Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

The 2 swift and disrespectful responses to Dave's proposal speak volumes.

Mean people suck.

I suspect you are in the category of beachfront owners who live near a beach access ... [Does not matter, the Constitution property rights are the same for ALL Walton private properties.]

When I build a home in Rosemaary beach in 2000 ... 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. [People were not on your deeded property. If the people were playing and yelling on your property without your consent would have asked the people to leave so you could have quiet exclusive use of your property if you choose to? You can not own the air but you can own deeded beachfront property.] I could have fought that land being developed tooth and nail [how, CU?] 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 [What other Walton beachfront would you suggest 4,670 BFOs move to for the same beach waterfront rights BFOs have today, they desire, paid a premium for, and pay taxes on to the MHWL?].

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 [Good for them. That is any private property owner’s CHOICE; as it is for 4,670 other BFOs! Walton BCC million dollar tax payer paid CU litigation have the burden of proof that BFOs do NOT legally have that CHOICE]. My suggestions for a [BFO] 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 [public use of private property CU] nonsense. ...You can't exclude people from the beaches. You just can't. [Who said anything about excluding people from all Walton beaches? Another emotional misdirection. What about the about 13 miles of publicly available beaches and 825 miles of Florida foreshore? To day the law says I can exclude people from my property IF I choose too. I haven’t yet but if I have to spend my own money in court and BFO property rights prevail, Walton Commissioners, You, mputnal, ECAR Realtors leadership, and “anonymous” CU believers with pseudonyms (James Bentwood reside in Walton?) have made me rethink that.] Just my view but I assure you that notion is not the minority opinion [I’m not concerned about your other’s opinion. Just the facts, Law, and Constitution].
#832 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Finally, your's and other's out of hand dismissal of my suggestions say a few things.
1. Nothing [that is NOT based in facts, the law, or, Constitution] will change your mind.
2. You are so embittered at me [Dave, you individually are not relevant to me and I have no bitterness towards you; the intentional misinformation and antisocial medial you encourage, I have an issue with, and will expose to BFOs so they know the facts and are informed] for having the audacity to challenge excluding people [with intentional misinformation] from our [private property] beaches [That you have no ownership skin in the game and that BFOs own and pay taxes on] that anything I say you will challenge and you would never support suggestions I make [Then make suggestions based with facts (not beliefs) and law.].
3. Your strong, combative position [you do not have strong, combative positions? I can post some. #421 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy] places you in the extreme minority opinion even among beachfront owners [Wrong. Good thing the Constitution protects minority property rights and opinions too]. I believe you will be alienated or perhaps already are by the myriad of opinions beachfront owners have on the issue [Wrong again]. I have spoken to many and I have to enlighten you that many beachfront owners don't agree with your position [To enlighten you - over 50% of the 1,193 beachfront parcel (about 2,400) BFO owners do agree and are doing so with their on money as defendants. Want to put $15,000 of your own money in escrow to help pay BFO legal fees should BFO prevail?]. Won’t go into why 83% of the hundreds of 2016 Florida legislators and Governor agreed 5 political Walton Commissioners did not provide Constitutional private property rights CU due process and passed FS 163.035 to prevent other FL county politicians from doing the same thing.

So, unless a compromise is reached nothing you or I say here is relevant and it will be decided in court [CUnCourt that ALL Walton tax payers are paying for]. 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 [WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!]. Just my opinion but I too might be in the minority opinion on that one.

