Back to All About SoWal

Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Reggie Gaskins avatar
Beach Lover
526,503 views2
upload_2019-4-25_8-30-52.jpeg
When you see a PCB or Destin bumper sticker, what thought immediately comes to mind? Probably same for all of us with any time spent here - nice, but it ain’t 30A! Do you remember why you started renting/visiting here? What was it? Remember when you bought your first 30A property? Why here?
Because it was DIFFERENT, right? Remember the words you used to describe it to family and friends as you invited them here? “Private” “Quiet” “Intimate” “Less crowded”. That wasn’t by accident. The entire genetic code of Sowal beaches is because of the private ownership and neighborhood beach personalities.
You could rent “private beach”. You could buy “private beach”. There wasn’t a free for all frat party atmosphere because of unlimited public beach access on the sands. That behavior was regulated by the privately owned property where such behavior was immediately squelched. And yet, by custom, no one was ever “Kicked off” of private beaches because owners don’t do that unless bad actors abuse the privilege.
Walton County has always had more than 50% PUBLIC beach. Still does. That hasn’t changed. There are now deliberately misleading fear tactics out there with scary words like “Quiet Title” and “Privatization”, neither of which have affected one single square inch of public beach, not one. Yet, the mob mentality, orchestrated by local carnival barkers eager for fame and notoriety, and dollars, have mislead the citizens and deliberately tried to divide the community in a shell game of Customary Use.
The fact is that the county outran the capabilities of local Commissioners to plan for growth 20 years ago, and we haven’t improved that talent to deal with it even yet. So the County, in failing to plan beach availability, tried to illegally claim private property as public, without following the laws requiring judicial oversight. The local Good Ol’ Boys overreached their authority and got caught by the adults in Tallahassee. So they then decides to sue 4,800 of Sowal citizens to take their property. That’s right, your tax money is being spent, and a lot of it, to SUE almost 5,000 of your neighbors, and steal what they agreed to purchase at a premium, and have a deed to prove it.
Don’t blame them please, they didn’t want or ask for this fight. They live here and care for these beaches just like you and me. Go meet them, they are truly the eclectic fabric of 30A. The signs they had to put up are just in defense of this new orchestrated public attack against them.
The bottom line is this: The minute you release the public to occupy all of Sowal beaches, you IMMEDIATELY get nasty Destin and PCB problems. How will you feel about that 30A sticker then? Nostalgic? Me too.

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

Replies

2,312
Beach Fanatic
#1752
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?
I do think I know anyone named Stone Cold therefore do not voice your opinion about me or what I think or don’t think. I do think this lawsuit will take 7 years or more and will cost millions of dollars. I do believe the county let this get completely out of control. They can get control of vendors and that will be a good start.

Dave has not told me anything to convince me of anything. I have a mind of my own and you should know that by now .
Jim Tucker avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1753
I do think I know anyone named Stone Cold therefore do not voice your opinion about me or what I think or don’t think. I do think this lawsuit will take 7 years or more and will cost millions of dollars. I do believe the county let this get completely out of control. They can get control of vendors and that will be a good start.

Dave has not told me anything to convince me of anything. I have a mind of my own and you should know that by now .
:box:
Beach Lover
#1754
I do think I know anyone named Stone Cold therefore do not voice your opinion about me or what I think or don’t think. I do think this lawsuit will take 7 years or more and will cost millions of dollars. I do believe the county let this get completely out of control. They can get control of vendors and that will be a good start.

Dave has not told me anything to convince me of anything. I have a mind of my own and you should know that by now .

Suzanne, you are correct, I don't know you. If you will read again what I wrote, you will see I specifically did not write anything of your opinion or what you think or do not think. I could never presume to know your mind. But if my choice of words gave that impression, please accept my sincere apology. My comment was merely based on what Dave has previously posted on social media. I appreciate your posts, comments, letters to the editors, and your efforts to make SOWAL a better place.

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.

So is the general feeling by CU supports to spend $50,000,000 BEFORE anyone (including the BCC, County Lawyer, Mr No Compromise at any costs, or any other CU supporter, can answer how removal of property rights (right of exclusion) without compensation is somehow ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute as claimed in the lawsuit?

This is a claim the BCC has never made in any ordinance prior to 2016. As referenced before, a COURT CASE IN 2009 against the county was ruled Edgewater beachfront property has been historically at all time for the exclusive, private use of Edgewater’s owners and guests. What makes Edgewater rights previously recognized in a court of law by the County, but now being sued by the BCC to remove those same rights, any different than the private property next door to Edgewater?

