Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

mputnal instead of posting about pseudonyms and my credibility why do you not post about why my and other BPOs posted facts are wrong, or post your own CU facts backed up with the law of something other than I believe. Something other than talking about my "group", your "group" and class warfare conspiracies. Dead horse.

By the way, in my layman's opinion reading FS 163.035 and understanding of old English custom common law, liability has nothing to do with establishing CU, liability is not a CU criteria, and no liability evidence for the Judge to allow and be presented to the court. Maybe you can explain why BPO liability would be a factor in the CU litigation?

Now that's funny. Since Beachfront Owners lawyers in their infinite wisdom talked them into stopping trash pickup by the county on OUR beaches. The good County trash pickup folks can take care of that as they had for decades if you wish.

Do you suppose that there are beachfront property owners who actually aren't fighting customary use or do you just assume that since they do own beachfront property that they're bad people? You seem to be rich, so all rich people can't be bad, right?

Do you suppose that there are beachfront property owners who actually aren't fighting customary use or do you just assume that since they do own beachfront property that they're bad people? You seem to be rich, so all rich people can't be bad, right?

Now there’s a good question to answer. There’s not one beachfront owner that I dislike or think is bad. There is one vocal private beach advocate that’s not actually a beachfront property owner who I’m not very fond of but he/she are not bad people. I actually respect them more because they speak for themselves as real people. I really don’t know them well enough to dislike them though. In fact, many many private beachfront owners are my very good friends and some of them agree with me and some of them don’t. And that’s the truth. One of your more vocal allies is a very very good friend of mine, She and I talk often on ways to solve this. And wealth has nothing to do with whether or not people are good or bad.

Now there’s a good question to answer.

Here is another good question for you to answer, what evidence or arguments that removal of property rights is ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute?

FBB, if you read my posts you will know exactly why I think your facts are insufficient to the bigger picture of life. In other words those facts that you have repeated 100 times or more are missing something about what it means to have an awareness of something more important than exclusive private beach. I say your group because you support a fact without an identity. If I knew your name I would address as such and would be able to have a more civil conversation. I hope there will never be class warfare and I am just the messenger of how the unequal distribution of resources leads to civil discontent throughout history. The beach is a unique and very limited resource that give people hope and happiness. Reducing that resource for the pleasures of a few people is not smart. I do not think you are who you say you are but if you want to prove me wrong then it would be so simple for you to just tell us who you are. This particular horse will not die until you come clean or someone pulls the plug on this thread. I think this horse is an appaloosa. I've learned that they have a determined spirit...

One of your more vocal allies is a very very good friend of mine, She and I talk often on ways to solve this.

That is an interesting considering that you are the leader of FBFA, who is a co-plaintiff suing her. Walton County has already legally acknowledged years ago in court Suzanne Harris's private property rights on the beach. Your organization's lawsuit against her is considered by many as frivolous, and the lawyers have responded accordingly.

Your push to sue over 5000 people who own the 1194 parcels "at all costs" with "no compromise" has always lacked credibility. What did you tell Suzanne is the argument that removal of private property rights is ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute as the lawsuit claims?

Scj, your recent posts admits that you are not a BPO in Walton County which begs the questions who are you representing and why? Your credibility is now zero unless you can answer those questions.

Scj, your recent posts admits that you are not a BPO in Walton County which begs the questions who are you representing and why? Your credibility is now zero unless you can answer those questions.

My name, age, location, party affiliation, religious believes, occupation, and gender, have zero impact on the validity of the following top 10 statements with references:

1. A US Citizen cannot have property taken by a State (or Walton County) without due compensation nor without due process of law

Reference: 5th Amendment US Bill of Rights. “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. 14th Amendment US Bill of Rights. “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

2. An owner of Private Property in the State of Florida may not be forced to accept unlimited people with unlimited beach equipment against the will of the property owner.

