Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Public recreational use is not being disputed. Private beach is being disputed.

Mputnal, please read the lawsuit, court documents, and the Larry Jones deposition. Private Property is not, nor has ever been disputed by Walton County. The County fully acknowledges the private property deeds that extend from the Mean High Water Line (MHWL) to the Toe of the Dune. There is absolutely no current court challenge to the ownership of private property.

What is being challenged, first by Ordinance and now by a lawsuit, for the first time in the history of Walton County starting in 2016. Is that the BCC wants the Private Property Right (Right of Exclusion) removed from Private Property owner (up to the toe of the dune) and transferred for the exclusive determination of the BCC.

Please read the minutes of the 2016 BCC Special Workshop and see that in attempt for financial gain of billions of tourists dollars, the BCC decided to change the pre-2016 strategy of purchasing property and converting to Public Beach with appropriate facilities, and instead remove private property rights with zero compensation. The County claims the property is still owned by the private property owner but only the BCC determines who, how many, and what equipment, can be on their deeded property against the will of the property owner. It is the “entitled frisbee law” on steroids (sarcastic comment and not a real law).

There is no challenge to the ability to swim, fish, or walk the entire 26 miles of Walton County shoreline, or the entire shoreline of Florida. That is controlled by the State of Florida and not the private property owner. This lawsuit is about removal of property rights (right of exclusion) from the property owner from the MHWL to the toe of the dune, for the exclusive determination of the BCC. This is not about “co-ownership” or “sharing”. The end result is forced occupation against the will of the property owner.

The property owners have already shown they will not give up property rights without going to the Supreme Court. Do you think the Supreme Court is going to transfer the Right of Exclusion to the control of the BCC to chase tourists’ dollars?

Again, please read the lawsuit, court documents, deposition, and 2016 BCC Special Workshop Minutes.

The irony of Dave Rauschkolb’s meme image is Micky owns the coat and has the right, mputnal’s “power”, to keep the coat, but chooses too give or share the jacket at Mickey’s own expense (that makes Mickey’s Greatness). Winnie the Pooh did not demand Mickey give him his jacket because he always had since 1970 or since humans made jackets. Pooh did not go on social media to disparage or misinform the public that Mickey was a greedy and selfish person because he did not give him his jacket.

No politician declared an ordinance or went to court as Plaintiff to demand that Mickey and those with jackets will share their coat with everyone else that does not have a jacket and take away Mickey’s choice to give/share or not.

Since 2015 BPOs have had the choice to “stake out” their surveyed property boundaries and the Sherriff has had a trespass SOP to enforce lawfully recognized beachfront private property rights to the MHWL that beachfront owners have had since US land grants and have today. Since 2018 Walton ordnance BPOs have had the right to place signs on their property boundaries - to the MHWL. Most, 99.999%(?) BPOs have chosen not placed signs on their beach property but could and have chosen to share. Most BPOs including me have the right to choose to share or not - like any American property owner and have shared our legal property. I don’t consider myself Great (see definition) for sharing according to Rauschkolb’s meme. Or anyone not great for not sharing. I just play by the rules and laws (Constitution) and expect everyone else, including those with the Power to make laws, to too. That BPO grace does not mean BPOs gave up that Constitutional right to quiet uninterrupted enjoyment if they so CHOOSE. But if CU believers of an old English common law doctrine of customary use and Walton commissioners declare BPOs do not have the choice and shall share their property with everyone! CUnCourt

“What is greatness in a person?” Greatness - Wikipedia
I doubt mputnal will agree with Dave Rauschkolb’s meme Greatness definition.
"anti-social autocrats." Nice. Namaste.