If the BCC has always had full use of private property, why did the BCC previously purchase property to make it public beach? If there is a lawsuit that is going to cost $50,000,000, doesn’t that mean it is under dispute? Is it reasonable to remove property rights without compensation against a minority of private property owner in Walton County? If successful, why not extend that removal to other private property owners in Walton County to use their land for public parking, shuttle stops, and public restrooms without compensation? If some kids have been playing baseball on a piece of land, why not use the same logic and build a sports stadium on that land without compensation to the owner?

Saying the county should wait to spend $50,000,000 before they answer the question (eventually Judge Green must be told how this is ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute) is similar to spending millions of dollars on a property for the new TDC building, way above appraisal, only to find out AFTER spending the money that the building won’t meet their purpose and must be torn down or sold for scrap. Shouldn’t the BCC (or ANYONE) at least answer some basic questions BEFORE risking $50,000,0000? How do you think the Supreme Court will rule on this case of the BCC trying removing property rights without compensation as ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute?

Edited

Beach Fanatic
#1755
Stone Cold, your group manipulates words, facts and the truth in order to manipulate people. The fact is this is a beach community that takes pride in our resources which include people (not exclude). If you were really part of this community you would understand but you are far removed from us. Of course we make mistakes but we need each other to solve these problems. It is called putting a face to the problems. You offer us nothing really because we are not ignorant about our problems of beach density and vending and infrastructure etc. Your solution is to follow one principle because the ends justify the means. It solves hardly any of our problems. You repeat this one principle over and over and over because you know that many BFO's take pride and value in community. The County has made many mistakes in our community but IMO this lawsuit to determine if our beaches are public or private is not one of them. There are many principles at play in LLH. Your solution is to abandon all principles but one that will certainly benefit those you work for and hurts thousands of others. Stop trying to talk for anyone but yourself.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1756
Do the people on Walton County Ideas for Visioning and Quality of Life really buy this perpetuated mistruth? Nobody including Dave, denounced it.

Poster on Facebook from 5 days ago:
Walton county should do eminent domain on any land south of the CCL. Beachfront owner should be paid the small fee they paid to quiet their title and no more.

Dave Rauschkolb’s response:
yes, I believe Eminent domain is their endgame but I completely agree if that is the case no more than $400 a parcel for what it cost to quiet title.

REDICULOUS!

After a bit of thought, I am more than convinced that Dave simply has it in with beach front owners. The true rediculousness of his posts does nothing to further his cause other than drive a wedge further into this already divisive topic.

The above example from Rauschkolb is just one of many which accomplishes nothing but casts ALL BFOs in a negative light.

I really didn’t know how clairvoyant Reggie’s initial post was until I saw and continue to see the crazy attacks on private property owners using the CU battle flag.

Edited

Dave Rauschkolb avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1757
Do the people on Walton County Ideas for Visioning and Quality of Life really buy this perpetuated mistruth? Nobody including Dave, denounced it.

Poster on Facebook from 5 days ago:
Walton county should do eminent domain on any land south of the CCL. Beachfront owner should be paid the small fee they paid to quiet their title and no more.

Dave Rauschkolb’s response:
yes, I believe Eminent domain is their endgame but I completely agree if that is the case no more than $400 a parcel for what it cost to quiet title.

REDICULOUS!

After a bit of thought, I am more than convinced that Dave simply has it in with beach front owners. The true rediculousness of his posts does nothing to further his cause other than drive a wedge further into this already divisive topic.

The above example from Rauschkolb is just one of many which accomplishes nothing but casts ALL BFOs in a negative light.

I really didn’t know how clairvoyant Reggie’s initial post was until I saw and continue to see the crazy attacks on private property owners using the CU battle flag.


I think you said it First. Malarkey! I don't attack Beachfront owners, only the notion of private beaches. I do stand up to the handful of those specific beachfront owners, non-beachfront owners who act like they are, and lawyers and political operatives who have driven a wedge in our community by excluding the public from our centuries shared beaches.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1758
Dave,

IMHO, customary use is to you more of a popularity contest than a civil / legal debate. As I’ve seen multiple times, you do absolutely nothing to dispel this quiet title myth - rather you encourage it. And this quiet title fantasy is just one of your many mistruths (including supposed public beach turning private at Vizcaya) that you perpetuate all in the name of winning the “hearts and minds” of those who are truly ignorant (understandably in some cases) of the facts. And it provides fake ammunition for your followers to help spread the “gospel”.

Hell, I (and everyone here on SoWal) would be really pissed off if any public beach was sold off as private. But of course, as you very well know, that’s not the case.

I have full confidence in your ability to understand human psychology and to your credit, you (and Daniel Uhlfelder) have done an effective job in making beach front private property owners appear to be less than desirable members of this community in the eyes of your followers and those who don’t know any better.