Reference: State of Florida Property Bill of Rights posted on the Walton County Web Site (in particular #3):

“1. The right to acquire, possess, and protect your property”

“2. The right to use and enjoy your property”

“3. The right to exclude others from your property”

“4. The right to dispose of your property”

“5. The right to due process”

“6. The right to just compensation for property taken for a public purpose”

“7. The right to relief, or payment of compensation, when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of the state or a political entity unfairly affects your property”


3. The Walton County BCC attempted to remove Property Rights (right of Exclusion) without due process and without compensation for the first time in a 2016 Beach Ordinance. HB 631 documented a procedure which the must prove that the recreational use has been “ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute”.

Reference: Walton County BCC minutes and HB 631

4. Walton County filed a lawsuit against owners of 1194 parcels (thousands of people) to remove property rights (right of exclusion) that would allow unlimited people with unlimited beach equipment to use private property against the will of the property owner.

Reference: Formal Notice of Intent to affirm the existence of recreational customary uses on private property passed and adopted by the BCC Nov 3, 2018. “A customary use affirmation is sought only on the portion of the properties referenced in Exhibit “A” that consists of the dry sand area of the beach”. “The dry sand area of the beach is defined as the zone of unconsolidated material that extends landward from the mean high water line to the place where there is marked change in material or physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation, usually the effect limit of storms waves, whichever is more seaward”.

5. The sources of evidence the BBC lawsuit used to show recreational customary rights were ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute were allegedly been provided in Exhibit B, but NO EVIDENCE was provided that supports those claims..

Reference: Motion to Dismiss, Court Document #996 in case 2018CA547, filed by George Mead on August 16, 2019

6. Walton County acknowledged in a 2009 settlement that Edgewater beachfront property has been historically at all time for the exclusive, private use of Edgewater’s owners and guests. Edgewater has filed Motions to Dismiss and recover Attorney Fees.

Reference: Motion to Dismiss, Court Document #881 in case 2018CA547, filed by Kay Simpson on June 19, 2019 and Motion to Recover Attn Fees, Court Document #932 in case 2018CA547, filed by Kay Simpson on July 12, 2019.

7. No Public Beach property has ever been made Private Beach under Quiet Title as rumored by CU Advocates and FBFA. Vizcaya Beach was Private Property prior to the 2016 Beach Ordinance and HB 631 and did not change the status of the deeds or property boundaries as rumored by the graphics used at the FBFA meetings and FB.

Reference: Social Media Posts on Visioning FB Page, FBFA FB Page, and review of Walton County Property Records

8. Beach property is taxed as opposed to a contrary rumor by CU advocates and FBFA supporters which was proved to be false.

Reference: Social Media Posts on Visioning FB Page, FBFA FB Page, and review of Walton County Property Records

9. FBFA leaders and CU advocates used rally cry used to sue BPO to remove property rights “at all costs” and “no compromise”. FBFA lawyer indicated that the lawsuit could take 10 years and cost $50,000,000 or more.

Reference: Social Media Posts on Visioning FB Page, FBFA FB Page

10. BPO’s have doxed on Social Media, including threats of destruction of private property, violence and death, and had numerous Social Media posts deleted. Many BPO’s have banned from social media sites, some of who never made posts, but were deleted because who there were and not what they said.

Reference: Social Media Posts on Visioning FB Page, FBFA FB Page and other Social Media Sites

Scj, all you have to do is tell us (BPO's and non BPO's) who you are working for. I think we can figure out the why part. If you are going to make accusatory statements then you will have to back it up with the truth of why you are posting in a community forum. Again, if you want BPO's to believe you then you have to be willing to identify yourself. If you can't do that then your agenda is not to help this community heal from this emotional issue but rather something else entirely. If you care about civility and respect then yes it is a requirement for credibility and honor to back up your statements with an identity. I honestly do not care whether you do or not but I am sure that BPO's care because they are part of this community.

Scj, I will even give you an incentive to be more truthful about who you are working for. If you do this I will personally catch us a mess of fish, prepare and cook with sides AND have whatever beverage (if I can afford it) you desire. I feel like the community needs to heal with a more positive message. Everything you and I are now posting have been said hundreds of times and we ain't gettin anywares. Why not try a more community approach. Friends are better than enemies. I think BPO's would prefer a less negative association. I'm serious so how bout it?