SCJ, this forum is a court of "public" opinion. Why don't you go out and talk to the local community and actually get a sense of the organic part of human existence? Or if you if you want to be a lawyer find yourself a court of law and practice the inorganic words of man. I took a lot of inorganic chemistry for my education and so I do understand it's purpose but human life needs so much more in the pursuit of LLH. On this thread and as Reggie/Regina put it we have "intelligent discourse". Unfortunately people like myself who use common sense is frowned upon. Apparently that thought comes from a warped sense of self importance. I suggest you research by observation and community interaction. Your questions about the Supreme Court has been asked and answered several times. Before doing your research go back and read my posts. I think it obvious that there is an abuse of power. I sincerely hope it will go to the Supreme Court where intelligent discourse will use all the tools in the tool box not just a straight line approach.

FBB, your attempt to twist a simple gesture of sharing is so predictable and tons of funny. Being funny is a compliment by the way. Twisting the truth not so funny. Listen, you even admit that the beach has been shared in the past for public recreational use. You say it was a choice to share the beach and yes that is greatness. No stakes. No fence. Public beach. So what happened. You blame it on the County for delcaring Public/Traditional/Customary Use. Was that not the way you have admitted it the way the beach was used? Listen you can twist and shout and turn somersaults but it will not change the FACT that these beaches have always been shared with the public. You can quote the Constitution all you want but when it goes to the Supreme Court where all the tools are being used it will be a much higher level of intelligence than what you will find reading the posts on this thread. You have educated me a plenty on how an abuse of power can manifest itself for the destiny of private beaches. There is a common sense type of thinking that you and yours have failed at. Common in that human life is organic. Sense in that you are able to see the big picture of human life. Unless you have sold your soul you should try that Eastern Philosophy of connection to each other instead of individualism.

BTW I do agree with that definition of Greatness but only when it applies to the greater purpose of life. The definition fails for the individual. There are a handful of exceptions...all in the company of Jesus...not you or me for sure . Equality is greater than inequality. Fairness is greater than unfairness. Sharing and caring is greater than not sharing and uncaring. Do you have a better understanding now of greatness?

To repeat, since you have repeated again - “this forum is a court of "public" opinion.” But whose opinion is CREDIBLE and whose is NOT? Those with convoluted non-linear conspiracies grand self philological thoughts and mind reading ability of what others think who disagree with your unsubstantiated CU beliefs or those with facts, verifiable opinions, or law?

Mputnal “you can twist and shout and turn somersaults but it will not change the FACT that these beaches have always been shared with the public.” Then why is there a Walton Sherriff trespass SOP? I admit that I know that the Sherriff has responded to many private beachfront properties over the decades and at Vizcaya and the Sherriff ordered the uninvited persons to allow the private property owner quiet, uninterrupted enjoyment of their property they paid for and pay Walton property taxes on.

At least you did not use the "anti-social autocrats." BPO label again. Namaste.

BTWW, if Mickey were a human he would have a selfishness gene. Selfishness is important to the extent of survival. So just ask yourself this question: do you need the power to exclude the public from the beach for survival or merely wanting something that you do not need? What makes great people is that awareness of selfishness and the practice of unselfishness. You just need a little practice and you will be okay. Just like all of us...

FBB, why do we need a Sherrif period? People (including you and I ) sometimes break the rules. Have you never gone over the speed limit for example? We have a lot of rules to follow. If the people were breaking rules of behavior on the beach then you of course are correct but if they were simply recreating on the beach in a respectful manner then why not share the beach with those people? I do not have all the information about each incident that you refer to and maybe Vizcaya has a different set of rules but generally speaking the beach has always been shared. Let the court figure out all the legal stuff. You are hurting BFO's reputation as a sharing and caring bunch of people with greatness in their heart and mind.

If I were reading these posts for information about the inorganic part of existence I would turn to you as a source but if I were reading these post for information on an organic part of existence I would search beyond the inorganic words of law. Life is not linear. Liberty is not linear. Happiness is not linear. The beach sand is not linear. Think about it...

I believe people have thought about it and tried to educate themselves on the facts and opinions. There is court of "public opinion" and a "court of law". Sometime the "court of public opinion" reaches the same conclusion as the "court of law" and apparently there is another court which may be totally different and not rely on laws or opinions.

