Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

"EXCLUSIVITY"
(A thoughtful topic for the dinner table)

Before you get caught up adamantly defending the feel-good "customary use" campaign (innocent sounding label, right? Such a cute sticker they gave us at their affidavit blitz, right?), honestly ask yourself these 10 questions:

1. Do I agree beach density will eventually need to be managed so that the beach ambiance is not ruined for everybody?
2. Do I agree eventually there is some threshold?
3. Who gets to decide the threshold? Restauranteur empire-builders? Transient vacation rental investors? Bed tax collectors? Monster rental house developers?

Do I agree low beach use density is beneficial to the environment as well as public health and safety? Seriously now. Where do trespassers actually pee and pooh when they want to day camp on a private beach property all day?

Aren't I here because of the relatively low density of our beaches compared to our neighboring counties? What's wrong with wanting to maintain that?

4. How do I recemmend we manage beach density without some form of exclusion? Are economic barriers of beach access ultimately any different than the physical barriers (locked gates) of say, Water Sound?

5. How do I suggest managing beach density without monetizing beach use? (eenie meenie miney mo?)

Everyone is in agreement that clean drinking water should be available for every human being, but do I get my water for free? or do I have to pay for it? Though water is unequivocally more essential than a convenient sunbathing spot, I still have to pay for water.

Do I really believe the public crowds are entitled to free real estate for sunbathing? Does Walton County owe anyone a cheap vacation? Has Walton County indicated any interest in restricting growth of short-term rentals, which ultimately drives out the full-time residents? (Side benefit- Lack of full-time residents opens the floodgates for corruption opportunities.)

6. How has Walton County indicated any plans in managing beach density? Do I really think just limiting parking is sufficient? How about Uber and the 86 passenger megaliner tour buses? Future shuttle bus plans? How many new rental homes were added just this year, flooding the market. How closely have they studied supply and demand and occupancy rates? Or they just plan to build the pooh out of this county, lining their own pockets while they can still lure investors in the hope of "customary use" while intentionally dragging out the assuredly eventually doomed lawsuits. With supposed ineptness?... How many 'failures to properly notice' do-overs is the county going to get? Pay attention, my friends.

How effective has Walton County ever been in regulating tourist conduct even on their county-owned public beach parks? Is it fair to confiscate private property just to make it a free-for-all "park"?

Why do I suppose coastal cities with large public beaches are hubs for human trafficking and porn production industry? (Come on now. Connect the dots. You're smart.)

How many personnel do I think would be truly required to adequately regulate the conduct of growing crowds along 26 miles of beaches? Who would pay for the high cost of adequately managing crowds on the beach? The beachgoers themselves? How so? If they are day-trippers?

7. When a homeowner wants to enjoy his private property with his family, why should he forfeit the right to insist an obnoxious, albeit legal, two-faced jerk leave? Wouldn't I demand my family be able to enjoy my own private property?

How many law enforcement officers do I think will be required to keep the public safe in today's increasingly violent culture, along 26 miles of open free-for-all beaches? (watch the news lately?)
How many lifeguard stands do we need per capita? How many water rescues and drownings did we have this year?

Can we continue to keep everybody safe on the beach without proper regulation, monitoring, or controls of ever-growing crowds coming and going?

8. Is restricting beach density inherently wrong?
Would veterans suffering from PTSD agree? Would mothers wanting to protect their young children from predatory pervs lurking in large crowds agree? Would shoreline migratory nesting foul and endangered sea turtles benefit? Would elderly couples wanting to walk hand in hand along an uncluttered shoreline agree? Would artists seeking inspiration from the natural environment agree? Would a soul searcher seeking a prayerful, meditative spot, gazing on the gulf horizon agree? Would a shoreline fisherman agree? Would a bride who wants to be assured her beach wedding location can be reserved well in advance agree? Would couples on a romantic getaway agree? Don't people who simply cannot be in a crowd, for one reason another, also have recreational beach rights, even when they're willing to pay for some privacy and solitude?
What about me? Have I ever enjoyed a vacation getaway on a private beach that exluded the public crowds?

9. Why should the rights of exclusion be transferred from the private property owners to the government, merely for greedy economic gain? With zero indication of any intention or cabability to properly manage beach use density and behavior?

10. Is exclusivity wrong? No. It's essential.
(The transfer of the rights of exclusion is really what this CU lawsuit is about, you know.)

