Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Thank you Jodi, you are correct. In review...
Pro property rights and long time 30A residents predict complete destruction of 30A lifestyle because of the CU noise and campaign. Either side winning ruins our peace.
We have submitted facts on Quiet Title, Current law, Private beach history, Taxation of beach property, and examples of deliberate sensationalism initiated by the CU leaders. We have provided evidence of of false reporting and violent advocacy by CU leadership members. And yet, These objective facts have been met with only emotion, diversion, opinion, and CU fake talking points. So, Jodi, in answering your request for discussion, Do you believe Quiet Titles to be a problem or cause of any beach privatization? Simple question.

I believe that Quiet title has been used by some, not all, in a nefarious way in order to claim title to property they are not entitled to and to keep others from doing what their families have been doing for generations....enjoying the beach without fear of a militarized presence (police,sheriffs,armed security guards) showing up to remove them. When my children were young and we spent every available minute at the beach the only thing they had to worry about was jellyfish stings and dog flies. They respected peoples private property, they knew not to go on any ones walkover or to even think about trampling the dunes. But for the most part they just enjoyed playing in the soft sand that wasnt hot.

To quote last month's comment by you,

"Nice try TROLL. Go back to FACEBOOK."

Exactly what a NAZI would say.

I believe that Quiet title has been used by some, not all, in a nefarious way in order to claim title to property they are not entitled to ...

jodiFL, many understand what you and non-beachfront owners believe but why do you believe it? What information do you base your conclusion? Just because we have done that way for years is not a valid legal criteria. The multiple custom criteria does not include the affect on the local economy.

Why do you think quiet title is a nefarious (defined as wicked, evil, or criminal) way in order to claim title to property they are not entitled to?

I think your first premise is that the property before quiet title was public property to start with. Patently false. Do you know for a fact it was public property before the judicial quiet title action? Lets take Blue Mountain Beach where CUers decry a celebrity property quiet title. I think because it’s easy and to get the most publicity for their misinformation.

Have you or Dave Rauschkolb, or attorney Daniel Uhlfelder seen the 1948 BMB Subdivision No. 1 plat? It’s public record. Quiet title is a court proceeding heard by a judge. Like CUnCourt Judge Green. You don’t just pay $600 like Dave Rauschkolb has claimed and you have a new title. Do you know who the judge was for the BMB quiet title action? One guess. Have you seen the owner’s quiet title court documents and evidence?

The BMB developer platted his private property and included “BEACH” seaward of individual parcels on the plat. Not Public BEACH. Not a dedication as public BEACH. The short version as I understand; the court determined that the developer's private BWB Subdivision No. 1 BEACH property is included in the landward property owner’s title. So the quiet title was from the private development owner to the private property parcel. NEVER was the BEACH public. Some BMB Subdivision No 1 owners have quieted their title and others have not. It is not automatic. The parcels that do not extend to the MHWL are is still BMB Subdivision No 1 private property.

If you agree that the BMB BEACH has always been private property would you agree that the private property owners have the right to exclusive enjoyment of their property unless FIRST a court determines that public customary use of private property is Constitutional and meets the multiple ancient English (not American) common law custom criteria? Can you explain the legal definition of ancient common law custom? What about the other criteria? If even one criterion is not proven; customary use of private property fails.

There are 26 miles of Walton beaches. About 50% or 13 miles or 68,640 feet and all 26 miles of beach foreshore seaward of the MHWL is available to the public (and BCC authorized vendors) Are you saying you can’t find a public beach or you just want the covenant private beaches the property owners have shared with you and the public over the decades?

If you think quiet title is nefarious and Walton BCC had legal grounds to stop or reverse quiet title, don’t you think Walton BCC would?

Thanks for sharing your belief but can you explain what justifies your belief? What is your belief based on? Facts? Law? Because Dave Rauschkolb, or Daniel Uhlfelder said so?