Over a month ago:

This will be my last post on this subject. In conclusion I believe there should have been compromise and there was opportunity for it until people were mislead and deceived by the power brokers.

One word:
Imodium

One of your more vocal allies is a very very good friend of mine, She and I talk often on ways to solve this.

Does that include the dirty word, COMPROMISE?

If the CU supporters would just stick to ALL of the facts, and not just their cherry-picked hyperbole, the discussion would be much better.

And certainly shorter.

Judge Green is not affected by anything said here on this forum. That is a fact!

If the CU supporters would just stick to ALL of the facts, and not just their cherry-picked hyperbole, the discussion would be much better.

And certainly shorter.

And if opponents would just wait for the court case to be settled one way or the other, but that would defeat the purpose of the thread.

Yes, the purpose of this thread was to rile up BPO's and maybe pick up a few non BPO's with political rhetoric but the method had a major flaw. The method started with a full tank of energy and it was burned up quickly with too much duplication, repetition and negativity. IMO their method actually worked against their purpose. I think their biggest flaw is that people actually benefit from being social and community oriented and when they sense that the message is leading them away from those values they get off the bus. Speaking for myself, I got on the bus, asked a few questions, the answers made me realize that the bus ain't going where they said it was going and got off pretty quickly. I think most readers of this thread did the same thing. I will give the ghost posters some credit for the entertainment value. I am sure that Perry Mason would be proud

Thank you Walton County. I posted this heart felt message 170 days ago that crossed THE line in the sand (get it?). It’s sole purpose was to give voice to a perspective and set of facts that was being aggressively censored from your view. It’s done much more than that.

It’s generated a record 500 views per day (~85,000), 10 replies per day (1,740), and gave concerned citizens a public forum to discuss the true facts of the issue. I couldn’t be more impressed with some of the voices contributing with historical and factual legal education that is deviously kept from public view elsewhere. I’ve learned a lot from these very smart folk.

I do not understand however, Why selective retitling of this post and continued editing still must take place arbitrarily, seemingly to control the message.

The author and friends are very happy to note, however;

1) The public and social media staged noise have not crossed the behavior line quite so much lately, been relatively quiet with only one or two radical voices no longer being encouraged by a previously uninformed mass following.
2) The citizens have been exposed to more and more true facts of the matter, and realize sentiments like this original post’s, are held by both sides, a mutual desire for harmony, not forced conflict.
3) The lawsuit against the citizens was apparently a big, VERY costly mistake, having little chance of meeting the strict legal requirements necessary to remove private property rights.
4) BPO’s are indeed people too, neighbors who want our collective beaches to be PROTECTED and enjoyed by ALL, but not abused and destroyed by a FREE FOR ALL.
5) A 2019 record tourist season with NO inevitable threats to the economy or chaos on the beaches. But in fact a season of millions of visitors living out South Walton dreamy commercials and NOT being eaten alive by evil, greedy, malicious BPO’s.

So thanks for the input. Thanks for the open minds. And sorry for the continued conspiracy theories and propaganda that still dilute the valuable adult discussion taking place here. But in reality, the entertainment value of the alarmist, activist, radicalist, agitatorist, blasphemist, narcissist, egotist, conspiracy theorist, antagonist, social terrorist contributions makes it fun, no?

And remember, we’re all in this together and capable of doing what we’ve always done as soon as the lawsuits and public attacks can stop - and that’s get along peacefully, together, on our beaches. But regardless of who wins, this fight over CU Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy.

Yes, the purpose of this thread was to rile up BPO's and maybe pick up a few non BPO's with political rhetoric but the method had a major flaw. The method started with a full tank of energy and it was burned up quickly with too much duplication, repetition and negativity. IMO their method actually worked against their purpose. I think their biggest flaw is that people actually benefit from being social and community oriented and when they sense that the message is leading them away from those values they get off the bus. Speaking for myself, I got on the bus, asked a few questions, the answers made me realize that the bus ain't going where they said it was going and got off pretty quickly. I think most readers of this thread did the same thing. I will give the ghost posters some credit for the entertainment value. I am sure that Perry Mason would be proud