I do not put too much stock in your and CU believers baseless opinions. Nor should other defendant BFOs. Your opinion was, and you politically backed, incumbent Cindy Meadows, Walton Dist 5 Commissioner, to win in Commissioner 2016. You, and you encouraged others, to switched from the Democratic party to the Republican in the primaries to vote for Cindy then switched back. Cindy lost by a 2 to 1 margin to a retired postman with no government or political experience. You spent years, and as you have stated, spent $40,000 of your own money, to incorporate a South Walton city to add another layer of taxes, and was rejected. You stated Walton would become a Ghost Town if CU is not legally enforced against BFO property rights and the Walton TDC bed tax collections and real state values have significantly increased since 2016. Visit South Walton, FL

You have not answered one question about what you base your CU belief, much less with any factual information. Not an attack on you personally but your not credible beliefs. To the contrary you promote misinformation even when facts dispute the opinion. IMO your opinions are just not credible, except on antisocial media that vilifies BFOs. CUnCourt.

HB631...Goodby

Still peddling the same ole mistruth. Sad part is you truly believe it now because you’ve said it so many times.

Wonder why the Michigan, Erie Lake, suburb of Cleveland, City of Euclid did not first [unilaterally pass an CU ordnance (in violation of the lakefront property owner's due process rights) or] litigate against all the private lakefront owners like Walton commissioners did?

Dawn, there were 3 responses to Dave Rauschkolb’s “modified” re-post for private beachfront owners to surrender Constitutional property right of private use and enjoyment to anyone, if the beachfront owner so chooses; not two. In exchange for the County and Sheriff to do their jobs and perform their duty to ensure public safety and law enforcement.
#1688 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Which two of three swift responses were disrespectful and why?
None of the responses said anyone was “morally wrong and anti-human”. You have. That speak volumes.
#431 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
Mean people who call other people they don't agree with anti-human s***. And is a hypocrite when accusing others of being disrespectful for far less.

Dawn, what other fact or verifiable opinion do you have to add to the thread that would be informative to public use of private property discussion?

#443 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Us and them

And after all we're only ordinary men

Me and you

God only knows it's not what we would choose to do

Forward he cried from the rear

And the front rank died

And the General sat and the lines on the map

Moved from side to side

Black and blue

And who knows which is which and who is who

Up and down

And in the end it's only round and round and round and round



Haven't you heard it's a battle of words

The poster bearer cried

Listen son said the man with the gun

There's room for you inside

"Well I mean, they're gonna kill ya, so like, if you give 'em a quick sh... short, sharp shock, they don't do it again.

Dig it? I mean he got off light, 'cause I coulda given 'I'm a thrashin' but I only hit him once.

It's only the difference between right and wrong innit? I mean good manners don't cost nothing do they, eh?"



Down and out

It can't be helped but there's a lot of it about

With, without

And who'll deny it's what the fighting's all about

Out of the way it's a busy day

I've got things on my mind

For want of the price of tea and a slice

The old man died

Us and Them - Pink Floyd - Dark Side of The Moon

I have three questions for any of the "I must have the power to exclude people from the beach" camp:

1. Are you willing to back up all your statements with an identity if it would help prove your credibility? Restated (in case you choose not to answer): Do you care more about power to exclude or power of credibility (none of us are entitled to credibility).

2. If this lawsuit is decided in your favor do you believe it would it increase or decrease the long term property values for non beach front property owners?

3. If this lawsuit is decided in favor of public beach would you sell your property and try again on some other limited natural resource or would you extend the lawsuit with an appeal?

Caution: These questions are non linear...

For the twelve people who are responsible for the 80,000 views this thread has generated (and the handsome SoWal ad profits it has created), please take note...

Even though I am actually a mentally and physically challenged, bored, teenage girl named Regina - living in a modern hut in the Australian Outback, bootlegging internet feed off of my uncle’s nearby RV, your dilemma in South Walton is STILL a model for the rest of your country to follow. But what do I know?

Over 1,600+ posts now, One set of Yanks with your Constitution and laws as it’s foundation; lists factual arguments and questions to discuss. Albeit passionately. The other set, uses emotion and distraction, refusing to discuss the facts. Again, with passion. But what do I know?

My initial post had trigger words planted in it to jolt honest discussion. Instead, it polarized. Consider the source. Forget about me, but the material I’ve provided, but mostly from the others, is real and honest. Here’s some more honesty lest you should fall into the diversion trap... but what do I know?