Interesting Dave Rauschkolb, attorney Daniel Uhlfelder or anyone have not disputed my information of the Vizcaya private beachfront and two pedestrian easements. Anyone call Brian Kellenberger?
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy Vizcaya private property Plat
I’m not an attorney but I take the time to study the law and the facts...maybe I’m wrong and I'll learn something along the way. Facts not unsupported opinions please.

@FloridaBeachBum ..can you explain to me why anyone would need to sue for quiet title in the first place if your deed clearly shows what you own? Is the title not clear to start with? Did the title company not do their job? I was required to get title insurance etc. when I bought my property. Are there any kind of liens on the property they are trying not to pay? There are alot of reasons to sue for quiet title...and they all come down to people trying to get something without due process.. (i.e. not paying liens, possible other owners, others with interest in said property).

@FloridaBeachBum ..can you explain to me why anyone would need to sue for quiet title in the first place if your deed clearly shows what you own? Is the title not clear to start with? Did the title company not do their job? I was required to get title insurance etc. when I bought my property. Are there any kind of liens on the property they are trying not to pay? There are alot of reasons to sue for quiet title...and they all come down to people trying to get something without due process.. (i.e. not paying liens, possible other owners, others with interest in said property).

JodiFL, your question implies you have not read or understand the plat or legal documents I pointed out. That is the point of quiet title litigation! The title/deed is NOT clear. The judge quiets and clears the title to the private property owner by the preponderance of the EVIDENCE. Quiet title litigation (not a $400 form you pay for) has been between the two private property owners. BMB developer and the parcel owners. NOT the Walton BCC or public and the private property owner. Usually because an old plat was unclear. Not sure what a lien has to do with the title. The litigation IS the DUE PROCESS and a JUDGE decides. Do you still want to guess who the celebrity BMB Subdivision No. 1 quiet title judge was?

A title search from the US land patent to the plat could show the public has an interest in private property. But don’t you think if there were Walton BCC or somebody would have done that by now? Why risk MILLIONS of Walton tax payer money on an lengthy litigation based on an ancient English common law doctrine of custom? Educate yourself on the old English doctrine of custom. Educate yourself on Tona Rama. Don't take my or Dave Rauschkolb's or Daniel Uhlfelder's word for it. I'd debate Uhlfelder online any day on the doctrine of customary use.

What do you want to believe? Legal real-property documents or a FBFA baseless made up PowerPoint slide? Please at least answer this question.
Do you blindly believe Dave Rauschkolb or do you do your own research of the law and facts?

I don’t expect you to change your belief based on what anyone says here. Do your own homework. It's hard work and takes time. It’s easy to want what you want without educating ones self when you have no real-property skin in the game and you’re not spending your own money to defend your property rights against a Walton BCC with unlimited tax payer money. Beachfront owners do not have that luxury and we are tired of the lies and misinformation repeated over and over again as if they are fact. There are over 4,500 beachfront owners out there that are not as familiar with the facts and only hear the intentional misinformation from the press, Florida Beaches for All and CU leaders like Dave Rauschkolb. CUnCourt. Florida Coastal Property Rights

This thread is representative of the effects of a two party political system doused with human greed and disrespect. Both sides are valid. Both sides are destroying a civil society over principle. Both sides are destroying the 30A brand. It is both sad and predictable. When we humans lose our will to compromise this is what happens and the consequences will divide people and hurt people. It is obvious that one side uses shame and disrespect along with Ancient English Law as a tactic and the other side uses power and influence to continue an unjust privilege. I really don't like using the word privilege because it has become a slogan of civil rights and even though it is true I believe it to me taken out of context almost as much as it is used appropriately.

I do believe in property rights and I know that these property owners are tired of being shamed and disrespected for wanting control of the land that they bought and paid for. I understand the problems with all that but aren't you missing the bigger picture? You have to admit that it is easy to justify our good fortune but hard to justify how our economic system is rigged in your favor. Go ahead and stick with the principle and others will resent. I wish sharing and generosity was a driving human will but apparently you feel justified to defend your property rights. I do understand but feel very sad for you because you are missing something.

