Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Beach Lover

Apr 25, '19 · 7:46 AM526,5022

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

Replies

2,312

Beach Fanatic

Oct 29, '19 · 5:20 PM#1852

Funny, I just saw our real estate agent’s name who received a commission on the sale of our condo on Facebook pushing customary use. Do you think I have a case against that agent for not revealing that the condo came with a high probability of customary use litigation even though the condo and common areas are legally deeded as private property to the MHWL at the time of purchase with no customary use burden on the title OR ANYWHERE ELSE for that matter?

Certainly if the agent believes the four cornerstones of customary, then the agent (who currently supports CU) knew full well at the time of the sale that part of my supposed conveyed full package of private property rights was lacking the right to exclude because of customary use (notorious, since time immemorial, etc.) However, the agent never revealed this. This non-disclosure, I believe, is a lot different than, say, not revealing a structural problem or faulty appliance, which they may or may not have known about.

I guess the agent could state the obvious...there wasn’t customary use at that time as the public didn’t walk hundreds of feet to use our property. But if true, there can’t be customary use today on our property for the very same reason.

The beachfront owner silliness at a new low. Thank you for the laugh! :floor:

Beach Fanatic

Oct 29, '19 · 9:26 PM#18531

Beach Fanatic

Oct 29, '19 · 9:48 PM#1854

Daily News Article

Judge's order could remove hundreds from Walton customary use case

Beach Fanatic

Oct 30, '19 · 10:46 AM#1855

“Those homeowners who were allowed to intervene, Green said, “waived any objections they might have had to the jurisdiction of the court over them” and therefore remain parties to the lawsuit.”

Well damn. Good for the others.

Beach Fanatic

Oct 30, '19 · 10:50 AM#1856

The beachfront owner silliness at a new low. Thank you for the laugh!

He says nervously.

Beach LoverAuthor

Oct 30, '19 · 11:36 AM#1857

The silence is deafening.....
(But a welcomed benefit)

Beach Fanatic

Oct 31, '19 · 5:59 AM#1858

The ruling by Judge Green indicates that there are issues with process not subject matter. Those two lawyers for the County probably need help as they are up against an arsenal of lawyers representing wealth and power. That said there is a way to bring all BFO's under Jurisdiction but it is now an uphill battle. Not over by a long shot but this ruling is telling the County to get it together fast. The playing field of two lawyers against dozens is not the best situation for us who believe that the beaches have been public since as long as it takes to establish use (ancient, time immemorial etc). The unfairness is just a fact but the County seems not to compensate with a larger legal team so if I were wealthy and powerful and an owner of beach front property I would use my power this way as well. In other words the process is part of the legal system of Justice and the County attorney's should know that. Okay that is the bad news.

The good news is the motion to dismiss over lack of subject matter was denied. Lack of Jurisdiction can be fixed by amendments. I suggest to the County to hire Attorney's who have been in this situation before. Out numbered, weighted down by process (that may be in favor of power) and slightly behind the 8 ball it is time to amp up your game. Their are experienced lawyers out there that have been in this situation before. It's time to lawyer up!

Beach LoverAuthor

Oct 31, '19 · 8:19 AM#1859

Houses of cards meet their inevitable demise when built solely on mistruths, class warfare, jealous greed, and emotional leverage. It’s inevitable.

What you are witnessing now is the echoing vacuum of content from the sources of these class warriors that have been exposed as consistently less than truthful about;
Public beach being stolen
Quiet titles having anything to do with this
Taxation of property
Affect of laws on private property
Governor Huckabee
BPO motives

Just look at the comments attached to the actual news article itself. You know, the one being promoted here and everywhere. The one IMHO is a direct falsehood, and proven to be so by any quick fact check.

As we witness this CU land grab die and fade away, we can get back to what makes this place great...
Our 30A Legacy

Edited Oct 31, '19 · 8:52 AM

Beach Lover

Oct 31, '19 · 10:35 AM#1860

I'm curious about exactly what those affidavits actually say and what all the people who submitted them are swearing to.