They will never reveal themselves (the anonymous posters/posers in this thread). This entire threads real purpose is meant to be a repository of their views, their narratives and propaganda much like the handful of blogs that are out there in Internet land. #46Followers. Some of these anonymous posters/posers are the very same persons with multiple identities here to try to add “voices“ to the “Get off my beach“ narrative. They are trying here to bait customary use supporters into saying things that fit their narrative and, I would guess, to document it for some imagined legal purpose. It’s pretty obvious the way the posters are presenting that in some way they think that by posting this stuff it will be useful documentation for building a case for some future lawsuit; good luck with that. All the repetitive meticulous documentation, all the references, the footnotes the screenshots of CU supporters comments, the doxxing of CU supporters. Trying to paint their own good neighbors as a mob of unruly private property stealin’, socialist agitatin’ monsters. Good luck with that.

Those in favor of Public Beaches are grounded and just as committed to freeing our beaches as the private beach folks are to chaining them. And the bottom line is there are plenty of those like us that will line up in every coastal community in America and if it’s not me it’ll be someone else and if it’s not them it’ll be someone else and if it’s not them it’ll be someone else. So if they think people are going to be intimidated to stop working to keep our beaches free and open to the public in coastal communities all across our nation, good luck with that.

And finally, Anonymous Reggie's fantasy that this is some sort of amazing thread is ridiculous. Yes, big numbers of posts but as I have said, anyone can look at the engagement and it is the same 20, give or take a few, minus those banned for doxxing and personal attacks, people talking in circles; easy to document using the simple tools provided on SoWal. It's all there. Run the Data Reggie, and prove me wrong. Same people on both sides posting and viewing.

The bottom line is that we are all neighbors on opposite sides of an issue that will be decided in Court or by lawmakers. Some of the back and forth dialogue has been interesting but nothing will be decided here and what has been posted here will have no useful purpose other than a history of the dialog of the conflict of the CU issue. The way HB631 is set up this drama will play out in many many coastal communities in Florida. HB631 placed the Commissioners in a box and the only way to proceed for Customary Use was to follow the procedures set forth in the statute. BFOs supported the bill then didn't want the Commission to follow through. It's an inconvenient truth for the anonymous folks here but that's the way it is.

At any rate the truth is, Excluding people from our centuries of shared beaches and calling them trespassers will destroy our 30A Legacy.

#1744. “They will never reveal themselves.” And this is but one reason why besides the fake police report, staged trespasses on private property, CU active shooter videos, and anti-social media CU BPO-attacks. Mike Huckabee’s role in pushing controversial beach access law

“This entire threads real purpose” ... is meant to shine the light of facts and truth on the CU believers intentional false narratives. Economic south Walton CU ghost towns, quiet title of private property was ever public, that dry sand private property is worthless or not taxed, that Vizcaya was ever public beach, there is any Seaside 30A LLC beachfront owner, that private property owners have stopped TDC driving on the beach when the State of Florida has prevented TDC from driving on MILES of “public” beaches, to name but only a few.

“They are trying here to bait customary use supporters into saying things that fit their narrative and, I would guess, to document it for some imagined legal purpose. It’s pretty obvious the way the posters are presenting with all the documentation that in some way they think that by posting this stuff it will be useful documentation for building a case for some future lawsuit I would guess; good luck with that.” Why? Another baseless not-credible CU conspiracy theory. The Walton Commissioners’ CU case is already in court. BPO posts illustrate why vocal CU believers baseless conspiracies and narrative are false so BPO can know the difference between Fact and fiction.

‘Those in favor of Public Beaches [but WHY? Besides I believe or to incite others with no facts] are grounded and just as committed to freeing our beaches as the private beach folks are to chaining them.”
Chaining them? How can a private property owner “chain” property rights they have had, have today, is recognized by the Sherriff, unless someone is trying to “take” it from them?

"The bottom line is that we are all neighbors on opposite sides of an issue that will be decided in Court or by lawmakers. Some of the back and forth dialogue has been interesting but nothing will be decided here and what has been posted here will have no useful purpose other than a history of the dialog of the conflict of the CU issue."