I do believe in Customary Use and I understand the benefits to a just society but do you have to shame and disrespect everyone that disagrees with you? I understand the resentment and it is justified but we need to do be more civil. The tactics that you are using hurt people and it is just plain wrong. There is no reason for it because I want to believe that there was a civil solution to the problems. Now you have forced property owners to defend their property ownership. Many of you hide behind false names and throw out insults at a level that is damaging to society. I think you are also missing the bigger picture.

I feel like property owners will not attack me personally for my beliefs but Customary Use supporters will ridicule, diminish and shame for having any opinion different than theirs. I consider myself a progressive but why do you think people like me will support conservative values? Until the liberal side understands this they will keep losing...

So you are admitting that there is a clouded title? Why would anyone buy something (property,car or whatever) that doesnt have a clear insurable title to it? Not sure what a lien has to do with it? If a property has any kind of lien on it (tax,construction,mortgage) it is a "clouded title". As for the "preponderance of the EVIDENCE'...what about the others that havent been properly notified about the "judgement" and havent had a chance to respond? (BFOs know all about that little issue). Do you think that posting something in The Defuniak Herald is going to a proper way to notify any people that may have interest in property their grandparents left them 50 years ago that live in LA,Bham,etc? What about a mortgage company in Louisiana that didnt get paid in the foreclosure fiasco several years ago?

5 County Commissioners in Walton County voted 5 to zero to affirm Customary Use as an ordinance. 5 County Commissioners voted 5 to zero to proceed with the process set forth in HB 631. 14,000 people signed affidavits affirming they have customarily used our beaches dispite claims private beachfront owners dispute that use. It's in the courts and we will see the outcome. I am confident those who have used the beaches as they always have will have their customary use affirmed regardless of private ownership. It's pretty simple. We will tell anyone willing to listen what we believe. We all have a right to continue using our beaches as we always have. The opposing view disagrees. They say the beaches have always been private. It's a matter of opinion. Sorry if you folks feel overwhelmed with sentiment towards customary use; more people just believe what we believe; that will always be the case. I'm sorry you feel outnumbered on this subject; the truth is you will always be outnumbered; just wait until this issue enters the national dialog. We are standing up for our beliefs and you, yours.

There will always be bad actors, out of control with personal attacks. We don't condone that, nor can we control that as people say and do things on impulse without thinking; plenty of examples of Private Beachfront owners treating beachgoers with disrespect. We, Florida Beaches For All, do not personally attack people and have treated those with private property on the beaches with respect. We will defend ourselves when attacked though. I am sure those folks at Florida Coastal Property Rights don't condone bad actors on the other side either.

You have all heard me on the record many times in the public realm in many BCC/County meetings vocalize that we should treat each other with respect. When we participated in the Stand your Sand events I asked participants to conduct themselves with respect and they did with no incidents. I have been called all sorts of names and lists of Customary use advocates have been published as though they are criminals on the Watchdog Blog (recently removed). Attempts to intimidate any and all Customary Use advocates that number in the tens of thousands have and will fail. Attempts to silence hard working Realtors on their opinions supporting Customary Use have and will fail. Attempts to call us all liars who just need to accept private beaches will fail. It's pretty clear we are all in this for the long run. I have had, for years civil discussions with opposing opinions; many of whom are my friends. We just disagree with you Reggie Gaskins or whoever you are with your fake name and all you others who don't stand out of the shadows as yourselves.

This utterly silly attempt at trying to paint CU supporters as ruining the legacy of 30A is truly ridiculous and yet another desperate tactic to silence the voices of ordinary beachgoers who have used the beaches for generations. The actions of a handful of private beachfront owners, political operatives, politicians and past politicians and lawyers going all the way back to the stop beach nourishment movement are responsible for any legacy damage that has and may occur. Our beaches have and aways have defined our 30A legacy and the actions of the few have damaged that legacy. It's about OUR beaches and we are going to work on many tracks regardless of intimidation, shaming or whatever may come to affirm our rights to continue using our beaches. A Judge in Walton County will decide, then many others will decide in other courts. Or, perhaps the people of Florida will decide. One way or the other this goes far beyond any of us. We hope to restore our Walton County beaches to their natural balance; shared, Customary Use. That's our aim and it's our opinion, that we have always had a right to those beaches and nothing and no one is going to stop us from using whatever legal means to that end.