Whether you agree or disagree, feel free to copy, paste, share and learn from some honest, thoughtful discussion and feedback among your friends and family. I do appreciate that you at least took the time to read this tl;dr post.
Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!

Mputnal,
I'm by no means rich.
I would never look to "squash people like ants". (See, these attempted "word pictures" of yours don't work on people like me)
I'm definitely no power broker.
I was not paid or hired by anybody in this matter. Now, you on the other hand...
I'm very tolerant of all respectful persons.
I never insisted on credibility. Just offered food for thought. Somethin to chew on, around your own Thanksgiving table.
Originally, to be honest, I used say I was for "customary use". As I have watched this unfold over the last few years, I've quietly come to my own conclusions. Now I know what that "CU" term really means and its long-term ramifications. For all of us. Including you. So I decided to speak up. My voice is just as valid as yours. Tolerate me.
Alex

Alex Miles, why are you painting the picture of public recreational use supporters as being on the lower levels of existence? You should go back and read your own words and the words of those that support exclusive private beach enjoyment like yourself. Your picture of the people and your superior beliefs and wants for exclusivity are right here for everyone to read forever! You can hide your name from the people but we know who you are because YOU are telling us who you are with your own words! I am amazed at how disconnected you are from the people. We grumbled about the large exclusive buildings blocking our views but we tolerated it. None of us ants are protesting your mansions. But now you want exclusive private enjoyment of the beaches. You are insatiable. It will never be enough for you to have exclusive buildings, exclusive views and exclusive rights. You want it all! I just don't understand how you have convinced yourself in a mandate for exclusivity.

Alex Miles, why are you painting the picture of public recreational use supporters as being on the lower levels of existence? You should go back and read your own words and the words of those that support exclusive private beach enjoyment like yourself. Your picture of the people and your superior beliefs and wants for exclusivity are right here for everyone to read forever! You can hide your name from the people but we know who you are because YOU are telling us who you are with your own words! I am amazed at how disconnected you are from the people. We grumbled about the large exclusive buildings blocking our views but we tolerated it. None of us ants are protesting your mansions. But now you want exclusive private enjoyment of the beaches. You are insatiable. It will never be enough for you to have exclusive buildings, exclusive views and exclusive rights. You want it all! I just don't understand how you have convinced yourself in a mandate for exclusivity.

The latest ridiculous, juvenile moniker is that we are a bunch of "hooligans" Happy Thanksgiving!

Where in this post did Alex call you a hooligan?

Alex provided some great questions for serious discussion and your reply is that you are being called “hooligan”? Why should the decision criteria to determine who is allowed on private property be changed from the private property owners (who have made this decision from time immemorial) to the BCC (who tried to TAKE this right in 2016)?

BTW we are still waiting on your reply as the leader of FBFA (a plaintiff in the lawsuit against hundreds of property owners).

WHY it is reasonable to remove property rights from legally deeded private property owners which have NEVER challenged prior to 2016 by the BCC

WHO has shown going to every single parcel in the 26 mile beach from the mean high tide line to the dunes is without interruption (note: there are numerous cases which show this has been interrupted, such as decades old trespassing cases and the 2008 BCC Edgewater Court Order)

WHEN did this issue become WITHOUT DISPUTE as specified in the County Lawsuit?

I'm sure that Mr. Huckabee is devastated that you don't like his house. Oh, is Skunkape your first or last name?

Middle name. I don't give a rat's rectum what he thinks, truth is truth. And you might want to refer to him as Govnuh, or you might not make his Christmas card list.

Oh my goodness. I think a hooligan would be an improvement over an "obnoxious two faced jerk" or "predatory pervs" etc. Your nasty image of the people are in your own words and you still don't see it. It is like you have a complete disconnect from the people. People are generally good at behavior. There are exceptions of course but when you compare all the respectful beach user enjoyment over our entire human history I think you will find a very very very small fraction of the people disrespecting and misbehaving. I challenge you to find one disrespectful public beach user in even 10,000 public beach users. Please don't include the few bfo's who rant and rave about having to share the beach. It would skew the numbers

Exclusion is what rich people want.

Hmmm.....it’s what EVERY private property owner (or renter thereof) is GUARANTEED under the United States Constitution, rich or poor. You think that you have the right to use our property without permission because you believe you are morally superior.

Tell me if I missed something that doesn’t include your previous words:

selfishness
superior beliefs
power brokers
building blocking views or exclusive views
exclusion is what rich people want
disconnected from the people
not using your real name
individual power believes in their greatness over people
sharing the enjoyment
true greatness does not hide their identity
you believe in your greatness
attacking the people
people who hide their name
abuse of power
higher purpose

On and on.