Everyone should read the lawsuit, court documents, and the Larry Jones deposition. Private Property, extending to the toe of the dune is not, nor has ever been disputed by Walton County, the BCC, or the State of Florida.

What is being challenged, is the attempted transfer of property rights (right of exclusion) from the deeded property owner to the BCC for their exclusive determination independent of the will of the property owner. Each individual property owner has always had the right to make their own determination of the number of people and the amount of equipment they allow on their private property and will go to the supreme court to protect that right.

The 2016 BCC Special Workshop documents the change of the BCC strategy from purchasing property and converting to public beach with parking and restrooms, to the taking of property rights (right of exclusion) from the private property owner with no compensation for the purpose of forced occupation against the will of the property owner from the MHTL to the toe of the dune. This is about billions of tourist dollars and not about the beach. Read the minutes.

There is no challenge to the ability to swim, fish, or walk the entire 26 miles of Walton County shoreline, or the entire shoreline of Florida. That is controlled by the State of Florida and not the private property owner. This is not about “sharing” but forced occupation against the will of the property owner for BCC tourist dollars.

Again, please read the lawsuit, court documents, deposition, and 2016 BCC Special Workshop Minutes.

Lets leave the lawsuit and reading of the documents to Judge Green. Our job here in this community is to observe, listen, engage and enjoy the resource. This community has always shared the beach. There is just no way to get around that one fact. Again, please get out there and see for yourself by talking to BFO's and non-BFO's alike. Judge Green knows how to read the documents and interpret the law our job is to live and let live. Again, please understand that the State of Florida owns the sandy beach and we all share it. This is about elite wealth and power wanting control of a resource. Maybe go to a beach service or something that reconnects you to the greatness of sharing and caring. I will do the same. You are using to many trigger words like forced occupation and they no longer have any effect. Listen if you want to be a lawyer then go to law school otherwise let the Court do it's duty. If you were honest about your identity and purpose we would all know why you keep saying the same things over and over. Is it not obvious why you are posting here?

Reading is Fundamental. Don’t put your head in the sand. Education is important. The State of Florida owns from the MWHL to the Gulf of Mexico. To determine who owns the sandy beach (between the MHWL and toe of the dune), please refer to county property records to see if it is owned by the Federal Government (Military), or the State of Florida (State Parks), or the County (Public Beach) or is Private Property. This lawsuit is not about “Mikey Mouse sharing his shirt with Pooh”, it is about the change of direction of the BCC to try and remove the right of exclusion from the private property owner to the absolute control of the BCC. Follow the money. This lawsuit is about the BCC chasing billions of tourist dollars. Read the 2016 BCC Workshop Minutes.

CUSTOMARY USE VS PRIVATE BEACHES

DEFINING ACCESS AND USE, CONVENIENCE ADVANTAGES AND FINDING SOLUTIONS FOR HOUSEKEEPING ON THE BEACH IN Walton County

This issue is based on the difference between access and use. In most privately held areas access to the beach is controlled just like in Seaside, Rosemary, Watersound, Watercolor & Alys and others. Use is a different thing all together which is causing all the hullabaloo over Customary Use. The perception problem I see with the private beach advocates is this: "if I own the access, I own the beach." I say they are two different things entirely and the problem arises when one group perceives them to be together and another group sees them as separate.

Rosemary Beach, Seaside, Watersound, Alys and others all have accesses that are private, meaning they control the "easy" access to the beaches; they are the closest to guest homes and parking. Each street has an access for convenience much in the same way Seagrove Beach was designed by Cube McGee. Unlike in Seaside, Cube in the 1940s kept the access public and the beach was and most of it still is deeded for public use. Having an easy access is premium. The fact about going to the beach is, most people just don't want to lug all their beach stuff in the sand more than say, 50 yards.