I’m ok with customary use supporters’ belief in general, though I obviously disagree - but I’m compelled to call out the ones that fabricate and propagate negative alternate realities that take personal aim at beach front private property owners. And here you and I are.

You are a “leader” in our community, a successful entrepreneur, a family man, even a surfer dude. Why do you have to continue to stain your reputation by all the creative mistruths? You helped initiate the original customary use law suit by helping convince 5 commissioners to ignore required DUE PROCESS and pass the original CU ordinance and then when that failed, to initiate the customary lawsuit such as it is. You were effective. And now it’s in court where it belongs.

Take the high road and just “Let It Be”. Quit with the propaganda, here and on Facebook. Maybe our so called BFO closet lawyers (your nemesis) will back off as I think they have already effectively made their case against CU and then you won’t lose sleep trying to figure out who they are. All bets are off if others come out with the same line of attacks.

And please don’t call your compromise a compromise when there’s no compromise.

Edited

kayti elliott avatar
Beach Lover
#1759
At any rate the truth is, Excluding people from our centuries of shared beaches and calling them trespassers will destroy our 30A Legacy.
Centuries? How many centuries have you been sharing the beach with others?
Beach Fanatic
#1760
BMBV I thought I would just let you know that we public beach supporters are unified because we believe in a universal truth. I would explain this truth to you but you have sold your conscience to a materialistic existence of privatized beach ownership and would never understand. No judgement here. Just facts.

Maybe I should try to explain to you. The concept is very simple: I see the beach as a natural beauty with a power within itself greater than any one or more humans. The power of the beach resource in terms of hope and happiness is something that you will unfortunately never feel because if you did you would not support private beaches. Again, this is not a judgement because many of us humans have become materialistic (including myself) but this issue has made me think about what "the beach" means to me and how I would feel about if I had the power to exclude people from her natural beauty and power. It is so easy to justify our materialism of beach ownership as "earned" when you believe it is legal to own such a powerful resource. I have discovered that justification and entitlement are linked together to form a significant barrier to empathy. I am very concerned about the way these people you support in this forum have disconnected from people. Don't drink from their well of entitlements. Yes this lawsuit is expensive but worth every penny from my perspective if it stops this attack on not just the beach but the attack on the value of people in general. There are other reasons to support public beaches but this is a primary reason for me. Let me know when you are ready for the many other reasons :)
Dave Rauschkolb avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1761
Centuries? How many centuries have you been sharing the beach with others?

Come on anonymous Elliott, you’re smart enough to know that “our“ means collective humanity going back millennia.
Beach Fanatic
#1762
Dont post Facebook crap on here. It is a tool for fake people, anti-community trolls, Russians, corporate spies, and millions more other bad actors and government spies! Facebook is the debil!!!
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1763
Dave Rauschkolb #1761 to katti elliott, "... you’re smart enough to know that “our“ means collective humanity going back millennia."

Dave Rauschkolb you're smart enough to know the criteria of ancient English common law custom that Walton Commissioners are basing their case as Plaintiff against 4,670 BPOs. FBFA has an attorney to help you.

Which specific public recreational customs and what evidence of custom is there for the millennia of customary use of private beachfront property are you referring to? Or is your collective custom your opinion and belief? Can you educate us on what ancient means? What does time immemorial mean? As long as any Walton Commissioner has been alive? A millennia (1,000) years? Can you name the other multiple legal old English CU criteria?

#790 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
2007 Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. Trepanier v. Volusia commented on the CU criteria of time; "If the only source of a right claimed as "custom," is that a certain thing has been done in a certain way in a certain place for so long that no one can remember when it wasn't done that way, the inability to offer evidence of the custom suggests the weakness of the claim."

"[T]here is a well defined rule that all customs must be local and confined to particular places. . . . A custom cannot extend to the whole realm, nor can it embrace every member of the public, for, in either case, it would then amount to the common law of the land." 10 Halsbury's Laws of England, 3 (2d ed. 1933). [And violate the Fifth US Bill of (Individual) Rights and 14th Amendment.]

Edited

Beach Fanatic
#1764
FBB, your smart enough to know that this is not a court of law. Right? This forum is great for giving opinions but I hope you understand that both sides hired real lawyers to represent their interpretation of the law. Your opinion is fine but repeating yourself, hiding your name and attacking public beach people is now hurting your cause yet you keep doing it. Very interesting and revealing at the same time. Keep posting and we will figure out who you really represent because it is definitely not the BPO's otherwise you would stop after giving your opinion for the 100th time.
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1765
mputnal, you are smart enough to know too that to have an INFORMED opinion or belief you should have the FACTS. Not unfounded beliefs or opinions. Not some baseless anti-social media pundit or internet slide.