Beach Fanatic

Oct 31, '19 · 10:36 AM#1861

It is now very obvious to everyone what this is about. Public beach for every respectful citizen or Private beach for a few who who have entitled themselves and used their power to exclude the respectful public from the beach. The power brokers have done a poor job convincing even one or two people that this is about a falsehood and land grab. It is so much more organic that property rights, man made process and one just one individual. It is about who has the rights to enjoyment of this resource. Yes, it is obvious which side is tuned in to the truth of what it means to be connected. Connected to each other. Connected to the spirit of out natural earth. Connected to life that is bigger than the individual. The hypocrisy is off the charts. The justifications are off the charts. The political agenda is off the charts. I believe our founders would be very disappointed...

Beach Fanatic

Oct 31, '19 · 2:55 PM#1862

Again, the sounds of desperation when the "house of cards" starts to fall apart.

Edited Oct 31, '19 · 3:13 PM

Beach Fanatic

Oct 31, '19 · 3:16 PM#1863

I'm curious about exactly what those affidavits actually say and what all the people who submitted them are swearing to.

...especially on a parcel by parcel basis.

Beach Lover

Oct 31, '19 · 4:37 PM#1864

Mptnal, you have gone from “Okay I have read some of the contents of the hearing and I would say the county seems to be "sufficiently clear" in conclusion of it's determination of customary beach use by the public” to “ I speculate that the evidence should exist” to “let’s have a fish fry and be friends” and now your latest cry “time to lawyer up!”

What happened to the answering the base question of the lawsuit and scheduling the fish fry?

You are fighting for the right to go the beach! Great, you won before you started. You have full rights by the State of Florida to walk the ENTIRE 26 miles enjoying the shoreline, and the ability to swim, fish, build sandcastles, take family pictures, and of course enjoy the beautiful sun rises and sun sets. THE PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE THAT RIGHT.

You have the privilege of having unlimited people and unlimited beach equipment on Walton County Public Beaches. There are some county owned public beaches that may be land lock by gated communities which makes a long hike to haul beach equipment. Possibly you can get with Surf Riders to file a lawsuit against those gated subdivisions to get direct access to Walton County owned property to make it easier to haul unlimited beach equipment. The Surf Rider organization has had great success gaining access to beaches that are land locked, in particular in California. The FBFA founder and FBFA lawyer, own homes, and live in those gated communities that block ACCESS TO PUBLIC BEACH. Maybe they can help with the lawsuit.

Day Camping with unlimited people and unlimited beach equipment on private deed property against the will of the property owner is neither a right, nor privilege, nor legal. This is a independent decision each and every parcel owner makes for their unique deeded property boundaries. You can be an invited guest, or rent their property, or go the State Park, or to the Public beach if you want to day camp. Each decision by each different parcel owner is independent of each other property owner and each owner decides their own policy for their property. That is the American way.

So what information are you going to give this new lawyer on WHY it is reasonable to remove property rights from legally deeded private property owners which have NEVER been challenged before 2016, and WHO has shown going to every single parcel in the 26 mile beach from the mean high tide line to the dunes is without interruption (note: there are numerous cases which show this has been interrupted, such as decades old trespassing cases and the 2008 BCC Edgewater Court Order), and lastly WHEN did this issue become WITHOUT DISPUTE as specified in the County Lawsuit? Seems like your call to “Lawyer UP” along with estimated cost of $50,000,000 and 10 years in court proves this is highly disputed. Didn’t you just PROVE the lawsuit requirement of “without dispute” has not been met by the need to lawyer up?

I do think the longer this goes on, the less likely a BPO is willing to welcome people on their private deeded property.

Beach Lover

Oct 31, '19 · 4:39 PM#1865

...especially on a parcel by parcel basis.

I was asked by a dozen different people to go by the courthouse and sign one to help the CU "cause" but from what I was told, I didn't think I could sign a sworn statement to things that happened a long time ago. I know people who signed and submitted them who didn't even know the beaches down here existed until several years ago. I'd just like to see one.

Beach Fanatic

Oct 31, '19 · 6:05 PM#1866

I was asked by a dozen different people to go by the courthouse and sign one to help the CU "cause" but from what I was told, I didn't think I could sign a sworn statement to things that happened a long time ago. I know people who signed and submitted them who didn't even know the beaches down here existed until several years ago. I'd just like to see one.