In Seaside, Robert Davis has chosen, for the past 40 years, to allow public access to town center. That access is a positive element when you purchased because "it accommodated all."; I believe the public town center access is good for our town. Again, we are talking about "access." In these instances where privately held towns/resorts have private access it is bought and paid for; it is the most convenient for that reason.

In most all of these towns you have to either be staying there or own there to access the beach conveniently. Public access is an element of wonderful beach towns all around the world and Seaside, thankfully is no different. Part of what makes Seaside exceptional is it's town center public access. Watersound, where I live has the closest public access at Deer Lake State Park just towards the western boundary of Watersound. The closest public access on the east is about a half mile east of the Peninsula gate at Watersound on the other side of the lake bridge. Non residents and tourists do come to Watersound but not too often because it is a long walk. Roughly 65 feet of sandy beach is dedicated to the public in Watersound and all St. Joe properties due to a land deal with the State in the 80's. So, even now Watersound is a public beach with predominantly private access but a large area of the sandy beach is open to the public for sharing if they take the walk. The beach chairs are only usable by renters, homeowners, beach club members or both. Anyone my set up and enjoy the normal customary beach activities anyone would participate in at Watersound Beach. We all know Rosemary Beach and Aly's all have combination locks at all town beach accesses except from the nearest public access. Since HB631 folks may only walk in the wet sand in Rosemary, Alys and the parts of Seaside away from the town center public access area.

Now let's discuss use. Because I am a proponent of Customary Use, I believe that anyone who may access the beach from a public access point may use the beach as people customarily have for centuries. Once they are on the beach they may traverse east or west on any part of the sandy beach and enjoy the beach wherever they please provided they are willing to walk that far with all their stuff. Beach vendors used to take orders for chairs and placed them individually for each call wherever the renter wished. At the end of the day they picked up the chairs. It was a clean transaction; drop off, pickup and get paid. They did not take over large swaths of the beaches with unattended beach chairs like they do now; I expect that is about to change. And my hope is Customary Use will prevail so we may go back to the way we have alway used the beaches until July 1, 2018 when HB631 went into effect.

I contend that all these towns including Seaside have a geographic advantage or rather, a convenience advantage. Remember I said people don't like to lug their stuff more than 50 yards? It is well documented that the areas where conflict occurs regarding use are the sandy parts of the beaches closest to public accesses. Rosemary Beach's E & W border streets, Seaside's E & W border Streets, Blue Mountain Beach, Ed Walline Beach access, etc....the concern and conflicts mostly happen in these areas because you have the public moving on to the beaches behind private homes that border the public access. I would contend that the interior homes that are more than 100 yards from the public accesses have fewer issues if at all. People just don't have the proclivity to walk long distances to go to a specific beach. So, those beachfront owners who bought near a public access should have known people would be using the beach behind their homes. They had the option of buying an interior home with more seclusion but they did not. Many of those folks, the border folks, are the loudest voices pushing for private beaches. I say if you buy a home right next to a cow pasture...well, then get used to the cows. Buyer beware. Pretty simple. We are not hearing so much complaining from the folks in the more secluded areas away from public accesses.

I was in Hanalei Bay on Kauai with my wife some years ago and we stayed at the Princeville Resort. There was a public access around the property to accommodate the public to get to the beach. It was a long walk that most did not take except for the surfers wanting to surf the bay. If you stayed at the resort you had "private access" which was more convenient and provided the privilege of beach chairs and other amenities tied to the resort. The locals and tourists came to the beach by a nearby, bordering public walkway. They had to carry their stuff and were not permitted to rent or use the beach chairs as they were not staying at the resort. They were permitted to use the beach though and set up with their own stuff if they wished. Very few ever did because the resort had a geographic advantage and people had to park and walk a long way to get there. They both shared the resource but with fair ground rules everyone understood. Different access but shared use. Private access on the one hand, Public access on the other. Shared use. Simple, fair and equitable.