Then STOP the intentional, uninformed, CU misinformation, and BPO name calling and BPOs will not feel the need to counter the consistent CU misinformation.

The way HB631 is set up this drama will play out in many many coastal communities in Florida. HB631 placed the Commissioners in a box and the only way to proceed for Customary Use was to follow the procedures set forth in the statute. BFOs supported the bill then didn't want the Commission to follow through. It's an inconvenient truth for the anonymous folks here but that's the way it is.

HB631 simply reiterated what our Constitution already states in regards to government trying to confiscate private property - that it can only be done with DUE PROCESS. To argue otherwise is being intellectually dishonest.

IMO, the commissioners who passed the original Customary Use Ordinance with no due process violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

All of this done because of pressure from The People (and you)..... to shred a core value of the U.S. Constitution: private property rights.

Dave, I fully understand why you hate HB631. However, you should be taking up your gripes with the super majority of Florida legislators who passed it and the Constitution which requires due process and not blame beach front owners.

Somehow I think you know your cause doesn’t stand a chance with customary use being tried in court (where it belongs) and not by The People. And that’s what really irks you about HB631.

Guess those BFOs with pre-2016 ordinances are just SOL. They "lost" their right to use "their beach" when they re-worded HB631 to exclude them. Wonder why all these lawyers arent lining up in those counties to "support private property rights" ??

Why isn't the county required to include beach situation in advertising?

Thx, I forgot. The same 10-20 viewers on this thread are the same “only a handful, aka10-12” BPO’s that we were led to believe would challenge a lawsuit against them. But now in reality, thousands are defending themselves. But sure, we’ll go with that 10-20 fantasy if it makes some of us sleep better. I’m cool with that.

(Back of Restaurant napkin math....500 views per day/12 people = 42 views per day EACH, for 170 days. If each of the 12 BPO’s is awake for 15 hrs/day, that’s about 3x per hour EACH during every waking hour, EVERY DAY)

Thank you Dave for being the bigger person with your positive message. It is okay to disagree with people but the methods that the power brokers bring to this community is worse than negative. The anti-social nature of those that oppose public beaches for all humans and forever is shameful. They know it and have no choice but to hide their faces from the community. I seriously tried to give them a chance to offer a different tone but they can't do it. It is not in their nature. The offer still stands for them to come to a social event and discuss possible solutions that would be good for all people and not just a few. Maybe I am more of an idealist than I should be but I always have hope that people can see through themselves into a much bigger and brighter world of beautiful resources and beautiful people. Of course we all have room to improve ourselves but you must first have awareness. All we have to go on is the words they type and I sense no such awareness from them. They behave like they have a mandate to attack people and minimize another opinion otherwise why would they hide behind fake names.

#1747. Guess those BFOs with pre-2016 ordinances are just SOL. They "lost" their right to use "their beach" when they re-worded HB631 to exclude them. Wonder why all these lawyers arent lining up in those counties to "support private property rights" ??

jodiFL and bob1, as CU believers why do you use pseudonyms? Do pseudonyms determine your belief credibility or do the verifiable facts you post?

jodiFL, your question suggests you know more or know something about CU litigation we all do not or you do not know much about any other CU ordinance(s).

a. Of Florida’s 67 counties which county(s) had CU ordinance(s) prior to January 1, 2016?
b. Did the lower courts affirm the ordinance(s) PRIOR to ordnance(s) going into effect or did the county(s) declare CU without BPO due process first?
c. Were any of the CU ordinance(s) appealed to the higher courts, which courts, and what were the rulings?
d. What are the county(s) specific recreational CU uses in the ordinance(s)?
e. Do/did the ordinance(s) apply to all private beach properties in that/those county(s)?
f. In any Florida CU litigation is driving public vehicles on private beach property ruled ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute? If yes, would is it reasonable that the automobile is “ancient” according to old English custom common law?
g. If SCOTUS found ancient English common law of public customary use of private property with title to the MHWL unConstitutional would the previous ordnance(s) be valid or invalid?

This BPO can answer these simple questions, can any CU believer, and post them here?