They were every where for months, not just the court house. If you had been interested in the "cause" at any time before this thread you could have found them,(probably still can) As for signing about something "that happened a long time ago"...thats not how an affidavit works. You are signing about something you personally did/know about/saw. etc. It can be from 20 years ago or last week.

Beach Fanatic

Nov 1, '19 · 7:21 AM#1867

SCJ you must not be reading my posts which makes sense because your purpose here has no community value. Many moons ago I posted that Walton County needs to lawyer up to meet that demands of process and the shear numbers of lawyers that wealth and power will bring. There are two County Lawyers and dozens of wealth and power lawyers. So, my post is about common sense not a change of position.

I am still waiting on you for the fish fry. I hope recreational public use wins this lawsuit but even if we don't then I am not the type that takes my ball and goes home. I do not usually give up that easy. Your message is exclusion (disconnection from society). My message is inclusion (a connection to society). Your group attending a community fish fry with non-BFO's would be a good thing for you to connect to real people not just words on a keyboard.

You keep asking questions that I have answered many times. You just don't like the answers. That is why I came up with the idea of the fish fry in a debate format. Listen if you think you would lose the debate then I understand. But since my message is more about community and less about winning the millions of reasons for public beaches then I encouraged your group to attend a fish fry even without the debate. Just so that we both know we are real people who work and play and raise good respectful families. I don't see the respect coming from your side when it comes to people (society). Your group seems to despise people who go to the beach to laugh and swim and sunbathe and play volley ball and throw a frisbee etc etc. You like to call us "day campers" which is derogatory and inaccurate. You use terms like this to keep BFO's fired up and willing to spend their money on a lawsuit instead of making a compromise on exclusion. Beach density, vending and behavior would have been very easy to find solutions for. From your side it was never about protecting property rights and more about protecting what you see is a capital asset as your group take over the majority of the beach. Another reason for a fish fry for me is to communicate in person while looking at another human being. I am interested to find out if you have a shadow

Beach LoverAuthor

Nov 1, '19 · 10:39 AM#1868

I'm curious about exactly what those affidavits actually say and what all the people who submitted them are swearing to.

Interesting question. The content of those affidavits seems to feed right into the Judge’s line of questioning.

But even more interesting, the concept has been brought up on this thread before...

What would happen if an attorney, or several attorneys, for the defendant - were to depose in person, every author of every affidavit?

Those innocent people who were buying a beach towel, or meeting friends for a drink, or walking through a parking lot to go to the beach, or stopping to pick up groceries, or attending a local concert... They were enticed by a tablefull of smiling, team T-shirt wearing do-gooders, to sign a fun document that said they’ve always loved the beach. Who wouldn’t?

But when an officer of the court asks 10,000 of them, one by one, from across the eastern U.S., to come sit across a conference table in Walton County, with lawyers & a stenographer & tape recorder, to raise their right hand and speak the truth under penalty of purgery,
Will their story change?
Will they retract their statements?
Will their memory of using the beach for 20 years fade? Will they remember the address of each visit?
Will they know if they were on the 50% of Walton Co beach that was public?
Will they know if they were on the 50% of Walton Co beach that was private?
Will their revised affidavit be of any further use to the class warriors?
Will they think twice before again producing a legal document for litigation as if they were signing a neighborhood petition? Big difference... Oops?

Beach Lover

Nov 1, '19 · 11:31 AM#1869

I spoke to several who had signed and asked them if they were aware that they could be questioned by opposing counsel about their individual affidavit. The look of "unawareness" was obvious and a little comical.

Beach Fanatic

Nov 1, '19 · 12:56 PM#1870

Interesting question. The content of those affidavits seems to feed right into the Judge’s line of questioning.

But even more interesting, the concept has been brought up on this thread before...

What would happen if an attorney, or several attorneys, for the defendant - were to depose in person, every author of every affidavit?

Those innocent people who were buying a beach towel, or meeting friends for a drink, or walking through a parking lot to go to the beach, or stopping to pick up groceries, or attending a local concert... They were enticed by a tablefull of smiling, team T-shirt wearing do-gooders, to sign a fun document that said they’ve always loved the beach. Who wouldn’t?

