walled off water and land that had once been for everyone.

These shifts in how we think about public access have resulted in places like Euclid, where bountiful landscapes and resources lay just out of reach. But that may now be changing. “What the residents of Euclid are seeing now is that we have an asset in our city and it is Lake Erie,” says Mayor Gail. “It is an amenity that for years we took for granted, and quite frankly didn’t use much. But now we see it as an asset that draws people here. Euclid is coming back, and we know that the lakefront is a big part of that now, and will be a big part of that in the future.”


Earthmovers stabilize the cliffs and clear space for the trail, which will prevent further erosion. Credit: City of Euclid
The cliffs start crumbling

The story of how Euclid got its lakefront private property owners to give the city their shorelines for free begins several decades ago. In the late 1990s, some of Euclid’s city council members dreamed of a city-owned marina, but the Cleveland suburb had little funding for such a venture. While looking into it, they discovered that the state and federal Environmental Protection Agencies had funding set aside for cleaning up the shores of Lake Erie, which for years was a dumping ground for waste. Although the EPA had prioritized the cleanup, there was one big problem: the landowners who owned the properties along the waterfront fiercely guarded their right to control what happened to it.

Except something was happening to it that they couldn’t control: the shoreline cliffs were eroding, and the waterfront property owners were spending a growing amount of their own money to keep them from collapsing.

As the erosion problems worsened, the city commissioned studies to make the case that letting Euclid acquire and stabilize the waterfronts could save the owners a boatload of cash. Time was of the essence—the Federal Emergency Management Agency found that the property owners along the water where the trail is being built would lose about 25 feet of coastline over the next decade.


A rendering of the project. Credit: City of Euclid
“With a documented loss of solid ground each year due to erosion, shoreline structures are positioned increasingly closer to the edge of the bluff, compromising their integrity and increasing the likelihood of damage and loss,” the FEMA studyfound.

Saving the properties from falling into the sea united the city and owners in common cause, allowing them to work together as a group—no eminent domain or contentious lawsuits. Handing over waterfront ownership would save the owners money on erosion control, the new trail would increase their property values, and the public would enjoy access to Lake Erie. It was win-win-win.

All together, now

The thoughtful and collaborative approach overcame some initial skepticism among the property owners. Ultimately, all of them agreed to transfer their waterfront rights to the city. “I think local government might take a lesson from this,” Euclid Councilmember Daryl Langman told me last year. “Treat your residents as equals and offer them a fair deal. Things get done much more quickly that way.”


The completed trail is expected to raise the value of properties along the waterfront. Rendering credit: SmithGroup
For its part, the city worked hard to scrounge up the $13 million needed for the trail and cliff stabilization, cobbling together the money from federal funds, city bonds, assorted government and private foundation grants, even $4 million from the county casino revenues—all in a city that has had cash flow problems in recent years.

Matt Doss, policy director for the Great Lakes Commission, the binational public agency that handles Great Lakes issues of all kinds, said many in the Great Lakes—politicians, academics, environmentalists and planners—are watching the little Euclid project closely.

“What is happening with this is a change of attitude from the public on the value of public access and the appreciation of amenities on the lakefront,” Doss told me in 2018. “It is an example of landowners working with government, which has always been something hard to overcome.”


Rendering credit: SmithGroup
Other Midwestern cities have taken notice, too. “This is a game changer for lakefront properties,” Bob Fiala, mayor of Willoughby, Ohio, a suburb just east of Euclid with about a mile of Lake Erie shoreline, has told the media. “Euclid is suffering and enduring the same challenges that we in Willoughby, Eastlake and Willowick are enduring. We have high water levels … massive erosion, concerned property owners, and we own a significant park on the lakefront. We’re trying to find solutions to all those problems just like Euclid looked at the solutions some 10 years ago.”

SmithGroup, the Detroit-based planning company that designed the trail, has worked on numerous Great Lakes waterfront projects, including big ones in the Chicago, Detroit and Milwaukee areas. But they see the Euclid project as special.

“This is more about shoreline management, not just a park thrown up,” says Jason Stangland, the firm’s principal landscape architect. “But more importantly, it is planning that has creative partnerships, and the partnership with the property owners in this project is different than most everything we’ve worked on in our history.”



About Us
Latest Stories


Free the Paramedics!

Let Them Eat Larvae

A Republican Suburb Designed for Cyclists
Featured Collections
Changing Behavior
Doing Good is Good Business

Daniel McGraw

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.