This thread is representative of the effects of a two party political system doused with human greed and disrespect. Both sides are valid. Both sides are destroying a civil society over principle. Both sides are destroying the 30A brand. It is both sad and predictable. When we humans lose our will to compromise this is what happens and the consequences will divide people and hurt people. It is obvious that one side uses shame and disrespect along with Ancient English Law as a tactic and the other side uses power and influence to continue an unjust privilege. I really don't like using the word privilege because it has become a slogan of civil rights and even though it is true I believe it to me taken out of context almost as much as it is used appropriately.

I do believe in property rights and I know that these property owners are tired of being shamed and disrespected for wanting control of the land that they bought and paid for. I understand the problems with all that but aren't you missing the bigger picture? You have to admit that it is easy to justify our good fortune but hard to justify how our economic system is rigged in your favor. Go ahead and stick with the principle and others will resent. I wish sharing and generosity was a driving human will but apparently you feel justified to defend your property rights. I do understand but feel very sad for you because you are missing something.

I do believe in Customary Use and I understand the benefits to a just society but do you have to shame and disrespect everyone that disagrees with you? I understand the resentment and it is justified but we need to do be more civil. The tactics that you are using hurt people and it is just plain wrong. There is no reason for it because I want to believe that there was a civil solution to the problems. Now you have forced property owners to defend their property ownership. Many of you hide behind false names and throw out insults at a level that is damaging to society. I think you are also missing the bigger picture.

I feel like property owners will not attack me personally for my beliefs but Customary Use supporters will ridicule, diminish and shame for having any opinion different than theirs. I consider myself a progressive but why do you think people like me will support conservative values? Until the liberal side understands this they will keep losing...

Thanks for your prospective. Your premise seems to be beachfront property owners are rich selfish and undeserving of their labor or success with power and influence to contradict the law. I do not mind sharing our beachfront but that is my choice; not the BCC or Dave Rauschkolb's "Your sand is my sand" silly ditty.
Our family bought beachfront here many decades ago for hundreds of thousands - not millions of dollars when 30A was an unknown paradise. I have a day job. Our family is not unique. We’ve paid much more in property taxes over the years than we paid for the property. Our good fortune is because we worked hard and were able to purchase beachfront at market value that we pay taxes on for that privilege. Nobody gave us anything and we shared our beach over the decades.
The Walton BCC is trying to take our Constitutional rights (Walton BCC have the burden of proof) and 650+ of the 1192 beachfront parcel owners have the will and privilege to able to defend our rights with our own hard earned money. That makes me and I’m guessing many of the 4,500 other beachfront owners angry. This about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness embodied in the Constitution that protects every individual private property owner. If you want to point fingers point at the inept Walton political leaders now and over the decades; not the beachfront owners.

5 County Commissioners in Walton County voted 5 to zero to affirm Customary Use as an ordinance. 5 County Commissioners voted 5 to zero to proceed with the process set forth in HB 631. 14,000 people signed affidavits affirming they have customarily used our beaches dispite claims private beachfront owners dispute that use. It's in the courts and we will see the outcome.

Dave, more rhetoric? "silence the voices of ordinary beachgoers"? We want you to tell us on what basis do you support customary use of private property? So far it's been because customary use of private property just has been. Ancient is only one of many criteria of custom that the preponderance of evidence has to prove. You inform and repeat your rhetoric and polls and we'll present property rights with the verifiable facts.

Politicians can not declare/affirm customary use of private property. That's why Florida Statue 163.035 was passed. I'll see your 5 Walton Commissioners and raise with a 2018 state legislature super majority including local FL Rep Brad Drake invalidating any county's customary use ordinance (that had not been to court FIRST). Polls have no legal meaning; unless you are a politician. A million affidavits will not mean anything unless the judge finds that any of them comply with the rules of evidence. Attorney Daniel Ulhfelder should be able to tell you that. There is NO right to use private property owners have had since 1776 and today without consent. Even BCC declared customary-use uses is very limited. Nine (I think) activities that shall be at least ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute. Ancient English common law custom has more than four criteria. Can you or Daniel Ulhfelder explain these criteria for us please? CUnCourt.