Your having the most posts and the most number of days (75+?) posting, by far, on this thread seems whiny, incredulous, irrelevant, and hypocritical to talk about others repeating themselves over and over ad nauseum as you have. CU believer pseudonyms bob bob and “MJ Jenksy” attack me about amount of facts posted and as “an attention whore.”? In-credible and hypocritical as well. At least I have facts. Interesting, but not surprising both are silent about the number or amount of content of your baseless class warfare group CU opinions. #842 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

I illuminate the facts anyone can look up to support my opinions. What about you and other CU believers? Why do you not post any facts and harp on not not relevant discourse unless to distract and incite? No CU believer has posted one fact or answered one question to support that opinion ... and everyone has an .... opinion.
Beach Fanatic
#1766
FBB, I am smart enough to know that being INFORMED by someone who attacks another and hides behind a computer is not a person I will trust with facts or opinions. It is like you expect civil behavior by others but not yourself. I do not excuse or overlook the behavior by anyone who personally attacks another no matter what side they are on. I have given your side of the facts acknowledgement but you refuse to acknowledge that there are more facts going on here than exclusive private beaches. You need to believe that people are not worthy to find peace and happiness on all beaches but rather what is left after your group owns the best of the best or possibly one day own it all. There are many instances in our history where this has happened. You refuse to see the harm in your one principle when those that have power choose to abuse said power. I may despise your opinion but I still respect it. Can you say the same of mine? Hint: read your last post.

IMO once you began attacking other people and continued to hide your name you became irrelevant in a civil discussion not to mention hypocritical. If you really believe in Civility you would not hide your name. That is a fact.

I have posted many relevant facts to this issue. You keep posting one. I say okay to your fact but what about this. You say, "your beliefs are irrelevant, unfounded, whiny, incredulous" etc. I really do not know who you are but I am sure you don't understand how a democracy works. When The People are unified we HAVE power. That is a FACT. Your one fact is not enough to bail out your........(sorry my redneck upbringing and Southern roots have a tendency to get rather passionate)...lets just say your single minded opinion...
kayti elliott avatar
Beach Lover
#1767
FBB, I am smart enough to know that being INFORMED by someone who attacks another and hides behind a computer is not a person I will trust with facts or opinions. It is like you expect civil behavior by others but not yourself. I do not excuse or overlook the behavior by anyone who personally attacks another no matter what side they are on. I have given your side of the facts acknowledgement but you refuse to acknowledge that there are more facts going on here than exclusive private beaches. You need to believe that people are not worthy to find peace and happiness on all beaches but rather what is left after your group owns the best of the best or possibly one day own it all. There are many instances in our history where this has happened. You refuse to see the harm in your one principle when those that have power choose to abuse said power. I may despise your opinion but I still respect it. Can you say the same of mine? Hint: read your last post.

IMO once you began attacking other people and continued to hide your name you became irrelevant in a civil discussion not to mention hypocritical. If you really believe in Civility you would not hide your name. That is a fact.

I have posted many relevant facts to this issue. You keep posting one. I say okay to your fact but what about this. You say, "your beliefs are irrelevant, unfounded, whiny, incredulous" etc. I really do not know who you are but I am sure you don't understand how a democracy works. When The People are unified we HAVE power. That is a FACT. Your one fact is not enough to bail out your........(sorry my redneck upbringing and Southern roots have a tendency to get rather passionate)...lets just say your single minded opinion...
We have a democracy?
Beach Fanatic
#1768
Kathryn, not sure if you are serious but yes we still have a democracy where The People majority has power. If your point is that it does not seem like a democracy sometimes then I would agree but that is because this two party system has us divided and angry. This forum is for opinions not litigation. Some are trying to litigate this issue on social media. Even if we were all lawyers it would not influence the outcome of the lawsuit and we keep going round and round on the issues like we have nothing better to do. These power brokers representing BFO's are not from here and they have been hired to keep the political issues stirred up because they know that politics has us divided down the middle. Yes I believe they are getting paid to launch these attacks on public beach supporters. What they failed to understand is that We The People are getting hurt by this abuse of power (prey on our fear emotions) to get what they want which is another capital asset (our beaches). I believe that you already know this but just like playing the game of who has the better political ideals. My advice to anyone who keeps reading too much into this stuff is to just stop it and think about a future where only those in power will control our beaches. We The People are unified in not letting this happen. They underestimated US. That said I am always hopeful that single minded people will grow into an awareness of what LLH really means. If you or I owned an exclusive private beach would that really define us as a happy and fully fulfilled human being? I am not judging those that believe in private beaches but I am saying they have cut themselves short in their pursuit of LLH because humans are a social species.
kayti elliott avatar
Beach Lover
#1769
Come on anonymous Elliott, you’re smart enough to know that “our“ means collective humanity going back millennia.
OK, you're well connected, especially here. Why don't you reveal the true identities of all of the infidels who don't share your passion for CU? You're so sure I'm not Katheryn Elliott, why don't you reveal my "true" identity? You do have my IP address don't you?
Beach Fanatic
#1770
OK, you're well connected, especially here. Why don't you reveal the true identities of all of the infidels who don't share your passion for CU? You're so sure I'm not Katheryn Elliott, why don't you reveal my "true" identity? You do have my IP address don't you?
You've admitted you live in Freeport and don't own beachfront. It appears you have a personal problem with Dave. Why not talk to him in person if you have an issue? He's friendly and willing to talk to anyone.
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1771
Mputnal, #1768. The USA is a Republic; not a democracy as you state. Individual (not majority) rights are protected by the US Constitution; not the Declaration of Independence. Majority Rule and Minority Rights