Lastly, I suggest, whether CU is re-instated or not, to regulate behavior, be proactive and educate beachgoers we should expand the army of TDC paid Beach Ambassadors. They would be uniformed and trained in public relations on the acceptable Walton County beach do's and dont's. All the current volunteers led brilliantly by Laurie Reichenbach could and should be paid positions. I suggested this program to the County, TDC and Sheriff almost two year ago. Through the partnership of a group of dedicated volunteers and paid TDC staff the program is excellently working to help address behavioral complaints from homeowners and inform the beachgoing public. The irony is, I first suggested that program idea to help address behavior complaints from Beachfront owners and since HB631 they may no longer use and traverse most private beaches to do what they were meant to do.

I suggest breaking out all of the Walton County Beaches into 3 separate sectors with 3 phone numbers. Each team of Ambassadors would work the beaches 24/7 on some acceptable, small vehicle. Electric would be best because they are quiet. These Ambassadors would respond to Beachfront owners concerns about behavior behind their homes. They would call a Beach Ambassador instead of the Sheriff if someone got out of line. If it escalated then the Sheriff would be called. Mostly they would be helpful, friendly, welcoming ambassadors of our community. Keeping an eye out for deep turtle hole diggers, encouraging safety and informing the public. Occasionally they might be needed to usher someone off the dunes or a private walkover. This program is already working; let's make it really work for beachfront owners and us all.

floridabeachesforall.org

That is the 5th, fifth, 5x that Dave has blessed us with that very exact, word for word novel about the beach Emperor on this little ol’ thread. Geez!. Does Dave have nothing else to say over 6 months? Or his he distracting attention from recent developments? You decide.

Neighbors, please, regardless on which side you might find yourself regarding CU, regardless of your interest level at all, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE never relinquish the reading of pleadings and deciding of issues that affect your quality of life, solely to government officials and self appointed Beach Emperors. Keep informed. Be curious. Ask questions. READ!!! Otherwise, we end up in messes like this one.

Has Dave ever asked you to research? Has FBFA? Ask yourself, why not?

If you care to dig deep on this one, as many dedicated folks much smarter than me here have obviously done, it will become crystal clear how we got here. The post by SCJ 4 posts above this one is a great place to start.

The depositions, the BCC 2016 “Workshop” meetings, the court documents in this case, all come together one could conclude, to uncover a local takeover strategy of recognized private property for one reason... more tourists and their billions of dollars to dump on your/our beaches. Simply to provide more millions for powerful developers and county officials. It’s all right there, in print. You’ll see some disturbing conversations.

Or, you could go to Pooh Corner in Hundred Acre Wood; follow the black bear on the pine straw trail, they will lead you straight there. You can talk with like minded sheep over some fish.

While the real leaders are silently contributing and shaping a better life for all in our community without asking for the credit or recognition.

Last edited: 17 minutes

Education is vital to this Country and the future of this planet. I am so glad that the Power Brokers supports education. Reading is vital to this Country and the future of this planet. I am so glad that the power brokers support reading. We have found our common ground right? Not. What the power brokers want you to do is be brain washed and that this is all about the court documents and property rights which they hope will give them the power to exclude you and me off the beach. No thank you! I will give the power brokers credit though for educating me on how elite wealth and power believe they are superior to all of us and will abuse that power at every opportunity. Don't give them that opportunity. Heck they will even read for you and tell you what those documents say. Bravo Sierra. My advice to all of us is read, educate and engage with our neighbors and the community not exclude them. The power brokers do not want you to engage with the community. I was serious about having a civil community function that they refused. They hide their identity. Is it not obvious what their purpose is? My grandmother gave me more information about life that these people who think they are above the rest of us. She told me more than once that actions speak louder than words. Go out and do something good. Engage with your neighbors and the community whether it be sharing the beach or making a living or just casual conversation in person. Be real. Look at people when you communicate with them. Practice civil conversation with people you disagree with. Value that civility. It is okay to be an activist for something that you feel is right (of course be civil). Listen to what both sides are saying. If you find someone who talks all the time and never listens then you might be talking to a power broker...

