Back to All About SoWal

Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Reggie Gaskins avatar
Beach Lover
526,501 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
Reggie Gaskins avatar
Beach LoverAuthor
#1927
#1912 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Mputnal, what Reggie is saying is Shiner Bock is a Texan beer, made in Texas, and to claim to “comprehend” the “dang goodness” of Texas Shiner Bock beer in a cafe in Lamont (where?), FL is like well; defining, understanding, and accepting the 7 criteria of ancient English common law doctrine of public customary use of private American property.

Or Glacier migrating white quartz sand distribution
Sea turtle dune nesting behavior
Dune lake outfalls
Ghost crab habitat
Sea oats environment requirements
Human impact on dune growth
Sand dune regeneration dynamics
Human impact on beach habitats
All by visiting 30A for a vacation week.

I think the only “class” implied is your class conspiracies.

“Come and Take It” Texas flag. 'Come and Take It': The history behind the famous Texas flag

“Naconas” are Texas made cowboy boots.

“Tubing the Lupe” is water tubing on the Texas Guadalupe River.

“Muy Grande” is a Texas deer hunt
A Deer Hunting Icon: The Muy Grande Big Buck Contest

Texas Lone Star beer road kill armadillo.

Swim in the Texas Balmorhea State Park world’s largest spring-fed swimming pool.
Balmorhea State Park — Texas Parks & Wildlife Department

or have toured the Spoetzel Brewery in Shiner, TX where Shiner Bock is brewed.
Shiner Website

Reggie just sayin you ain’t from Texas and can not comprehend the essence for Shiner Bock beer in a cafe in FL. Like you can not comprehend the Constitutional protections of American private property rights if you don't understand CU ancient history or law. Hope I got that about right Reggie.

FBB, see how simple and easy linear thought can be when you don’t twist, turn, distract, lie, mislead, inject, dramatize, etc...?

Well done!!! Except that we haven’t been able to buy Nacona Boots in the Lott Outlet since about 1994, but I knew he wouldn’t get that far.
Beach Fanatic
#1928
BmbVagrant, how in the world did you come up with that question about legal fees. I guess you are really in the twilight zone. It is the best place to be for those who "can't handle the truth" :)
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1929
So ignoring the ignorant, I reread the 2018 Florida Statues, “163.035 Establishment of recreational customary use.” It is a relatively simple read. And this jumps out as the core requirements:

The notice of intent must specifically identify the following:
1. The specific parcels of property, or the specific portions thereof, upon which a customary use affirmation is sought;
2. The detailed, specific, and individual use or uses of the parcels of property to which a customary use affirmation is sought; and
3. Each source of evidence that the governmental entity would rely upon to prove a recreational customary use has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute.

As filed, the county’s case is borderline frivolous at best, IMO. I predict the entire case will be thrown out the window. Unfortunately, the (un)constitutionality of customary use (motion already filed and joined by many attorneys), I believe, will not be the reason since a ruling like that would have the potential of turning upside down the beaches in Oregon for example.

But wouldn’t it be ironic if that did actually happen, especially if it reached the Federal Supreme Court and they agreed? I mean Dave and crew wanting customary use so bad down here that a possible legal outcome could then separate the public from the beaches in Oregon and other states?

Edited

Beach Fanatic
#1930
Reggie/Regina, I have read where linear thought is a huge disadvantage with large groups where there are multiple starting points, multiple points of perspective and generally only preferred in solving "simple" problems. It is definitely not the best argument for you to be a linear thinker where there are many hundreds if not thousands if not ten thousands of people who disagree with you on public recreational use on our Walton County beaches. Might better stick to the plan: blame, shame and get out of the game before we figure out your name. Maybe you have not noticed but with my non-linear creative thought process I am writing a musical tune. Stay tuned...
Beach Fanatic
#1931
BmbVagrant, guess who has authority to decide number three? Number one and two is process (yes the County has work to do). Number three is local government authority and the evidence for general recreational public use. Will Judge Green allow the evidence from the County regarding general recreational use? I don't think he has a choice but since I am not a lawyer I will gladly let Judge Green do his job. I suggest all us Perry Mason's do something better with our time but I do like the entertainment that you and yours provides :)
Beach Lover
#1932
I have read where linear thought is a huge disadvantage with large groups where there are multiple starting points,

But there is a single starting point, the 2016 BCC Special Meeting that tried to set in motion the change of historically Private Property Rights (right of exclusion) as recognized by previous Walton County Ordinances and Court Cases, and chase after billions of Power Broker dollars. Wonder who and how many have been paid off in the process...
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1933
Mputnal to be clear I did not speak for Reggie, it was clear from #1912 “I think you are trying to tell m[e] that you out class me or something of that nature.” that you did not understand the references or reasoning. I explained Reggie’s references and intent with examples of my own to help understand what Reggie said.