"EXCLUSIVITY"
(A thoughtful topic for the dinner table)

Before you get caught up adamantly defending the feel-good "customary use" campaign (innocent sounding label, right? Such a cute sticker they gave us at their affidavit blitz, right?), honestly ask yourself these 10 questions:

1. Do I agree beach density will eventually need to be managed so that the beach ambiance is not ruined for everybody?
2. Do I agree eventually there is some threshold?
3. Who gets to decide the threshold? Restauranteur empire-builders? Transient vacation rental investors? Bed tax collectors? Monster rental house developers?

Do I agree low beach use density is beneficial to the environment as well as public health and safety? Seriously now. Where do trespassers actually pee and pooh when they want to day camp on a private beach property all day?

Aren't I here because of the relatively low density of our beaches compared to our neighboring counties? What's wrong with wanting to maintain that?

4. How do I recemmend we manage beach density without some form of exclusion? Are economic barriers of beach access ultimately any different than the physical barriers (locked gates) of say, Water Sound?

5. How do I suggest managing beach density without monetizing beach use? (eenie meenie miney mo?)

Everyone is in agreement that clean drinking water should be available for every human being, but do I get my water for free? or do I have to pay for it? Though water is unequivocally more essential than a convenient sunbathing spot, I still have to pay for water.

Do I really believe the public crowds are entitled to free real estate for sunbathing? Does Walton County owe anyone a cheap vacation? Has Walton County indicated any interest in restricting growth of short-term rentals, which ultimately drives out the full-time residents? (Side benefit- Lack of full-time residents opens the floodgates for corruption opportunities.)

6. How has Walton County indicated any plans in managing beach density? Do I really think just limiting parking is sufficient? How about Uber and the 86 passenger megaliner tour buses? Future shuttle bus plans? How many new rental homes were added just this year, flooding the market. How closely have they studied supply and demand and occupancy rates? Or they just plan to build the pooh out of this county, lining their own pockets while they can still lure investors in the hope of "customary use" while intentionally dragging out the assuredly eventually doomed lawsuits. With supposed ineptness?... How many 'failures to properly notice' do-overs is the county going to get? Pay attention, my friends.

How effective has Walton County ever been in regulating tourist conduct even on their county-owned public beach parks? Is it fair to confiscate private property just to make it a free-for-all "park"?

Why do I suppose coastal cities with large public beaches are hubs for human trafficking and porn production industry? (Come on now. Connect the dots. You're smart.)

How many personnel do I think would be truly required to adequately regulate the conduct of growing crowds along 26 miles of beaches? Who would pay for the high cost of adequately managing crowds on the beach? The beachgoers themselves? How so? If they are day-trippers?

7. When a homeowner wants to enjoy his private property with his family, why should he forfeit the right to insist an obnoxious, albeit legal, two-faced jerk leave? Wouldn't I demand my family be able to enjoy my own private property?

How many law enforcement officers do I think will be required to keep the public safe in today's increasingly violent culture, along 26 miles of open free-for-all beaches? (watch the news lately?)
How many lifeguard stands do we need per capita? How many water rescues and drownings did we have this year?

Can we continue to keep everybody safe on the beach without proper regulation, monitoring, or controls of ever-growing crowds coming and going?

8. Is restricting beach density inherently wrong?
Would veterans suffering from PTSD agree? Would mothers wanting to protect their young children from predatory pervs lurking in large crowds agree? Would shoreline migratory nesting foul and endangered sea turtles benefit? Would elderly couples wanting to walk hand in hand along an uncluttered shoreline agree? Would artists seeking inspiration from the natural environment agree? Would a soul searcher seeking a prayerful, meditative spot, gazing on the gulf horizon agree? Would a shoreline fisherman agree? Would a bride who wants to be assured her beach wedding location can be reserved well in advance agree? Would couples on a romantic getaway agree? Don't people who simply cannot be in a crowd, for one reason another, also have recreational beach rights, even when they're willing to pay for some privacy and solitude?
What about me? Have I ever enjoyed a vacation getaway on a private beach that exluded the public crowds?

9. Why should the rights of exclusion be transferred from the private property owners to the government, merely for greedy economic gain? With zero indication of any intention or cabability to properly manage beach use density and behavior?