Those last posts by Reggie/Regina (false name/ hidden identity) and Dave (a real person) explains the difference between elite power whose purpose is to exclude everyone from the beach (abuse of power) and an a local businessman who believes in the value of public beaches for everyone. It is obvious to me who is trying his best to listen to the other side and address the issues. The other side is so caught up in the court documents and the principle of exclusion that they are tone deaf to anything but that one principle. One is community oriented and believes in respectful beach enjoyment for all. The other wants exclusive rights and private enjoyment. All we have to do is read and educate ourselves on who has the higher purpose. I advise us all to engage in community activism now before we turn these beaches over to a few people who do not understand the value of public recreational use of this wonderful and limited resource.

Shared use. Simple, fair and equitable.

The lawsuit is not about shared use. It is not about access to the shoreline. It is not about walking, swimming, or fishing the entire 26 miles of Walton County shoreline (which is already guaranteed by the State of Florida independent of the Walton BCC). It is not about blocked access to county owned beaches in gated communities.

It is about the removal of Private Property Rights (right of exclusion) of deeded private property owners, which has been recognized for generations, and supported in previous BCC Beach Ordinances and Court Cases. There is absolutely no current court challenge to the ownership of private property, only that the BCC now wants to be the sole authority of who, how many, and how much beach equipment is allowed on deeded private property AGAINST the will of the property owner. This is not about eminent domain and purchasing property and turning into public beach with parking and restrooms, but TAKING Rights away (effectively taking control of private property at no compensation for the property owner). Do you think the Supreme Court is going to allow Judge Green to TAKE away Florida Property Rights (posted on the Walton County Website - #3 Right of Exclusion) for the exclusive control of the BCC to chase billions of tourists’ dollars?

Read the 2016 BCC Special Workshop minutes and decide for yourself if this all about chasing billions of tourist dollars or access to the beach.

There is nothing simple, fair, or equitable about this lawsuit.

Florida Property Owner Bill of Rights (posted on Walton County Web Site)
1. The right to acquire, possess, and protect your property.
2. The right to use and enjoy your property.
3. The right to exclude others from your property.
4. The right to dispose of your property.
5. The right to due process.
6. The right to just compensation for property taken for a public purpose.
7. The right to relief, or payment of compensation, when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of the state or a political entity unfairly affects your property.

On this day that we honor all USA Veterans I thought this was worth a repeat (not for the fifth time) from March 24, 2018. Thank you Veterans' everywhere for your service.

As I try to put Walton's customary use of private property in perspective for me as a beachfront owner I think about the young men and women who volunteered to go into harms way, to place their lives in jeopardy, to protect our national and local interests and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Against radical Islamic terrorism in "Afganisand", Iraq, and other failed states around the world. How their grandparents fought in Vietnam against communism and their great grandparents fought Nazism in WWII, and the millions of American Heroes that died in all the conflicts since 1776 who protected us and our values. That's my bigger picture and perspective of "things".

It makes Walton's and customary-use advocates claim of public use on private sand seem petty and insignificant in the big scheme of “things”. And I relax and recommit to protecting my property rights; not necessarily just for my exclusive right of private enjoyment, but because local Governments do NOT have the right to declare private property rights void, regardless if the majority feel property should be private or not, without due process ....

That the idea that private property, rights to ownership, and freedom from government police powers abuse and taxation was such an important value that the United States of America ratified a Constitution 242 years ago that protects private property rights as a key part of the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government can tell me HOW I can use my property but not WHO can use my property. WHO is the jurisdiction of the courts. ...

I just want Government and the public to respect the property rights I have had and have today with the title to the property I paid for, pay annual taxes on and the Sheriff to enforce all the laws.... But first the BCC has to respect those property rights and the BCC and staff don’t. Until then I’ll try to keep in prospective the big scheme of “things”, take a deep breath, and recommit to protecting my property rights from all the public misinformation, misunderstanding, or just plain abuse of power from a misguided local Government.