The Cleveland suburb of Euclid has devolved into serious blight since Euclid Beach Park closed Sept 28, 1969.

Lakefront homes are some of the least desirable, worth often less than $100,000.

Lakefront homes have no access to coast, buffered by a vertical, rocky bluff.

Lakefront homes are losing nearly 3 feet of property per year to lake erosion.

The waterline is unusable jagged rock environment.

The new agreement is an easement agreement, along with straight purchase from holdouts.

The City will solve the erosion problem for the owners.

The City will drastically improve their property values by building a usable asset.

Not sure this has even a smidgeon of an analogy to your situation. Actually, it would appear, quite the opposite. But what do I know?

From Pending Editorials

The $50 Million Dollar Question that silenced Dave Rauschkolb

Has the county proven, or even provided any evidence, that the removal of property rights (right of exclusion) is reasonable, without interruption, or without dispute?

In December 2018 the Walton BCC filed a lawsuit against owners of 1194 parcels of deeded property (several thousand individuals), to remove property rights, in particular, the right to exclude others from their private property.

Specially the BCC lawsuit states “3. The sources of evidence that the County Commission would rely upon to prove a recreational customary use has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute are listed on Exhibit “B” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED in a special session by the Board of County Commissioners for Walton County, Florida, this 3rd day of November 2018.”

The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Walton BCC and co-plaintiff FBFA, has caused over $2 Million Dollars of legal fees to be already spent, but have yet to provide any evidence in Exhibit B that the claim is reasonable, without interruption, or free from dispute (some lawyers have called this lack of evidence a potential basis for a frivolous lawsuit claim).

House Bill 631 did not create this problem and repealing House Bill 631 will not fix it. HB 631 simples ensures that a third-party, neutral arbiter – a court – must be the one to declare customary use over a piece of privately-owned land. This process ensures that a local government (meaning the Walton County Commissioners) cannot infringe on private property rights by unilaterally declaring “customary use” without judicial oversight. This will be decided in a court of law and not a court of public opinion.

No other Walton BCC ever passed an Ordinance removing private property rights in the 100+ years prior to controversial 2016 Beach Ordinance that targeted a minority group of legally deeded property owners. This has nothing to do with the rights of people to swim, walk the coast-line, fish, take pictures of the sunset. The coastline is owned by the State of Florida. The issue is the BCC wanting to take control (Right of Exclusion) from the owners of private properties next to the coast-line to permit unlimited people with unlimited beach equipment. An affidavit stating that someone, at sometime, was on a beach, and saw other people on the beach, but doesn't state the parcel ID, or if the people were on public property, or private property, or even owned, or rented the property, does not prove, or even suggest that unlimited people with unlimited equipment have been using private property against the will of the property owner from time immemorial. If it didn’t exist prior to 2016 how is it ANCIENT that UNLIMITED people with UNLIMITED BEACH EQUIPMENT may use Private Property AGAINST THE WILL OF THE OWNER?

One of the founding fathers, James Madison in an Essay Property March 29, 1792 said “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own”. The State of Florida has passed a “Property Bill of Rights” which is posted on the Walton County Web Site and #3 is the Right of the Property owner to exclude others from their private property. US Constitution and the State of Florida Property Rights may PROVE it is not REASONABLE to target a minority group of deeded legal property owner to remove property rights, in particular the right of exclusion.

There is a history of citations for trespassing on private property, for example in July 2002 Mark Austin used a public access walkover to get to a stretch of Dune Allen beach and the property owner at the time, William Houser, who has objected to Austin's presence on "his" private property called police, who gave Austin a summons for trespassing. If the public did not have the right to gather in unlimited numbers with unlimited beach equipment against the will of the private property owner, that may prove it was INTERUPTED when the landed was deeded as private property.