But when an officer of the court asks 10,000 of them, one by one, from across the eastern U.S., to come sit across a conference table in Walton County, with lawyers & a stenographer & tape recorder, to raise their right hand and speak the truth under penalty of purgery,
Will their story change?
Will they retract their statements?
Will their memory of using the beach for 20 years fade? Will they remember the address of each visit?
Will they know if they were on the 50% of Walton Co beach that was public?
Will they know if they were on the 50% of Walton Co beach that was private?
Will their revised affidavit be of any further use to the class warriors?
Will they think twice before again producing a legal document for litigation as if they were signing a neighborhood petition? Big difference... Oops?

LOL.. you are making it sound like those of us who filled out, then signed, produced a valid photo ID, then raised our right hand and swore to the truth of what we had just done, didnt realize the ramifications and possible actions that could arise from it. Ive never had to do that for some "neighborhood petition". Will I come and sit at that table? You can bet the farm I will. And your stenographer better have done her finger exercises that morning because I have been using these beaches for a very long time and will give alot of information to her. I wont forget the photos of me and my family using these beaches either. Just curious.... were all of those 15k+ affidavits objected to within 10 days?

Beach Fanatic

Nov 1, '19 · 1:38 PM#1871

I spoke to several who had signed and asked them if they were aware that they could be questioned by opposing counsel about their individual affidavit. The look of "unawareness" was obvious and a little comical.

Can you say that every one of the 4600+ others that are included in the case are willing to come sit at that table too? Since the majority of those folks are only in it because their homeowners association told them they had to be.

Beach Lover

Nov 1, '19 · 4:22 PM#1872

The fact is that a lot of people signed a sworn statement and they may not know what they are swearing to. I always thought that evidence in a court of law dealt with facts. I know people who signed the statements and they have no idea what they signed, except they were told it was to help "affirm" customary use. Perhaps everyone who signed affidavits should be deposed and/or called as a witness. Are we a nation of laws or a nation of old English custom?

Beach Fanatic

Nov 1, '19 · 4:38 PM#1873

The fact is that a lot of people signed a sworn statement and they may not know what they are swearing to. I always thought that evidence in a court of law dealt with facts. I know people who signed the statements and they have no idea what they signed, except they were told it was to help "affirm" customary use. Perhaps everyone who signed affidavits should be deposed and/or called as a witness. Are we a nation of laws or a nation of old English custom?

Once again ....you are trying to make this out that people did not know what they were doing. If they didnt figure it out when they had to produce an ID and swear "under punishment of law" then they deserve to be deposed. If you know people that only signed "the statements" without respect for the law or the process then they might NOT have signed an actual affidavit so their "statements" wouldnt be worth the paper they are written on to the "cause".
EDIT: The FACT is alot of people knew EXACTLY what they were swearing to and are more than willing to be called as witnesses or deposed. But if I am not mistaken... a judge would be the one to determine if that is necessary..

Edited Nov 1, '19 · 4:48 PM

Beach Fanatic

Nov 2, '19 · 5:53 AM#1874

Reggie/Regina, you keep posting and I keep learning. I am learning how wealth and power abuses. I am learning how there are no limits of that abuse. I am learning how truly disconnected you are from society (people, community). I am learning that the only thing you connect with in life is power. You are willing to call people liars, cheats, losers etc. to justify this emptiness within you. Your last post has reached a new low as you must now feel closer to the only things that matter to you...power. Your abuse of that power is almost complete as you fill in that emptiness with false accusations about the good people who have given their time and effort and their purpose of being connected to the truth of how these beaches have been used in the past. I wonder if that made you all proud of yourself? You once called it blasphemy when I asked you to look into a mirror. You see when you Judge people that way it means that you have made yourself into a higher existence. Our founders were concerned with people like you who believe they are above others. The term for individuals who have become elitist from having too much wealth and power is and autocrat. I read this in the information that your cohort (fbb) gave me. You and your followers have given me lots of information but this last posts tells me everything I need to know to not trust you with anything especially the power to exclude people from the beach. You keep telling us that when your powers win this lawsuit everything will go back to normal and you will share the resource with people who follow your rules. Do you really think that anyone believes you? You and your followers are blatantly sending the message out to BFO's to not share the beach with anyone after first stating that the 30A legacy is all about BFO's sharing the beach. You offer nothing for this community...for this country...for this planet. Nothing but an abuse of power...