There is a difference between (1) speaking for someone and (2) explaining what they said to help understanding.

Like there is a difference between (1) the Declaration of Independence, that expresses the ideals on which the United States was founded and grievances against English royal rule without representation, and (2) the Constitution Bill of Rights, that defines individual citizens’ and states’ rights in relation to the Government.

Or the difference between (1) Commissioners’ police power to tax, regulate, or declare public use of private property without due process, and (2) US Constitutional individual property rights (you call with disdain a “power”) of quiet uninterrupted enjoyment or to choose to share their private property or not.

The difference between (1) beliefs, opinions, and misinformation and (2) verifiable facts and documents.

The difference between (1) Property rights factual credibility and (2) CU baseless incredibility.

See the difference between (1) speaking for someone and (2) explaining what was said?

Pompous, nice word.

Edited

Beach Fanatic
#1934
SCJ, what about that fossilized beach umbrella from the 1500's? Just kidding you. All the County has to do is produce evidence of general recreational use so there it is. Who from your group has more authority than local government? BTW, do you and FBB work for Reggie/Regina? It seems ya'll follow his/her post like a tick on a...lord forgive the image I just had :)
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1935
Aw crap. I can’t resist after so many of his posts. I told myself I wouldn’t do it. Yes I’m human. I apologize in advance. Here goes...

Since our favorite social worker seems to have such a hard....uh, let’s just say a certain sexual proclivity for Reggie, I guess he’s just dreaming about the possibility he’s a she. What other reason can cause such continued confusion with a poster’s name (i.e. “Reggie/Regina”)?

“Take a walk on the wild side...”
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1937
Could it be that the judge changed his mind regarding jurisdiction because items 1, 2 and 3 below were never identified as required?

The notice of intent must specifically identify the following:
1. The specific parcels of property, or the specific portions thereof, upon which a customary use affirmation is sought;
2. The detailed, specific, and individual use or uses of the parcels of property to which a customary use affirmation is sought; and
3. Each source of evidence that the governmental entity would rely upon to prove a recreational customary use has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute.

The county has tried to literally skate through over 1100 parcels of private property and treat them as one entity. I believe I told Smiling Joe here on SoWal over 10 years ago that customary use has to be determined on a parcel by parcel basis. Well, here we are. Just another inconvenient truth.

Edited

Beach Lover
#1938
SCJ, what about that fossilized beach umbrella from the 1500's? Just kidding you. All the County has to do is produce evidence of general recreational use so there it is.

Fossilized beach umbrella would prove a break or interrupted. Actually, there is NO provision that states a generalized statement of recreational use is sufficient at all. Can you please quote that source that doesn't exist.

The requirements are not general, but very specific:

The notice of intent must specifically identify the following:
1. The specific parcels of property, or the specific portions thereof, upon which a customary use affirmation is sought;
2. The detailed, specific, and individual use or uses of the parcels of property to which a customary use affirmation is sought; and
3. Each source of evidence that the governmental entity would rely upon to prove a recreational customary use has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1939
A layman’s observation....
Edgewater is going to give the county a severe spanking on Thursday. And the county will have rightfully deserved it (yet again by Suzanne Harris and her attorneys). And I believe there’s at least one other unrelated parcel in the same situation.

So, if these properties are eventually excluded from the lawsuit because the county reaffirmed their private beach ownership in an unrelated lawsuit with Edgewater (and they will get excluded), then in my very humble opinion:

SHOULDN’T ALL PARCELS BE EXCLUDED FOR THE VERY SAME REASON...i.e. the case thrown out because the county acknowledged private property with all rights thereof for at least Edgewater? Favoritism doesn’t look good in the eyes of justice.

Added: I can hear it now from the county, “Yes we reaffirmed full private property rights in the lawsuit settlement with Edgewater several years ago. We just wanted her off our backs. Surely you can understand we were under duress and really didn’t mean it.”

And without a doubt, Edgewater will be made whole regarding all their legal fees.

Edited

Beach Fanatic
#1940
FBB, oh my goodness it was a gesture of civility about the beer. You still don't comprehend what that means. You ain't explained nothing. You repeated the attack and continued the accusations. Nuff said on the beer. Nuff said on the difference between the law and intent of the law. Back to the lawsuit.