10. Is exclusivity wrong? No. It's essential.
(The transfer of the rights of exclusion is really what this CU lawsuit is about, you know.)

Whether you agree or disagree, feel free to copy, paste, share and learn from some honest, thoughtful discussion and feedback among your friends and family. I do appreciate that you at least took the time to read this tl;dr post.
Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!

I love social media. I am learning so much about humans every day. Mputnal avoided the whole point of my post. Of course. He didn't bother to answer a single one of the key questions. Instead deflected to a minor side comment about "predatory pervs". (Which btw, Sheriff's office will confirm there are some real creeps in our area. Who would be naive enough to think they never go to the beach? And, why is Watersound locked?) Mputnal just needs to have the last words. Tossed like a salad.
Also, I am completely fascinated to see who took these questions so personally.
Ask yourself why.
Add that to your Thanksgiving conversation.

Well, I see a new power broker just entered the room. Kind of makes sense doesn't it? What they lack in credibility they certainly make up in hired guns (their words not mine)!


Kathryn, I hear you but you are not using your real name right?

You and "Surfer Dude" have already decided that, right? He addressed me as "kayti anonymous", so name calling is not reserved for the infidels. And I applaud people who have become rich, like restaurant owners who built their businesses from the ground up. And for the record, I've always wanted to be able to surf. But, hey' go ahead and have the last word. You're good at that, aren't you?

Did your condo get a permit before building your seawall? Or did you install and ask forgiveness? What is the state of the seawall at your condo now? Fully buried as required?

Think that was about the time that all the beachfront owners were scrambling to shore up the "cliffs" in front of their property and we had a commissioner with a seawall side business that was more than happy to push "permits" through without going through the state like they were supposed to.

Yes I think you missed

Hmmm.....it’s what EVERY private property owner (or renter thereof) is GUARANTEED under the United States Constitution, rich or poor. You think that you have the right to use our property without permission because you believe you are morally superior.

Tell me if I missed something that doesn’t include your previous words:

selfishness
superior beliefs
power brokers
building blocking views or exclusive views
exclusion is what rich people want
disconnected from the people
not using your real name
individual power believes in their greatness over people
sharing the enjoyment
true greatness does not hide their identity
you believe in your greatness
attacking the people
people who hide their name
abuse of power
higher purpose

On and on.[/QUOTE

Yes. I think you missed something. The truth! The point! The attempt to debate the reasons why exclusivity is not a solution for the sandy beaches. I don’t understand why you can go on and on but not anyone who disagrees with you. What term do we use for that? If I used a negative term for you and yours I also applied it to me and my awareness of why it is important to be better than that. Listen none of us are saints and we have that in common. My only point really is for public recreational use of the beach and the shared enjoyment of the beach. Shaming and blaming is what you and yours do!

Where in this post did Alex call you a hooligan?

Alex provided some great questions for serious discussion and your reply is that you are being called “hooligan”? Why should the decision criteria to determine who is allowed on private property be changed from the private property owners (who have made this decision from time immemorial) to the BCC (who tried to TAKE this right in 2016)?

BTW we are still waiting on your reply as the leader of FBFA (a plaintiff in the lawsuit against hundreds of property owners).

WHY it is reasonable to remove property rights from legally deeded private property owners which have NEVER challenged prior to 2016 by the BCC

WHO has shown going to every single parcel in the 26 mile beach from the mean high tide line to the dunes is without interruption (note: there are numerous cases which show this has been interrupted, such as decades old trespassing cases and the 2008 BCC Edgewater Court Order)

WHEN did this issue become WITHOUT DISPUTE as specified in the County Lawsuit?

“Hooligan” fake, anonymous Reggie Gaskins words from an earlier ridiculous post

"EXCLUSIVITY"
(A thoughtful topic for the dinner table)

Before you get caught up adamantly defending the feel-good "customary use" campaign (innocent sounding label, right? Such a cute sticker they gave us at their affidavit blitz, right?), honestly ask yourself these 10 questions:

1. Do I agree beach density will eventually need to be managed so that the beach ambiance is not ruined for everybody?
2. Do I agree eventually there is some threshold?
3. Who gets to decide the threshold? Restauranteur empire-builders? Transient vacation rental investors? Bed tax collectors? Monster rental house developers?

Do I agree low beach use density is beneficial to the environment as well as public health and safety? Seriously now. Where do trespassers actually pee and pooh when they want to day camp on a private beach property all day?