According to the FBFA Lawyer, who himself was an instigator of the controversial you-tube videos, NPR interviews, and contributor of Mother Jones articles, estimates the total expense could exceed $50 Million Dollars and take 10 years. This, along with a lawsuit with thousands of defendants, costing millions of dollars, may prove that this issue is under GREAT DISPUTE,

There has been a motion to dismiss based on the lack of evidence described above, Court Document #996 in case 2018CA547, filed by George Mead on August 16, 2019. That motion has yet to be heard by Judge Green. Perhaps the ruling on that motion will save the remaining $48 Million Dollars estimated to hear this case based on zero evidence?

Here are a few more simple questions for those that broker for power to exclude the public from our Walton County Beaches:

1. Do you wake up on Sunday mornings and read essays on why you should have the power to exclude the public from the beach? Just a suggestion but try Phillippians 2:3-16. BTW James Madison essays are important but there is a book that can help us to be better people which should be all of our purpose.

2. Do you have an answer yet on non beach front property values in Walton County if private beaches wins in court?

3. Does the Constitution represent "we the people" or "me the individual with exclusive powers"? If the ladder how do you reconcile?

4. If you believe in a Creator (supernatural or natural) where does "supreme" power exist: The Constitution of We The People of the United States of America OR The Power of ALL LIFE?

Caution: These questions may be considered Non Linear with self evident spiritual choices...

Stared this before recent CU believers’ latest posts. Sorry for the length but I don’t feel so bad about taking up space with facts. Considering latest CU believer’s poignant posts that bring useful information to the CU civil discourse?

Mputnal, there is NO camp of "I must have the power to exclude people from the beach". You made up that “camp” up to fit the CU believer agenda. Based on what? Rule of Law? Some belief in a BFO owner v nonBFO class warfare?

There is what I’ll call; BFO protecting Constitutional “right to private undisturbed use and enjoyment”[1], should the BFO so choose, Camp. That is a Right (you call power) and fact ALL Walton private property (including bayfront) owners have.
[1] Not a belief or opinion but law based on the Constitution.

So, there is NO camp as you describe and NO need to answer any questions, because there is no one in your self described camp. Suggestion if you want to create objective questions or polls - number 2, has two options, increase or decrease values. You excluded one other possibility (I’m guessing because it does not fit the CU agenda) - no change in (market) values.

Fact. So far the legal status quo has been and is, BFO deeded property have had, since 1776, all property right bundle of sticks, including private uninterrupted (quiet) use and enjoyment all Walton property owners have today. If BFO do prevail there is no change in BFO rights. Only in 2016 did 5 Walton Commissioners try to unilaterally declare all 1,193 BFO parcels did not have the Constitutional right of quiet private use and enjoyment.

Here’s a simple question; since 2016 when 5 political Walton Commissioners unilaterally declared by ordinance, without BFO property due process[2], the right for anyone to use ALL private beachfront property without the owner’s consent;
Have the Walton (1) tourist bed taxes and (2) residential property values (a) decreased, (b) increased, or (c) no change?
Here is some help - Visit South Walton, FL
#85 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[2] Corrected by FS163.035 (BFO CU due process) by about 83% of the FL legislators, including local Brad Drake Rep, so no other FL county could do what Walton BCC did.
Note too, Okaloosa and Bay counties have not had and do not have CU. Want to guess what their bed tax and real property values have been since 2016?

Mputnal, have you read the Constitution and Bill of Rights lately?
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, ....”