I'm not a beachfront owner or someone who really has a dog in the hunt, but I'm ready for this matter to be settled by the courts. After reading most of the arguments from both sides, it seems to be a question of whether English common law trumps established laws. I kind of thought the Revolutionary War did away with the ancient laws of England.

So you are admitting that there is a clouded title? Why would anyone buy something (property,car or whatever) that doesnt have a clear insurable title to it? Not sure what a lien has to do with it? If a property has any kind of lien on it (tax,construction,mortgage) it is a "clouded title". As for the "preponderance of the EVIDENCE'...what about the others that havent been properly notified about the "judgement" and havent had a chance to respond? (BFOs know all about that little issue). Do you think that posting something in The Defuniak Herald is going to a proper way to notify any people that may have interest in property their grandparents left them 50 years ago that live in LA,Bham,etc? What about a mortgage company in Louisiana that didnt get paid in the foreclosure fiasco several years ago?

No. Admitting nothing. You are confusing clear title with a clouded title IMO. In the Walton quiet title litigation between private property owners there was NO encumbrance that might invalidate or impair or cloud the parcel owner's title.

I'm not a beachfront owner or someone who really has a dog in the hunt, but I'm ready for this matter to be settled by the courts. After reading most of the arguments from both sides, it seems to be a question of whether English common law trumps established laws. I kind of thought the Revolutionary War did away with the ancient laws of England.

Not all common law but laws that contradict the Constitution of the United States like the ancient English common law of custom. The motion that customary use contradicts the Constitution (5th and 14th amendments) is in front of Judge Green now. Thanks.

No. Admitting nothing. In the Walton quiet title litigation between private property owners there was NO encumbrance that might invalidate or impair or cloud the parcel owner's title.

Are you sure this is the case for ALL quiet title cases in Walton County or just the one in BMB?

5 County Commissioners in Walton County voted 5 to zero to affirm Customary Use as an ordinance. 5 County Commissioners voted 5 to zero to proceed with the process set forth in HB 631. 14,000 people signed affidavits affirming they have customarily used our beaches dispite claims private beachfront owners dispute that use. It's in the courts and we will see the outcome. I am confident those who have used the beaches as they always have will have their customary use affirmed regardless of private ownership. It's pretty simple. We will tell anyone willing to listen what we believe. We all have a right to continue using our beaches as we always have. The opposing view disagrees. They say the beaches have always been private. It's a matter of opinion. Sorry if you folks feel overwhelmed with sentiment towards customary use; more people just believe what we believe; that will always be the case. I'm sorry you feel outnumbered on this subject; the truth is you will always be outnumbered; just wait until this issue enters the national dialog. We are standing up for our beliefs and you, yours.

There will always be bad actors, out of control with personal attacks. We don't condone that, nor can we control that as people say and do things on impulse without thinking; plenty of examples of Private Beachfront owners treating beachgoers with disrespect. We, Florida Beaches For All, do not personally attack people and have treated those with private property on the beaches with respect. We will defend ourselves when attacked though. I am sure those folks at Florida Coastal Property Rights don't condone bad actors on the other side either.

You have all heard me on the record many times in the public realm in many BCC/County meetings vocalize that we should treat each other with respect. When we participated in the Stand your Sand events I asked participants to conduct themselves with respect and they did with no incidents. I have been called all sorts of names and lists of Customary use advocates have been published as though they are criminals on the Watchdog Blog (recently removed). Attempts to intimidate any and all Customary Use advocates that number in the tens of thousands have and will fail. Attempts to silence hard working Realtors on their opinions supporting Customary Use have and will fail. Attempts to call us all liars who just need to accept private beaches will fail. It's pretty clear we are all in this for the long run. I have had, for years civil discussions with opposing opinions; many of whom are my friends. We just disagree with you Reggie Gaskins or whoever you are with your fake name and all you others who don't stand out of the shadows as yourselves.