Are property rights and ownership (be it a person, company, or Government) an individual right or The People’s or majorities’ right? If the majority of People, say in the City of Tallahassee, want or passed a law that anyone could walk across and recreationally do something like, rake pine straw, because they have for years, from any property (private or government) without the owners consent; would that be democratic (or legal)? Or use Bay front where native Americans used a millennia ago to recreationally camp for the day. That’s “sharing”; right? Why or why not? I don’t expect an answer from you or any CU believer. Have not yet.

This forum is for opinions - informed or not. No litigation here but someone needs to dispel the CU myths and state some facts backed up by references - so at least BPOs can have facts and make informed decisions if they want to protect their property rights or just know the facts.

What fact do you base your belief that I or any BPO (assuming you list me as a ‘power broker’ or that I’m lying about owning beachfront property) “not from here and they have been hired to keep the political issues stirred up”?

“Yes I believe they are getting paid to launch these attacks on public beach supporters.” What attacks? The attack of the facts? Your belief is based on what? If you don’t have any facts; that’s a baseless opinion and again not credible.

If I don’t own beachfront I sure know decades of beach history, facts and CU myths, for a hired-gun who is not from around here. Which county is your residence again? I don’t expect you will answer that either.

“We The People are getting hurt by this abuse of power...” What abuse of what power? How? Decline in Walton tourism (see bed tax) and real estate? If someone had purchased real estate even north of the Bay since 2015 they have done well in the free market capitalism we have in the USA. Why do you not use “property rights” in place of “power”?

“We The People are unified in not letting this [private property owners protecting their rights to quiet use and enjoyment if they so choose?] happen.” How? Another American or Florida Revolution by inciting People on social media? In court? CUnCourt.

“I am not judging those that believe in private beaches ...” Really? What have you been doing in all your (77?) days posting on this thread over and over? Just not credible like many of your and other vocal CU believer’s baseless opinions.

The only thing that has obstructed BPO’s individual unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is the Walton Commissioners’’ CU litigation and unfounded vocal CU misinformation posts here and on anti-social media.
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1772
James Bentwood, just asking, is James Bentwood your pseudonym on this forum or your real name? Do you reside in Walton? Does anyone have to own beachfront property to believe in private property rights and doubt the CU (factual?) information? Dave Rauschkolb is not "willing to talk to anyone". I can name at least one who is willing to meet in public on this thread but DR has ignored.
Beach Comber
#1773
This thread attracts Aholes and lawyers like flies on a dogpile.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1774
This thread attracts Aholes and lawyers like flies on a dogpile.
Thank goodness nobody was excluded from your masterful observation. Keep those intellectually stimulating posts coming!.....whowver you really are. Damn, I've succumbed to the true identity argument.
Beach Lover
#1775
Thank goodness nobody was excluded from your masterful observation. Keep those intellectually stimulating posts coming!.....whowver you really are. Damn, I've succumbed to the true identity argument.
Buzz Buzz
Beach Fanatic
#1776
FBB, I just answered all your questions and observations but it somehow got deleted. Maybe I will retype it when I am not so tired from a hard day of "work". Suffice it to say for now that this is a representative democracy where The People have power and being unified is a good thing as in The United States of America. Again I offer you a fish fry summit where we can discuss each of your concerns about my opinions and facts and I will listen to your...fact...again. I would look forward to explaining what an abuse of power is in terms of private beaches. Who knows if we might agree on a thing or two...neither should hold our breath though :)

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.

New posts