Aren't I here because of the relatively low density of our beaches compared to our neighboring counties? What's wrong with wanting to maintain that?

4. How do I recemmend we manage beach density without some form of exclusion? Are economic barriers of beach access ultimately any different than the physical barriers (locked gates) of say, Water Sound?

5. How do I suggest managing beach density without monetizing beach use? (eenie meenie miney mo?)

Everyone is in agreement that clean drinking water should be available for every human being, but do I get my water for free? or do I have to pay for it? Though water is unequivocally more essential than a convenient sunbathing spot, I still have to pay for water.

Do I really believe the public crowds are entitled to free real estate for sunbathing? Does Walton County owe anyone a cheap vacation? Has Walton County indicated any interest in restricting growth of short-term rentals, which ultimately drives out the full-time residents? (Side benefit- Lack of full-time residents opens the floodgates for corruption opportunities.)

6. How has Walton County indicated any plans in managing beach density? Do I really think just limiting parking is sufficient? How about Uber and the 86 passenger megaliner tour buses? Future shuttle bus plans? How many new rental homes were added just this year, flooding the market. How closely have they studied supply and demand and occupancy rates? Or they just plan to build the pooh out of this county, lining their own pockets while they can still lure investors in the hope of "customary use" while intentionally dragging out the assuredly eventually doomed lawsuits. With supposed ineptness?... How many 'failures to properly notice' do-overs is the county going to get? Pay attention, my friends.

How effective has Walton County ever been in regulating tourist conduct even on their county-owned public beach parks? Is it fair to confiscate private property just to make it a free-for-all "park"?

Why do I suppose coastal cities with large public beaches are hubs for human trafficking and porn production industry? (Come on now. Connect the dots. You're smart.)

How many personnel do I think would be truly required to adequately regulate the conduct of growing crowds along 26 miles of beaches? Who would pay for the high cost of adequately managing crowds on the beach? The beachgoers themselves? How so? If they are day-trippers?

7. When a homeowner wants to enjoy his private property with his family, why should he forfeit the right to insist an obnoxious, albeit legal, two-faced jerk leave? Wouldn't I demand my family be able to enjoy my own private property?

How many law enforcement officers do I think will be required to keep the public safe in today's increasingly violent culture, along 26 miles of open free-for-all beaches? (watch the news lately?)
How many lifeguard stands do we need per capita? How many water rescues and drownings did we have this year?

Can we continue to keep everybody safe on the beach without proper regulation, monitoring, or controls of ever-growing crowds coming and going?

8. Is restricting beach density inherently wrong?
Would veterans suffering from PTSD agree? Would mothers wanting to protect their young children from predatory pervs lurking in large crowds agree? Would shoreline migratory nesting foul and endangered sea turtles benefit? Would elderly couples wanting to walk hand in hand along an uncluttered shoreline agree? Would artists seeking inspiration from the natural environment agree? Would a soul searcher seeking a prayerful, meditative spot, gazing on the gulf horizon agree? Would a shoreline fisherman agree? Would a bride who wants to be assured her beach wedding location can be reserved well in advance agree? Would couples on a romantic getaway agree? Don't people who simply cannot be in a crowd, for one reason another, also have recreational beach rights, even when they're willing to pay for some privacy and solitude?
What about me? Have I ever enjoyed a vacation getaway on a private beach that exluded the public crowds?

9. Why should the rights of exclusion be transferred from the private property owners to the government, merely for greedy economic gain? With zero indication of any intention or cabability to properly manage beach use density and behavior?

10. Is exclusivity wrong? No. It's essential.
(The transfer of the rights of exclusion is really what this CU lawsuit is about, you know.)

Whether you agree or disagree, feel free to copy, paste, share and learn from some honest, thoughtful discussion and feedback among your friends and family. I do appreciate that you at least took the time to read this tl;dr post.
Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!

Welcome to the thread Alex! Is this your real name or a moniker?

By Dave Rauschkolb | Guest Columnist

Those power brokers intent on denying the public’s right to use and enjoy our beach as we have since time immemorial are determined to paint this as a private property rights issue. Customary use is not an attack against private property rights; it is an affirmation that regardless of ownership of the sand we all have a right to access, use and enjoy our shared coastal American border.

“No entity, regardless of ownership, may deny or exclude Americans or international visitors from freely and lawfully accessing and using our American beaches from the dune line to the mean high tide waterline.” These words should be all that is needed in a federal or state law.

