Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

ForF, you speak for yourself quite well. I absolutely understand you. The comprehension of your words are self-evident for those of us who as you say lack the human ability to comprehend what you are communicating. It is the nature of individuals with elite power to dismiss another opinion or fact. You are starting to fit in well with the one side I call power brokers. Your posts are very similar in content. Recite the Constitution, blame, justify and then sing kumbya. The lyrics to the song "power broker rap" is starting to come together nicely.

SCJ, The economics is not an issue relevant to the lawsuit. None the less it is relevant to the community. We both know why you could care less about the community.

FBB, it is quite funny that you hide your identity, type a bunch of inflammatory words and tag team with the other power brokers to devalue everyone who disagrees with you. Like I said, the hypocrisy coming from your side is off the charts.

All three of you represent yourselves which is very obvious. Again and again I get it. You are protecting "yourself" (good fortune, wealth, power). Once you capitalize the asset you can sit back and let the gravy roll in. Makes your life so much easier to not have to share stuff...

JodiFL, what are the CU uses and CU criteria to establish the public CU of privately owned beachfront property? Does CU include playing football? Throwing a Frisbee? Entertaining your own out of town guests? Is 33 years use of some private beach on Seagrove, Grayton, BMB, or Santa Rosa Beach, ancient or as long as the ancient English common law doctrine “memory of man runneth not to the contrary”?.......

JodiFL (JMC) all the Walton Plaintiff affidavits are available to the all 2,600+ Defendants and will likely become public record after the litigation. If BPO prevail seems like you have 15,000+ sworn trespassers of private property. Wonder what the statues of limitations are for private BPO to file civil trespass?....

I have an aversion to beating my head against the wall dealing with unmovable people who make faulty assumptions, so believe what you will.

SCJ, The economics is not an issue relevant to the lawsuit.

Mputnal, the reason the lawsuit was filed was all about the money and not “access to the beach”. The BCC ordinance for 2013 and prior years CONFIRMS private property Rights. Those rights have been recognized and confirmed in court for decades. The smoking gun was found and exposed in the 2016 BCC special meeting minutes. This is solely about Power Brokers and the chase for billions of development dollars for developers and businessmen. Guess we found who was holding the pair of pocket 10’s.

And as BBBV pointed out, the economy is not one of the 4 cornerstones of customary use lawsuit, the BCC is suing BPO's on the STATEMENT that taking away private property rights (right of excision) is ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute. And so far not one of the Plaintiffs or any other person, including you, has provided any answers to those claims. Dave and Dan's deposition should be very interesting and provide a lot more information. I don't think any other depositions will be needed.

More never ending Bravo Sierra

Mputnal. I FINALLY FOUND WHAT CHANGED IN 2016.

First, Fact or Fiction is totally correct. The 2013 Walton County Beach Ordinance Chapter 22 is as follows:

Sec. 22-52. - Customary use.

This chapter makes no finding of fact that the public either has or has not customarily used any particular piece of gulf front property beach.

(Ord. No. 2013-04, § 2, 1-22-13)

But something happened in 2016 for the BCC to change direction that they now claim that they (BCC) actually control Property Rights in Walton County (Right of Exclusion) instead of the Private Property Owners, whose rights had been recognized for GENERATIONS! The evidence is in the March 16, 2016 BCC Special Workshop. If you need a full copy, please ask Danny Glidewell.

“The following Board Members were present: Commissioner Sara Comander, Chairman; Commissioner Cecilia Jones, Vice-Chairman; Commissioner W. N. (Bill) Chapman; and Commissioner Cindy Meadows. Mr. Larry Jones, County Administrator, and Attorney Mark
Davis, County Attorney, and Attorney Sidney Noyes, Assistant County Attorney, were also present. Attorney David Theriaque was present on behalf of Walton County.”

“Attorney Theriaque presented the following information relating to the economic impacts of tourism: Tourism has a $2.9 billion direct economic impact annually to Walton County; 19,500 jobs are directly related to tourism; $202 million was spent on tourists' accommodations in June and July of 2015; south Walton County was the #1 Coastal Economy in Florida for tourism in June and July of2015; and 3.2 million tourists visit south Walton County every year. By not allowing the public/tourists on the beaches it would bring substantial economic harm to the county. “

“Mr. David Ravschkolb spoke about the economic impacts which are self-evident”

“Mr. Jimmy Kuhn, a member of the Emerald Coast Chapter of The Surfrider Foundation … offered three suggestions: 1) he urged the county to enforce obstructions in the Beach Ordinance; 2) step in and intervene to protect the public beach access use when threatened by beach front
property owners; and 3) urge the county to pass a Customary Use Ordinance for all 26 miles of the beach from the base of the dunes to the Gulf of Mexico. He asked to keep the beaches public either by acquisition, legislation, enforcement, or even litigation.” (looks like the BCC decided to start with litigation instead of acquisition, legislation, and enforcement).

“Mr. Bruce Anderson, Okaloosa County resident and local attorney, stated he has spent much time on the beaches. Mr. Anderson stated he has assisted homeowners and associations regarding this issue relating to the impacts on homeowners. He stated there is a failure of Sheriffs Office to enforce the trespass laws. He felt this Board is looking at taking property and overlooking the rights of landowners. His clients will pursue litigation.”

“Mr. Kent Safriet, Hopping Green & Sams, Tallahassee, stated he was present on behalf of multiple residents. Mr. Safriet felt Mr. Theriaque's information was presented as an advocate for the county and did not give both pros and cons to provide all of the necessary information. He
spoke regarding the magnitude of a lawsuit. Mr. Safriet recommended obtaining independent neutral advice in order to do the right thing for taxpayers.”

So looks what changed in 2016 is the BCC is chasing the development and $2.9 Billion impact of new tourists dollars and decided the easiest way was to try and take away property rights that have existed, and recognized by the BCC in previous ordinances, from the legally deeded property owner for exclusive use (right of exclusion) by the BCC. So this is not about allow locals access to the beach, but trying to make billions of new dollars for developers and businessmen. The power brokers are NOT the private property owners. The power brokers are the BCC (or those that might be paying the BCC) and developers and local businessmen out to make a quick buck at the exploitation and potential rapid demise of our unique and sensitive ecosystem. Dave said there would only a “few property owners” objecting to losing private property rights (right of exclusion) and recommended a lawsuit with “no compromise” and “no matter the cost”. If this happens, it won’t be long before beach bars, tattoo parlors, and t-shirt shops dominate 30A, because this is about exploitation and power brokers making money and not access to the beach or the deeded private property owners in Walton County.

Dave [Rauschkolb] and Dan's [Uhlfelder’s] deposition should be very interesting and provide a lot more information. I don't think any other depositions will be needed.

More never ending Bravo Sierra

Which part is Bravo Sierra?

I think it’s self evident. Dave is referring to his highly anticipated testimony under oath. Do you think Dave and Dan are going to coach each other as to their testimony? Should be interesting if not entertaining. However, they have both spouted the EXPOSED LIES AND MISTRUTHS for so long that rehearsals aren’t necessary....OH WAIT! They’ll be under oath. Without lies, mistruths and the non-relevant economic argument, they’ve got nothing.

BTW, can opposing counsel be deposed when he is affiliated with (helped create and nurture) Florida Beaches for All and filed as co-plaintiff?

First we have Perry Mason, then Matlock and now the Dave & Dan Comedy Hour.

“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.

Amended Court order !