A more prefect Union, establish justice [rule of law] ... the framers called for amendments specifically protecting individual rights from abridgement by the federal (all) government. Protecting unalienable individual rights in the Declaration of Independence, that among these are Individual Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I did not see the "People's" right to LLH over an Individual rights. Have you? Paramount being private property rights the Government can take without just compensation (which Walton BFOs do not want) nor any person with due process and evidence the Plaintiff (Walton Commissioners and CU believers) must prove are superior to BFO Constitutional individual property rights.
Constitution of the United States of America - Bill of Rights Institute

If you want undisturbed public views of the beach for the CU believers or the “People” drive or boat to Government owned (by the People) Okaloosa Island west of the Destin pass and Eglin Santa Rosa Island. There are miles of dunes visible by car from Hwy 98 and by boat. I would not pass the guard gate without permission at the end of Santa Rosa Blvd. Government owned property prohibit pubic access - which is their right (and power) to do.
Google Maps
Google Maps

Okaloosa Island beach view
Google Maps

Hwy 98Okaloosa Island beach view
Google Maps

Stared this before recent CU believers’ latest posts. Sorry for the length but I don’t feel so bad about taking up space with facts. Considering latest CU believer’s poignant posts that bring useful information to the CU civil discourse?

Mputnal, there is NO camp of "I must have the power to exclude people from the beach". You made up that “camp” up to fit the CU believer agenda. Based on what? Rule of Law? Some belief in a BFO owner v nonBFO class warfare?

There is what I’ll call; BFO protecting Constitutional “right to private undisturbed use and enjoyment”[1], should the BFO so choose, Camp. That is a Right (you call power) and fact ALL Walton private property (including bayfront) owners have.
[1] Not a belief or opinion but law based on the Constitution.

So, there is NO camp as you describe and NO need to answer any questions, because there is no one in your self described camp. Suggestion if you want to create objective questions or polls - number 2, has two options, increase or decrease values. You excluded one other possibility (I’m guessing because it does not fit the CU agenda) - no change in (market) values.

Fact. So far the legal status quo has been and is, BFO deeded property have had, since 1776, all property right bundle of sticks, including private uninterrupted (quiet) use and enjoyment all Walton property owners have today. If BFO do prevail there is no change in BFO rights. Only in 2016 did 5 Walton Commissioners try to unilaterally declare all 1,193 BFO parcels did not have the Constitutional right of quiet private use and enjoyment.

Here’s a simple question; since 2016 when 5 political Walton Commissioners unilaterally declared by ordinance, without BFO property due process[2], the right for anyone to use ALL private beachfront property without the owner’s consent;
Have the Walton (1) tourist bed taxes and (2) residential property values (a) decreased, (b) increased, or (c) no change?
Here is some help - Visit South Walton, FL
#85 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[2] Corrected by FS163.035 (BFO CU due process) by about 83% of the FL legislators, including local Brad Drake Rep, so no other FL county could do what Walton BCC did.
Note too, Okaloosa and Bay counties have not had and do not have CU. Want to guess what their bed tax and real property values have been since 2016?

Mputnal, have you read the Constitution and Bill of Rights lately?
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, ....”

A more prefect Union, establish justice [rule of law] ... the framers called for amendments specifically protecting individual rights from abridgement by the federal (all) government. Protecting unalienable individual rights in the Declaration of Independence, that among these are Individual Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I did not see the "People's" right to LLH over an Individual rights. Have you? Paramount being private property rights the Government can take without just compensation (which Walton BFOs do not want) nor any person with due process and evidence the Plaintiff (Walton Commissioners and CU believers) must prove are superior to BFO Constitutional individual property rights.
Constitution of the United States of America - Bill of Rights Institute

If you want undisturbed public views of the beach for the CU believers or the “People” drive or boat to Government owned (by the People) Okaloosa Island west of the Destin pass and Eglin Santa Rosa Island. There are miles of dunes visible by car from Hwy 98 and by boat. I would not pass the guard gate without permission at the end of Santa Rosa Blvd. Government owned property prohibit pubic access - which is their right (and power) to do.
Google Maps
Google Maps

Okaloosa Island beach view
Google Maps

Hwy 98Okaloosa Island beach view
Google Maps

Should have use the beat the dead horse image back at using pseudonyms. Can say CU believers are consistent and not credible.
Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Should have use the beat the dead horse image back at using pseudonyms. Can say CU believers are consistent and not credible.
Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Says the guy behind the curtain.