This utterly silly attempt at trying to paint CU supporters as ruining the legacy of 30A is truly ridiculous and yet another desperate tactic to silence the voices of ordinary beachgoers who have used the beaches for generations. The actions of a handful of private beachfront owners, political operatives, politicians and past politicians and lawyers going all the way back to the stop beach nourishment movement are responsible for any legacy damage that has and may occur. Our beaches have and aways have defined our 30A legacy and the actions of the few have damaged that legacy. It's about OUR beaches and we are going to work on many tracks regardless of intimidation, shaming or whatever may come to affirm our rights to continue using our beaches. A Judge in Walton County will decide, then many others will decide in other courts. Or, perhaps the people of Florida will decide. One way or the other this goes far beyond any of us. We hope to restore our Walton County beaches to their natural balance; shared, Customary Use. That's our aim and it's our opinion, that we have always had a right to those beaches and nothing and no one is going to stop us from using whatever legal means to that end.

"We, Florida Beaches For All, do not personally attack people and have treated those with private property on the beaches with respect." REALLY? Uh, what about all of the doxxing that Daniel Uhlfelder (FBFA's attorney) and you have done? Only just recently FCPR President was doxxed by FBFA on Twitter... That is not respect. I know of no BFPO who has posted personal addresses of CU Advocates on any social media site. Yet there is a history of FBFA doing that. So, I think you need to correct your statement about not making personal attacks. Doxxing has no place in this discussion. As Chairman of FBFA you control that. So stop it!

Are you sure this is the case for ALL quiet title cases in Walton County or just the one in BMB?

Are you sure this is NOT the case for ANY beachfront quiet title cases in Walton county? Repeat, IF Walton BBC could stop or reverse the private beachfront property quiet title of public property; don't you think they would? Walton beachfront quiet titles I know of, which ones do you know that do not, are between private property owners. Not public property. Powerpoint slides do not change that fact.

"We, Florida Beaches For All, do not personally attack people and have treated those with private property on the beaches with respect." REALLY? Uh, what about all of the doxxing that Daniel Uhlfelder (FBFA's attorney) and you have done? Only just recently FCPR President was doxxed by FBFA on Twitter... That is not respect. I know of no BFPO who has posted personal addresses of CU Advocates on any social media site. Yet there is a history of FBFA doing that. So, I think you need to correct your statement about not making personal attacks. Doxxing has no place in this discussion. As Chairman of FBFA you control that. So stop it!

Don't forget Dave Rauschkolb's 11/14/2018 [retaliatory IMO] Walton Sheriff Police Report, Case: 2018-00167899, that people called Dave names and "felt threatened by some posts" against James Lince that was dismissed by the State Attorney's Office. I think Sheriff's report is on the internet.
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

I agree with you FBB. Thank you for treating me with respect however I do believe that you enjoy a privilege that others will not have even though they work just as hard as you and your family.

I agree with you Dave. Unfortunately you disrespect by using words like "silly" and "ridiculous" etc. I will continue to disagree with your tactic of moral superiority. In my opinion it is hypocritical. Believe it or not I am on the side of Customary Use but not the tactics being used.

Teresa I hear what you are saying and I know that you try very hard to be respectful but one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. For me it is about the whole bunch of apples not just CU or Property Rights. Does it really have to all or nothing? Is it just not possible to reason with property owners at all?