BmbVagrant, you don't have to apologize. All is fair in love and war :) BTW I may even agree with you about the specific parcels but I believe the County had to first establish the general public recreational use of the beach and I think they have evidence to do that. However the Judge may not accept a general use of the beach and does he have the power to deny county government authority to determine general use. This is way more complex than us Perry Masons on this forum. I am not sure this court will issue a ruling against the county authority to determine general recreational use but if he does it certainly will not be the end. Eventually a higher court will have to determine this issue and it will be much bigger in scope (not just Walton County). At issue is whether recreational beach users had specific areas defined as the beach or is the beach considered more general in nature. And did parcel owners allow the general recreational use or did they put up fences in order to use the beach for a specific purpose. You and yours are insinuating that people who believe the beach to be open to the public for recreational use lie on affidavits but you are flat wrong. All a person has to do is testify to the fact that there were no fences, no boundaries to prevent them from recreating on the general beach. The court has no evidence of public recreational beach boundaries. If so, where is it? Where are the pictures of fences?

There are some things on this planet there are just meant to be shared. I know it is a difficult concept for some people. No judgment. But we simply can not take it with us on our hereafter journey so why not be happy with sharing the beach. Yes, density and vending need to be addressed but don't make this into a huge conflict between bfo's and non-bfo's. BFO's it is never too late to work this out reasonably and fairly without all the fire works. Both sides should recognize the advantage of compromise over extreme positions. Regardless of what these power brokers keep telling you it would be better for all of us to compromise. We all are rewarded in compromise not punished as they keep telling you. Never too late...
kayti elliott avatar
Beach Lover
#1941
...and also, my children asked me not to post while they have been working in Seaside, high school/ college breaks because of the obvious ram rod of one sidedness. So anyone all horny for the truth from a BFO who uses her real name, let’s go...and be sweet
Surfer Dude, the award winning champion of "the people" and his disciples don't see it as one sided. They're right and all others are wrong.

Edited

Beach Fanatic
#1942
Rachael, please don't take my questions as disrespectful because that is not my intent but I am wondering about the "truth" relevant to beach use. On your parcel do you put up fence or other means of delineating a private specific use? If not then how would you expect a beach user to interpret your private specific use? Is so can you provide pictures or would you sign an affidavit? I only ask this question of you because it is not fair to judge those that signed affidavits as to general public recreational use if there were no fence to establish specific private use. It is important to know why you feel that your parcel was used for private use and never had a public recreational use. Tax documents and deeds do not establish use so you will need another way to establish a specific private use. Just my opinion of course and I am not an attorney. I base my opinions on common sense and that is the reason I am being attacked by the power brokers. I have been called all sorts of things only because I disagree or require more information. I can handle the attacks but it is just not civil and I hope we as a community do not stop from trying to be civil. That goes for both sides.
Bob Hudson avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1943
Judges Ordee #3
Beach Lover
#1944
I am wondering about the "truth" relevant to beach use.

“the truth relevant to beach use” since the Judge’s order is for specific portions of beach, let’s use Edgewater as a reference for this discussion.

Mputnal, the BCC is suing Edgewater to remove private property rights (specifically the right to exclude the general public from their private property). Edgewater does not have a fence on the beach, but contends it is private property, and NOT general public recreational use property.

Do you think the County has provided evidence that proves the BCC assertion in the lawsuit that Edgewater’s property has been recreational used by the public, anciently, reasonably, without interruption, and has been free from dispute?

Edited

Beach Fanatic
#1945
Scj, the truth is I do not know the answer. But if you are asking my opinion then I do believe that the County has the authority to determine general public recreational use. The agreements with Edgewater could be non-binding but I am not a lawyer. If Edgewater has established a specific private use then the beach ball is in their court so to speak. I just do not see how you can establish a specific private use without some type of physical boundary. For example if a public beach user throws a frisbee over on Edgewater and then is allowed to go retrieve it that would be enough for recreational public use IMO. Of course Judge Green will rule and then we go from there. This will be a long complex ordeal and it would have been much better for both sides to compromise. I understand why you see it differently.
Beach Lover
#1946
Scj, the truth is I do not know the answer.