Thinking that the dead horse is now the CU movement’s new mascot based on legal rumblings.

Hey Dave, seriously, where was the compromise relative to beach front owners? What do BFOs get in exchange in your most recent proposed compromise?

A dead horse? The activist who lead the charge for the BCC to sue 1194 parcel owners and force millions of dollars to be spent, with millions more pending, throwing Bill Fletcher under the CU bus, on a potentially frivolous lawsuit, now says it is a dead horse?

Has the county proven, or even provided any evidence, that the removal of property rights (right of exclusion) is reasonable, without interruption, or without dispute?

How dare you instigate an issue costing millions of dollars with many more millions pending and just try to slough it off as a "dead horse".

Bob Wells, facts are facts. Regardless of the name. Even CU believers can look up facts. Try it; no credibility needed. Pick any of the property facts and debunked CU myths in this thread over the months. If you have alternative facts I’m sure some CU believer will let us know.

Does the name matter; except to distract from the facts? I don’t post for CU believers anyway. Even without a pseudonym you would not believe the facts. Based on the repeated intentional mistruths about Viscaya beach was ever public beach, BMB quiet title was ever public beach, dry sand is physically unbuildable or taxed, that there is even one Seaside 30A LLC business that is a beachfront owner, or that Walton economy will become a ghost town without CU.

Why would any BFO want to subject themselves to CU believers antisocial media, fake police report, and staged trespass? Like the Goodwins, James Lince, Mike Huckabee, and many other BFOs doxed in CU antisocial media and multiple staged trespasses at Vizcaya - by the Florida Beaches For All attorney no less.

You keep beating the pseudonym dead house. Just shows how baseless and uninformed the CU beliefs are.

I post to inform BFO of the intentional CU misinformation and encourage BFO to protect their Constitutional rights or Walton commissioners are spending millions of every Walton tax payer’s dollars to find a legal way to take the BFO property rights BFOs have had and have today. Walton has been trying since 2007 when Larry Jones was a Commissioner. I do not think I need to expose myself to the CU “warriors” to be credible to those who are interested in the facts I post.
#421 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

A dead horse? The activist who lead the charge for the BCC to sue 1194 parcel owners and force millions of dollars to be spent, with millions more pending, throwing Bill Fletcher under the CU bus, on a potentially frivolous lawsuit, now says it is a dead horse?

Has the county proven, or even provided any evidence, that the removal of property rights (right of exclusion) is reasonable, without interruption, or without dispute?

How dare you instigate an issue costing millions of dollars with many more millions pending and just try to slough it off as a "dead horse".

"throwing Bill Fletcher under the CU bus"

Alan? Is that you?

The dead horse was specifically for Florida Beach Bum. He repeats himself a lot. But really, so does everyone on this thread.

FBB, Why do BPO’s need to be encouraged? How many times do you need to repeat the same things? Are you worried that hiding your identity is now working against your credibility? If I were a BPO I am pretty sure I would ask you to leave the legal stuff to the court and stop repeating yourself. I might even ask you to stop hurting my reputation as a kind and decent human being who cares about People and families that love the beach. Who cares about community. You have made it very clear that you care about one thing. One principle. You have no identity. No credibility. No answers to very important questions that have been asked you. If I were a BPO I would tell you to stop speaking for me!