Private property in the conventional sense, beyond our coastal borders is not in dispute. Reams of legal and layman’s arguments have been and are being written to paint non-beachfront owners’ use of our beaches as an attack on private property. It is not because our beaches are very different from conventional private property.

We all own private property and the law is clear on Americans’ right to preserve and protect their private property. That is rarely if ever in dispute. The reason this issue IS in dispute is because we have truly shared our beaches for centuries. The claim of exclusion on beaches, couched in private property rights arguments is a fairly recent development in American history.

We have a shared coastal heritage on our beaches. Clearly our coasts have value, as the closer one purchases to a beach the values are highest. The value and strength of coastal economies depend on the use of our beaches for all. For a finite group of citizens to claim exclusion of our beaches to the rest of all Americans is an affront to all non beachfront-owning Americans.

Those powerful and well-funded people wanting to change a balance that has existed a very, very long time bitterly claim their private property is being taken away. No. They purchased the convenience of being steps from the beach and the view. They can’t build on the sand and there is no tax assessments directly attached to that sand. It is not private property in the conventional sense as it applies to all other land that is private property.

No, this is not about private property, it is about excluding all of us from enjoying and using our most treasured and beloved beaches. Our beaches, the shifting sands of our common Coastal American heritage. Perhaps, besides it not being buildable or taxable, it could be argued that the sandy areas of our beaches may never be called “private” because the land they purchased is constantly on the move by tidal action, wind and storms. How can they claim ownership and exclusion on shifting sand they can’t contain?

Alex Miles I have been around a block or two with you power brokers. You are not asking questions for civil discussion, community feedback or anything positive. You have one point. One principle. One purpose here on this forum. This is about whether or not the beaches should be shared enjoyment or private enjoyment. Or as you put it exclusivity. All the other stuff is bravo sierra. I have offered more than a few times to sponsor a community gathering like a redneck fish fry and class it up with Reggie/Regina's favorite and vastly superior drink so those questions could be asked and answered by real people. Those questions coming from you and the other power brokers are nothing but a trap. You do not care about an answer for those questions. You hide your name. You post nothing but shame. It is your game. It is really lame. If you really want answers to those questions why not show up in person. I wonder if you would have the spinal fortitude to ask anyone if they are a two faced jerk or a predatory perv to their face. I wonder. Just something to think about at Thanksgiving

Kathryn, I am not sure what you mean. I have no judgement about you or anyone else. I might disagree with you. I might not understand you. But I do not judge you. I am a small business person and have been around the economic block or two. I understand how our economic system works and it is not working fairly or equally. Reggie/Regina even admits this. Elite wealth does not pay the same fraction of their income as you and I. Many have off shore bank accounts or take advantage of loop holes that are not available for you and I. I do not protest their wealth and I do not admire their wealth. I am too old. Too tired to care that much anymore. As long as they leave me alone I am good with their success. But now they are wanting private enjoyment of a unique and limited resource that has been shared since the beginning. They shame the people and type bold statements meant to drown out the little ant voices. Stand up for yourself...

Alex Miles I have been around a block or two with you power brokers. You are not asking questions for civil discussion, community feedback or anything positive. You have one point. One principle. One purpose here on this forum. This is about whether or not the beaches should be shared enjoyment or private enjoyment. Or as you put it exclusivity. All the other stuff is bravo sierra. I have offered more than a few times to sponsor a community gathering like a redneck fish fry and class it up with Reggie/Regina's favorite and vastly superior drink so those questions could be asked and answered by real people. Those questions coming from you and the other power brokers are nothing but a trap. You do not care about an answer for those questions. You hide your name. You post nothing but shame. It is your game. It is really lame. If you really want answers to those questions why not show up in person. I wonder if you would have the spinal fortitude to ask anyone if they are a two faced jerk or a predatory perv to their face. I wonder. Just something to think about at Thanksgiving

Kathryn, I am not sure what you mean. I have no judgement about you or anyone else. I might disagree with you. I might not understand you. But I do not judge you. I am a small business person and have been around the economic block or two. I understand how our economic system works and it is not working fairly or equally. Reggie/Regina even admits this. Elite wealth does not pay the same fraction of their income as you and I. Many have off shore bank accounts or take advantage of loop holes that are not available for you and I. I do not protest their wealth and I do not admire their wealth. I am too old. Too tired to care that much anymore. As long as they leave me alone I am good with their success. But now they are wanting private enjoyment of a unique and limited resource that has been shared since the beginning. They shame the people and type bold statements meant to drown out the little ant voices. Stand up for yourself...