To read the complete text Customary Use of SoWal Beaches: Contact Governor Scott

FBB, I agree with you that this is a special day and I salute our Veterans and their real sacrifices made for this Country and "including" all of us. I made a small and insignificant contribution to the Veteran's Memorial in Freeport and recommend everyone to take a few minutes to visit this memorial or any other memorial.

Unfortunately, we have to address the elephant in the room which is how elite power wants to exclude all people from parts of the beaches. They want private enjoyment! The entire beach is for shared enjoyment not private enjoyment. BPO's already have exclusive buildings for exclusive views and enjoyment. Yes, you have shared this resource in the past and it has not gone unnoticed by all of us who love the enjoyment of the beach. I have to ask exactly why have you changed your mind now? You are being mislead about property rights on this unique resource where the sea meets the land. It is sand not land. The sand came from the sea and belongs to the State of Florida. But lets look at that list of property rights:

1. The right to acquire, possess and protect your property. Not in dispute.
2. The right to enjoyment of your property. Not in dispute.
3. The right to exclude others from your property. The land that you built your exclusive buildings that block everyone's view already is not in dispute. The right to exclude people from the "sandy" beach is in dispute.
4. The right to dispose of your property. Not in dispute.
5. The right to due process. Not in dispute. Due process is occurring as we speak.
6. The right to just compensation for property taken for public purpose. Not in dispute. The sand is owned by the State of Florida. No one is preventing you from using the sand for recreational use. What other use is there?
7. The right to relief...when a new law or ordinance...unfairly affects your property. Not in dispute. The fact that the power brokers want you to demand compensation for sharing the sand that is owned by the State of Florida is not credible. That said, due process will decide the issue so we do not have to argue over what is credible and what is not credible.

So, this thread was a trap. These power brokers want you to get angry and upset about something that is not real like their names. Those who support recreational public use are both BPO's and non-BPO's alike. As a community it is important for all of us to listen to each other. There are issues that need to be solved regarding beach vending, beach density and beach behavior etc. I have read the complaints coming from real BPO's and the problems are real not made up like the power brokers want you to believe. I have read the posts of public recreational use supporters and they have listened to you and have offered solutions. I have learned a lot on this thread not about property rights but about how elite power operates and it has nothing to do with listening and everything to do in provocation. If you are a BPO your greatness is in both your success and awareness of the value in sharing the enjoyment of the beach.

Mputnal #1993 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
6. “... The sand is owned by the State of Florida. ...”
Kinda vague definition of what is owned by the State. Do you mean the DRY sand North or landward of the MHWL is owned by the State of Florida?

OK mputnal lets start with Florida Statute definitions.
FS 177.27 (9) “Foreshore” means the strip of land between the mean high-water and mean low-water lines that is alternately covered and uncovered by the flow of the tide.

(14)“Mean high water” means the average height of the high waters over a 19-year period. For shorter periods of observation, “mean high water” means the average height of the high waters after corrections are applied to eliminate known variations and to reduce the result to the equivalent of a mean 19-year value.

177.28 Legal significance of the mean high-water line.
(1) Mean high-water line along the shores of land immediately bordering on navigable waters is recognized and declared to be the boundary between the foreshore owned by the state in its sovereign capacity and upland subject to private ownership. ...

(2) No provision of this part shall be deemed to modify the common law of this state with respect to the legal effects of accretion, reliction, erosion, or avulsion.
The additional property rights littoral (tidal) and riparian (non-tidal) land owners have to gain or loose property over time.

Walton Ordinance 2019-05. “Beach means the soft sandy portion of land lying seaward of the seawall or the line of permanent dune vegetation.” -- seaward to the State of Florida MHWL, because County ordinances do not overrule State law.