mputnal, thank you very much for your reply. I will address 2 of your items now and the others later. First, Walton County BCC has ZERO authority to establish general public customary use. It MUST be done with a judicial process and must be shown that the specific customary use has been used on a specific property anciently, reasonably, without interruption, and without dispute. Second, someone retrieving a frisbee from a yard, even if done numerous times, would not satisfy the judicial process of ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute. It certainly would not permit the Walton County Ultimate Frisbee Team to have a tournament on that private property with unlimited players and unlimited frisbees against the will of the property owner.
Beach Fanatic
#1947
Scj, local county government does have authority to establish general public recreational use with due process of the court. That is the purpose of the lawsuit. BFO's have been encouraged by lawyers and those who represent elite individual power to exclude people from the beach and that is the reason for the conflicting declarations of beach use. The court must determine what evidence exists to establish use. You and yours do not have authority to reject said evidence no matter how many bombastic posts you scream at us. I say scream because many of the posts are bold and capitalized. Disagree about the frisbee example. It proves that there are no boundaries so whether a frisbee, a walk, a beach umbrella etc. there is no barriers that would define private use. It is the nature of the beach to not have boundaries. I am surprised that anyone would spend money on a lawsuit to dispute general public recreational use. When families come to the beach to enjoy it's beauty which happens to be available to you every day how will it make you feel good about anything to run out there and scream and holler at them to get off my sand. You are so caught up in the politics that you can't see the humanity of it all.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1948
You and yours are insinuating that people who believe the beach to be open to the public for recreational use lie on affidavits but you are flat wrong.
Sorry, never said any such thing. What was simply said:
@kayti elliott : "I'm curious about exactly what those affidavits actually say and what all the people who submitted them are swearing to."
@BlueMtnBeachVagrant : "...especially on a parcel by parcel basis."

And in case you missed this point, in the end, in my educated humble opinion, the case if it goes all the way to fruition) will be decided on a parcel by parcel basis. And affidavits that do not factually establish absolute location are meaningless.

You're a little loosey goosey with accusations.
Beach Fanatic
#1949
BmbVagrant, apparently you have not read the post coming from your group who are attacking the people who signed affidavits as to the general public recreational beach use that has been part of these beaches forever. There are no "specific" parcels on a beach. If you tried to make a parcel specific to private use mother nature would remove it. There is a reason the way things are general in nature and not specific. There are man made laws which try to be specific but in the case of a natural resource where there are no boundaries natural laws are far superior. I know it is a lot for your group to take in but man does not own everything on this planet like the beach. There is no power greater than mother nature.

All a court can do is apply the laws of man to the laws of this natural resource. There is no such law that states that Walton County does not have authority to apply a general public recreational use. Laws and the intent of laws are sometimes conflicting. That is what we have here and the reason why this lower court will probably not be able to decide this issue. Since there are NO physical barriers on the beach such as a fence the beach resource is more general in nature. The laws says due process must be specific but yet the law does not require Walton County to be specific. Man is conflicting so go figure. Nature is not conflicted so go try to put up that fence to make the beach have specific private use. I would not want to be Judge Green or anyone trying to figure out this mess. Of course you and yours are more than excited (Rachael used the best word) to exert your power over nature and the general public. Even if Judge Green rules that beaches are specific and private it will just be the beginning of a long long climb toward truth and justice. A lot of money spent so that wealth and power can have dominion over yet another resource. Sleep well...
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#19502
Judges Order #3
HERE WE GO AGAIN!
Innocent question for those journalists in the know: When Tom McLaughlin writes an article and the Walton Sun publishes it, who has editorial control over the associated "File Photos" that are inserted within the ONLINE article itself? The print version does not have this absurd photo. I just can't believe I'm seeing the same old lie, mistruth, propaganda, misunderstading (call it what you will) about the multiple quiet titles in Old Blue Mountain Beach subdivision in the exact same form in this article as was in the other ONLINE article regarding the "2nd" judge's order YET AGAIN! And the point again being that the reddish shaded area directly behind the home labeled "Public beach" WAS NEVER EVER PUBLIC BEACH. And the proponents of this have been called out and corrected over and over. That's when it becomes an intentional lie, not an honest mistake. The Walton Sun should feel complete and utter shame for this, apologize and issue an immediate retraction. And I won't dignify the "No additional taxes are levied for the additional piece of land...." nonsense.

Could the image below just simply be politically motivated to make Huckabee look bad at all costs including the newspaper's reputation? Regardless, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I'm shining another light on the LIE. And I'll try to expose the LIE each time the Walton Sun publishes such information.

Below is a screen shot of that part of the 2nd online article with the same image:
2019-11-06 Shrinking Public Beach 2nd order.jpg

2019-11-06 Shrinking Public Beach.jpg

Edited

FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1951
NW FL Daily Fake News photo looks exactly like the CU images provocateur Chase G. produced that FBFA used in Feb 2019 and FBFA took at face value because that was what FBFA believes to be factual. Can Tom Mc(Laugh)lin deny Chase G. did not produce this intentionally false image. The Walton PA given credit did not.
#7 A shrinking public beach in South Walton

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.

New posts