Yep, I was right about one thing. You had the last word. Happy Thanksgiving. You too, Surfer Dude!

A little background: I joined this forum 3-4 years ago when I was looking to purchase a house down here, which I did in 2016. So, while this is my first post, I did not join the forum specifically to post on this thread. While I’ve never posted before, I do read posts fairly often, and have been following this thread for a while. I’ve vacationed down here for 30+ years, sometimes for months at a time, so I’m very familiar with the area and how it has changed over the years.

I hesitated to post on this thread because posting about Customary Use seems like walking into a lion’s den. But I’ve been following this thread and am shocked at how much disinformation is being disseminated. I’m surprised how many posts say the beaches were always public or that the public always had use of the beaches until HB 631. That simply isn’t true. The Walton County Ordinance attempted to give the public use of private property, but without due process to the private property owners. HB 631 repealed the Ordinance and provided for due process. I’m surprised by the number of people that focus on the quieting of title, when the truth of the matter is that quieting title was simply clearing up clouds on title or transferring title from one private owner to another. Rarely, if ever, did it convey publicly owned beachfront to private property owners. I’m surprised at the number of posts saying the sand that is part of the private property owner’s deed is not taxed or is basically worthless because it can’t be built on. Taxes are based on value. Just compare the cost or value of a beachfront property to that of a property a tier or two back and you know the argument is false. The misinformation, negativity, and often-times name calling prompted me to post on this thread.

I wish I agreed with customary use, but I don’t. I don’t own beachfront property and would like nothing more than to be able to use the private property of beach front owners, but I don’t think I have the right to do so. What I wouldn’t give to have all of the tourists that are crowded onto the public beach areas spread out onto private property so there’s more room on the public beaches for me. But it is neither the private property owners’ fault that our beaches are so crowded nor is it their responsibility to share their backyard with those tourists, or with me for that matter. But just because I wish customary use was appropriate doesn’t make it so.

Many of the posts in this thread stereotype owners of beachfront property as greedy and selfish. Maybe some are, but I don’t think it has anything to do with customary use any more than some customary use supporters wanting something that doesn’t belong to them or some customary use supporters who want more area for tourists so that customary use supporters’ businesses can prosper. The economy was doing fine down here long before it became so crowded that you can’t find a place to park or get into a restaurant during high season. There was plenty of room to go to the beach with a cup of coffee in the morning, a chair and a book in the afternoon, or a glass of wine at sunset before the vendors took over.

Property rights in the U.S. are constitutionally protected. If we go down the path of confiscation, where does it end? Some will argue customary use doesn’t take the property away from the private property owners so it’s not confiscation. But it is if they don’t have the right to use their property to the exclusion of others. If Walton County wanted to grant a right of use to the public of private property, then an easement or use agreement should have been in place when the property was originally sold. If a use agreement or easement were in place, I bet the cost/value of those beachfront homes would have been much less and property taxes reduced significantly. Without a use agreement or easement, private beachfront owners have every right to rely on the deed to their property and to enforce their property rights. If Walton County wants eminent domain, an easement, or a use agreement, they should have to pay private property owners for it. I don’t like saying that at all, because if that is what happens, you know mine and everybody else’s taxes will pay for it. But we’re already paying for the lawsuit. And we all know that beachfront owners carry a much larger property tax burden than non-beachfront owners.

Just my two cents from a non-beachfront owner who does not support customer use.

I’ve tried very hard to be respectful, not to call anybody names or sling mud. Please be respectful in return.

@DanaMarie , your first post reads like a symphony, not a misplayed note anywhere. It was like a breath of fresh crisp spring air. Thank you.

DanaMarie, I commend you for posting your opinion. It is important for everyone to have a voice. Yes we should be able to be respectful even though we may disagree. Life is too short for all the shaming going on here for differing opinions. I look at this from the perspective of what happens next if the beaches are used for private enjoyment. I look at it from the perspective of future generations who may not have access to the beach if people with elite wealth and power entitle themselves to more and more beach front real estate. I know people who have more history here than I do and I trust their accounting of the way the beaches were shared in the past. I do not trust elite wealth and power to have my best interest in mind. The sandy beach is unlike normal land in that sand is formed in the ocean and deposited along the coastline. It is constantly shifting seaward then landward and up and down the beach. I also believe in property rights and of course the Constitution and so do other public recreational beach use supporters. But this is not about that. This is about individual power being used to exclude all people from the beach. We can disagree and that is okay but we should all have a voice. Repetitive posting is obnoxious and I realize I fit that description but I do not judge anyone or call people sick names. The only thing in dispute here is whether or not the beach is for private enjoyment or shared enjoyment. I use to think it could be both but once I started reading how elite wealth and power have given themselves a mandate for exclusive beach use, for greatness and for superior opinions I had to stand up and say enough is enough. I don't want the last word. I don't want something for nothing. I don't care about who has more money than someone else. I just believe that the beach is for shared enjoyment and that everyone should have a voice. If the Supreme Courts says I am wrong then I will abide by that decision. Until then we debate, we argue, we agree, we disagree but by all means we should be respectful...