FBB, do you believe that the Framers of our Constitution could see into the future? Do you think they would be okay with how you hide behind a fake name and speak for them? Do you think that they would not have a problem with concentrated power of a few that limits LLH for We The People? You are trying to label those of us who simply believe in public beaches for future generations into something that is just not the truth. I love my Country and I have as much admiration for the framers of our GREAT CONSTITUTION as you do! If you would just stop speaking for other people and speak for yourself (but you must have an identity to do that) it would be a decent conversation of the problems that exist on Walton County Beaches. I really like to learn things I do not know but you believe that everything in LIFE exists around one principle. I know you must be aware of the fact that LLH for We The People ensures a more perfect union. I don't really believe that you care much about Walton County BFO's. We can have a decent and civil conversation but you should start speaking for yourself with an identity. Both you and Regina

FBB, do you believe that the Framers of our Constitution could see into the future? Do you think they would be okay with how you hide behind a fake name and speak for them? Do you think that they would not have a problem with concentrated power of a few that limits LLH for We The People? You are trying to label those of us who simply believe in public beaches for future generations into something that is just not the truth. I love my Country and I have as much admiration for the framers of our GREAT CONSTITUTION as you do! If you would just stop speaking for other people and speak for yourself (but you must have an identity to do that) it would be a decent conversation of the problems that exist on Walton County Beaches. I really like to learn things I do not know but you believe that everything in LIFE exists around one principle. I know you must be aware of the fact that LLH for We The People ensures a more perfect union. I don't really believe that you care much about Walton County BFO's. We can have a decent and civil conversation but you should start speaking for yourself with an identity. Both you and Regina

The dead horse was specifically for Florida Beach Bum. He repeats himself a lot. But really, so does everyone on this thread.

Yes, some questions has been asked numerous times, and you have yet to even try to answer one of them even once. Of course I did not make up this question. It is in Court Document #996 and asked by George Mead on August 16, 2019 to Judge Green. Actually George did not ASK a question, he made a STATEMENT that the Plaintiff(s) have not provided ANY evidence backing up the claim of the lawsuit that removing Property Rights (right of exclusion) to allow Unlimited Occupation of Deeded Private Property with Unlimited amount of Beach Equipment AGAINST the will of the property owner is Ancient, Reasonable, Without Interruption, and Without Dispute as claimed in the lawsuit YOU PROMOTED filed by the county against owners of 1194 parcels and therefore should be dismissed.

There have been ZERO ordinances prior to 2016 making this claim. Only the 2016 BCC passed an ordinance of this type and 2 of those BCC members are no longer on the board and 3 are up for election. Interesting note that the vote to sue 1194 parcel owners was forced after the BCC election but before Danny and Nick took office which would have allowed them to vote.

You have lead the charge and even formed FBFA, now a co-plaintiff in the law suit, which has cost the County and People of Walton County Millions of Dollars and potentially $48 Million More?

By your lack of public answer are you also implying that the FUNDAMENTAL BASIS of the lawsuit is a DEAD HORSE? I wonder if Judge Green's response will be the same?

What evidence or arguments do you have that the removal of property rights (right of exclusion) is reasonable, without interruption, or without dispute?

I honestly don’t know why Dave even tries to engage BFOs on SoWal when he refuses to answer any question. The frustration of not having full editorial control is showing. But the obvious answer, at least to me, is he just is not able to.

As the chairman of floridabeachesforall.org one would think there would be a bit more legal (and rational) support for their platform other than just “we believe in customary use”.

The county commissioners (along with FBFA and overwhelming support from the local real estate industry) are taking Walton County taxpayers on an expensive legal “joy ride” at taxpayers’ expense for one REAL reason:

REMOVE ANY IMPEDIMENT TO GROWTH.

And again, over and over, repeating myself, beating the other dead horse, hammering a point, maybe you haven’t heard, cold off the press....

The economy is NOT one of the criteria of customary use - FACT. That’s definitely one of those inconvenient truths to its supporters.