Don't forget Dave Rauschkolb's 11/14/2018 [retaliatory IMO] Walton Sheriff Police Report, Case: 2018-00167899, that people called Dave names and "felt threatened by some posts" against James Lince that was dismissed by the State Attorney's Office. I think Sheriff's report is on the internet.
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

So glad you brought that up. The investigation was in response to an anonymous blog. The original blog initially was impersonating the Walton County ideas for visioning quality of life Facebook page. The name of the blog was Walton County ideas and visioning blog or something very similar to that (We have copies of the entire content of the blog so if necessary I can give you the exact name.). Many, many screenshots were taken from the legitimate, private Visions Facebook Group and were used to “out” CU supporters. Because the author of the blog was anonymous and the blog posted a very large list of customary use supporters as well as allowed personal attacks and name-calling of customary use supporters, several if us felt threatened. Think about it folks, an anonymous person comes out with a social networking platform that allows this kind of thing. In this polarized political age any fanatical person might become a bad actor or do something unseemly based on the tone of the anonymous blog and the content. How would you feel? The sheriff investigated because of this. We had no idea who was doing it and we later found out it was James Lince. Over a month ago Mr. Lince took down the list of Customary Use supporters and also one of the posts that labeled me as a communist and socialist, which I am neither. Mr. Lince and I had very constructive communication and I felt and appreciated he was being fair by taking those things down. He later for some reason, deleted his Twitter Watchdog account as well as the very extensive blog that was eventually named the “Watchdog blog“, that started out anonymously. Sheriff Adkinson and his investigator determined that no liable existed nor what was posted actually constituted a legal threat in the anonymous blog. The investigation was never into James Lince it was into the anonymous blog. We only later found out it was Mr Lince‘s after the investigation was complete.

And I might add, that we saw no reason to draw a bunch of attention to this however you have decided it might be useful to try to characterize this as an attack on Mr. Lince when that is not the case at all. He was anonymous at the time. So, just setting the record straight so the truth may be out there for all to see. I harbor no ill will towards Mr. Lince and am appreciative that this chapter appears to be closed.

I agree with you FBB. Thank you for treating me with respect however I do believe that you enjoy a privilege that others will not have even though they work just as hard as you and your family.

I agree with you Dave. Unfortunately you disrespect by using words like "silly" and "ridiculous" etc. I will continue to disagree with your tactic of moral superiority. In my opinion it is hypocritical. Believe it or not I am on the side of Customary Use but not the tactics being used.

Teresa I hear what you are saying and I know that you try very hard to be respectful but one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. For me it is about the whole bunch of apples not just CU or Property Rights. Does it really have to all or nothing? Is it just not possible to reason with property owners at all?

I fail to understand why I "enjoy a privilege that others will not have". Do you imply that I have not earned what I receive or the law does not apply to me?

Property owners have offered compromise (Mike Huckbee for one) and was rejected out of hand. The Walton BCC rejected most recommendations of their own Customary use Committee (which included Mike Huckabee, see previous post) recommendations. The Walton BCC line in the sand was drawn when the BCC declared customary use of private property without due process and litigation against 4,500 of their own citizen property owner tax payers for political purposes, costing 650+ beachfront owners a lot of money - unless owners prevail - then it could cost Walton tax payers a lot of money. CUers just aggravated and elevated it with their tactics and rhetoric.

Privilege.
A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.
A right or liberty granted as a favor or benefit especially to some and not others.

So glad you brought that up. The investigation was in response to an anonymous blog.

Dave Rauschkolb, did you or will you file a Walton police report of CUer Chas Galloway violent gun video that appears to be filmed on Seaside private beachfront property near your restaurant? The video is not even anonymous. A video you characterize "that anyone of sound mind would approve of it as well as the leadership of Florida Beaches for all is a lie."

You do not feel threaten or fear for the public's safety by the Chas Galloway's video? If not, why not, if you felt threatened by an anonymous blogger written words that were far less menacing?

Don't forget Dave Rauschkolb's 11/14/2018 [retaliatory IMO] Walton Sheriff Police Report, Case: 2018-00167899, that people called Dave names and "felt threatened by some posts" against James Lince that was dismissed by the State Attorney's Office. I think Sheriff's report is on the internet.
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

It is not up to you to decide what people feel threatened by.

It is not up to you to decide what people feel threatened by.

I just quoted what Dave Rauschkolb reported from the police report. I did not comment if he should feel threatened or not. The State Attorney's office dismissed the accusation.