Beach LoverAuthor

Nov 2, '19 · 7:05 AM#1875

Ya

LOL.. you are making it sound like those of us who filled out, then signed, produced a valid photo ID, then raised our right hand and swore to the truth of what we had just done, didnt realize the ramifications and possible actions that could arise from it. Ive never had to do that for some "neighborhood petition". Will I come and sit at that table? You can bet the farm I will. And your stenographer better have done her finger exercises that morning because I have been using these beaches for a very long time and will give alot of information to her. I wont forget the photos of me and my family using these beaches either. Just curious.... were all of those 15k+ affidavits objected to within 10 days?

Jodi, 3 points here;

I’m not an attorney, but I’m a huge Matlock/Perry Mason fan...

No, not for a minute does anyone believe that everyone of the thousands of those filling out CU affidavits is/was clueless, quite the contrary. And in no way am I suggesting that you and some others weren’t aware of the gravity of the litigation process should that result. It’s quite obvious you are on point. AND you are passionate about our beaches. That puts us on the same side of this: Protecting our 30A Legacy.

My point, after witnessing the tactics and carnival atmosphere of the signing tables during peak tourist season, is that they undoubtedly drew in thousands of folks not fully aware of their personal commitment to potential court proceedings. Go online and read them, they are available as evidence. I think you’ll soon agree, many of the stories would change or the volumes might shrink, had a full disclaimer and explanation of deposition and witness requirements been fully comprehended and understood by each author, as you obviously do.

Next, The Judge does not decide what evidence attorneys decide to pursue. Since the affidavits have been submitted as evidence already by plaintiff, the defense counsel has the standing right and almost obligation to depose those submitters of court evidence, NOT the judge.

And finally, no, the defendants need not be anywhere near the depositions of plaintiff witnesses during the process. Many attorneys dissuade such attendance, depending on the client. It’s the attorneys, as licensed agents of the court, who facilitate, control, and speak, not the defendant.

My point was not meant to degrade or diminish you in any way. It was merely a mathematical equation. It appeared to me and others, AFTER REVIEWING THE DOCUMENTS, that the process and carnival atmosphere of the signing campaign, drove many, possibly thousands, of emotional responses to a case in which they have no credible input.

Then IF that possibility is true, the resulting depositions as a matter of normal litigation process, might prove to significantly diminish the perceived value of those particular and specific documents as evidence. Not yours, but those.

How do I know? Because besides loving Matlock and Perry Mason, (And John Grisham!), I’ve been forced to be across the table from deposing attorneys before. It’s definitely not all whimsical or fantasyland - like a fish fry...

Edited Nov 2, '19 · 7:11 AM

Beach Fanatic

Nov 2, '19 · 7:19 AM#1876

This is the most ridiculous comment. No one ever spoke of our beaches being private until a few years ago when this nonsense started. Growth will always come to any popular, special area. The loudest voices against CU come from beachfront owners who bought near a county beach access. Not from interior beachfront owners. You buy next to a cow pasture, get used to the cows. The beaches have always been shared and should be regardless of growth; anywhere, any beach and any community. Respect has and always is critical. There are laws that regulate behavior on our beaches and characterizing the beach behavior as all bad is a common tactic used by private property rights beach advocates. I recommended the Beach Ambassador program to help address the beachfront owners concerns. Most beachgoers are respectful regardless of the numbers.

I’m hosting a free breakfast this morning at Bud & Alley’s as I have for the past four years for all of the volunteer Beach ambassadors to applaud their efforts in helping to educate our visiting beachgoers on the dos and don’ts regarding behavior on our beaches. You see, the beach front owners started complaining about behavior and I proposed a great solution to work on that. But this issue isn’t about behavior it’s about claiming the beaches as private property. Yes, the judge will decide and then other judges will decide as well. And also, the Florida legislature will decide again at some point. The struggle for public beaches is just beginning and many Floridians and non-residents are committed to ensuring our beaches will finally be for all with no exclusionary privileges for anyone. Our beaches, our shared beaches as they always have been up until July 1, 2018.

Edited Nov 2, '19 · 7:28 AM