BMBV I know how hard you are trying to be Perry Mason but the questions you are asking are irrelevant. I am surprised that you and the others on this thread who support exclusive private beaches do not understand the difference between social media (public opinion) and a Court of Law. I don't think anyone has identified themselves as a lawyer right, so we can all act like Perry Mason or we can just be who we are. Problem is none of the exclusive private beach supporters (camp) will identify themselves as being Walton County BFO's except maybe you. Unbelievable that You keep asking if Customary Use is the law and whether the County can prove it is the law. How can there be an answer until the Judge makes a ruling? We ain't the lawyers. We ain't the Judge. The only evidence is in control of the Court and we are not in court!!! After the Judge rules we can all read about the evidence. I can tell you that there have been Judges who have ruled for Traditional/Conservative/Customary Use in property line disputes. Surely we agree that this is more than a property line dispute but rather the question of who owns the shoreline (The State of Florida) AND the dry sand portion of the shoreline. The shoreline changes hourly, daily monthly so the deeds are not correct no matter how much you want them to be. The shoreline erodes the dry sand over time and that is another problem. Rising sea levels are a problem. Storms are a problem. Sand dunes use to exist that stabilize the shoreline but your buildings eroded the sand dunes. Your buildings present numerous problems for a stable shoreline not to mention eroding our view of a limited resource. I have no idea how a Judge may rule and neither do you. Not even the Judge knows at this point for god's sake.

BMBV you have latched on to this group that started this thread and continue it ad nauseum. They could care less about you and your exclusive beach or me for that matter. They are working for some very wealthy people who only care about one thing: Power. You and me ain't never going to have dat power even though they got you going with the property rights arguments. Listen, it matters not why you are latched on but you and me ain't going to persuade each other nutin. Why make enemies is all I want to know? You don't like Dave or me or anyone who supports public beaches and that is okay but man give it up on the Perry Mason impersonation

The only evidence is in control of the Court and we are not in court!!!

BUT WE ARE IN COURT - with an estimated cost of $50,000,0000 and so far not even ONE person, supporter, opponent, lawyer, or plaintiff can even answer the fundamental question of the lawsuit, what about you? What evidence or arguments do you have that the removal of property rights (right of exclusion) is reasonable, without interruption, or without dispute?

Why make enemies is all I want to know?

The COUNTY is trying to take (steal) Property Rights with no compensation and costing the BPO millions of dollars to defends rights they have had for generations!

Not even the Judge knows at this point for god's sake.

The Judge can only rule based on the legality of the lawsuit and evidence provided. What evidence has been provided that removal of property rights defined by the State of Florida (right of exclusion) does not apply to a minority class of citizens (in this case people who have purchased legally deeded private property that has been private for generations)? How do you think a Judge will rule on a lawsuit with no evidence to back up the claim?

The shoreline changes hourly, daily monthly so the deeds are not correct no matter how much you want them to be. The shoreline erodes the dry sand over time and that is another problem.

You basic premise is incorrect, according to the State of Florida, those deeds, along with your deed, and all the other deeds in Walton County, are legally binding. You have the right to buy and sell based on that deed and the Rights to use that property as defined in the Constitution (which means the county can not take without compensation) and that all the Rights listed on the Walton County Web Site apply for EVERYONE (including the right of exclusion). If there is land erosion, then the property behind it, with a legally defined property deed, becomes water front property. It has happened, and continues to happen all over the USA on property that boarders coast lines and rivers. If the big earthquake hits California and disappears, then people in Nevada might have coast line property.

The land can not be "taken" AKA stolen, but it can be purchased. I have also come full circle and I believe that the County does not have the desire or ability to protect the unique ecosystem and will exploit and ruin our natural resources for short term tourist and development dollars.

That being said I fully support property be PURCHASED by the State of Florida and turned into State Parks, just like what was done with Topsail. At least the land will be protected far greater than the County could ever think about. Or the County can purchase land and give it to the State to manage. We can provide local residents with annual passes to the State Parks and Tourist can purchase passes and our resources will be maintained and protected for future generations. On the other hand you personally can purchase private property next to the beach and donate it to the State or County, and even make your own restrictions (that it can not be developed, must be used as wildlife sanctuary with strict density controls to not ruin the ecosystem, and that your future generations have free access to the Park).

But the county should not steal property that has been private for generations because they want to exploit and generate money for some power brokers and ruin our unique ecosystem in the process.