If you do not agree with the government’s definitions you can stop now and there is no hope of understanding the property law or having credibility of any further statements about beachfront properties.

Lets go all the way back to #126 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy and Vizcaya legal Plat that is available on the public Clerk of Court site. At the bottom of the plate is labeled “Approximate Mean High Water Line” The MHWL elevation is measure over an 18.6 year average from the NAVD88 sea level datum measured by NOAA. You can look that up on the Government sites.

In March 2019 Walton county measured the State’s MHWL boundary for all 26 miles.
The GIS Green line is the 2019 Walton MHWL and property boundary. Seaward of the Green MHWL is 825 miles of Florida Foreshore and submerged lands. Landward of the MHWL is private property. The red line is the Florida DEP CCCL that defines where owners have to get additional State permitting to build. The CCCL is NOT a property boundary or a no-build line. Ignore the BLUE seaward estimated Walton Property Appraiser estimated parcel boundaries. The Green MHWL is the legal seaward property boundary.

Depending on the tide and winds the MHWL can be in the water or not. The prevailing wind is from the south and blows the water and waves landward of the MHWL elevation and generally the MHWL is in the water unless there is NO wind (and when does that ever happen?). Generally the MHWL survey is valid for a year.


Thanks to BPO that sent this Walton GIS and ecar info to me.

If you still believe in your non-linear metaphysical thinking that the State of Florida owns the BPOs dry sand; then there is no hope and no one should believe any belief you have about CU.

Well well well. Do tell.

Trump Administration Makes It Easier to Dredge Protected Areas to Restore Beaches

Trump Administration Makes It Easier to Dredge Protected Areas to Restore Beaches

FBB, yes it is a vague definition. The survey is only valid for a very short period. That is the point. Those definitions are average measurements because of the variability in wave dynamics, tide, beach erosion etc. The beach is a general term with no specific boundary. So, it is not reasonable or scientific to assign a fixed boundary for a specific parcel. In other words the deeds are inaccurate or incomplete at best.

Okay now you should relax. This is a "unique" resource where the ocean intersects the land and the sand moves between the ocean and the land. If the sand originates off shore and is deposited on shore then at what point does the State of Florida lose it's sovereign rule over the sand? I wonder if they do lose rule over it? It would not be reasonable or even credible to assume that private ownership of the sand has more power than the State of Florida. I know but I did ask you to relax

So is this the Dave R that has 143 social media posts that firmly DENOUNCE renourishing Walton beaches?
Oh wait, it could also be the same Dave R, who also has 72 different social media posts - but PROMOTING Walton beach renourishment?
Maybe just a little TDS, and not really about beaches at all?

It all makes sense now. Wealth capitalizes the beach. Political influence replaces the beach when it erodes away at the expense of the environment and the middle class pays for it. What else is new...

Since there have been lots of references to Old English Common Law, I read that when Sir Richard Branson bought his island in the Virgin Islands, he owns the land except for the beach up to the high water line. So some of you surfers might want to go to the BVI and surf on out to Necker Island.

Walton’s customary use case again delayed by notification issues

Just great... 6 more months of fish fried tales. Is this an intentional tactic by Theriaque and the county to delay the case? How hard can it possibly be to officially notify the few remaining parcel owners?

Although this “video report” was produced back on February 7, 2019, it was linked in the above online referenced article. It again reflects the EXTREME BIAS of NW Florida Daily News. That is a person after viewing this hatchet job with no understanding of the quiet title process would naturally think Mike Huckabee transferred public beach to private beach for $400 as did several other beach front owners. Again, the fallacy (for anyone in the know) is that the sandy part of the beach in Old Blue Mountain subdivision was NEVER PUBLIC IN THE FIRST PLACE. It was always private.

And why do they constantly zero in on Mike Huckabee when several others have done the same thing? The answer is obvious.

NW Florida Daily News does not know the meaning of shame. Tom McLaughlin, are you listening?