DanaMarie, I commend you for posting your opinion. It is important for everyone to have a voice. Yes we should be able to be respectful even though we may disagree. Life is too short for all the shaming going on here for differing opinions. I look at this from the perspective of what happens next if the beaches are used for private enjoyment. I look at it from the perspective of future generations who may not have access to the beach if people with elite wealth and power entitle themselves to more and more beach front real estate. I know people who have more history here than I do and I trust their accounting of the way the beaches were shared in the past. I do not trust elite wealth and power to have my best interest in mind. The sandy beach is unlike normal land in that sand is formed in the ocean and deposited along the coastline. It is constantly shifting seaward then landward and up and down the beach. I also believe in property rights and of course the Constitution and so do other public recreational beach use supporters. But this is not about that. This is about individual power being used to exclude all people from the beach. We can disagree and that is okay but we should all have a voice. Repetitive posting is obnoxious and I realize I fit that description but I do not judge anyone or call people sick names. The only thing in dispute here is whether or not the beach is for private enjoyment or shared enjoyment. I use to think it could be both but once I started reading how elite wealth and power have given themselves a mandate for exclusive beach use, for greatness and for superior opinions I had to stand up and say enough is enough. I don't want the last word. I don't want something for nothing. I don't care about who has more money than someone else. I just believe that the beach is for shared enjoyment and that everyone should have a voice. If the Supreme Courts says I am wrong then I will abide by that decision. Until then we debate, we argue, we agree, we disagree but by all means we should be respectful...

I don’t believe it’s about elite wealth or power. Many beachfront owners saved the majority of their lifetimes to be able to afford beachfront, and others handed down property from generation to generation. Sure, there are the mega-mansions owned by the wealthy, but that isn’t the point. This is about property rights plain and simple. If you can take their land, what prevents me from thinking I have the right to take over your business? Who decides that the beach/sand doesn’t count as true/real property because it’s created by mother nature, but pine straw from trees in forests that have been around forever is different?

Time to slice and dice a post from Dave Raushkolb posted Nov 13, 2019 on Facebook:

House Bill 631 was written by some of the very attorneys and law firms representing beach front owners. It was meant to be cumbersome for any county in Florida to go to the trouble of ensuring their beaches stayed open to the public as they always have been. Still in complete denial that the county cannot take private property without due process and that's what HB631 simply reiterated. And if the part "...open to the public as they always have been" was true, this thread and the law suit would not exist. But it does make a great rally cry!

Having said that this notice issue has plagued the county from the beginning. But, regardless of whatever hoops they and we have to jump through, regardless of the amount of time it takes and regardless of whatever financial cost is incurred it’s going to be worth it in the end to ensure our beaches remain our beaches, a shared resource. Does Dave know something we don't? Almost sounds like the front-line may be wavering a bit. Oh yeah, Judge Green issued an order on Nov 14 denying county's motion for rehearing regarding the notification screw-ups. The county hasn't even started down the real legal road and yet they can't get their act together regarding notifications. Cliff Notes: beach front owners that were properly notified but DID NOT file a motion to intervene are off the hook from the customary lawsuit for now because they did not acknowledge (via a motion to intervene) that the county did not properly notify all beach front owners - pretty bad after all this time.

The use of the beaches of all of Florida for all of Florida's citizens and visitors is priceless. It’s an endless gift that is shared with every resident and every visitor going back hundreds and thousands of years to this very day. Excluding the public and our visitors from any beach is ludicrous. Not too ludicrous - over 2000 beachfront owners (over half the beach front parcels) officially disagree with Dave. And I'm guessing the county is having second thoughts.

So over 600 parcels have filed motion to intervene. The rest of the parcels are apparently are not part of the lawsuit if they didn't file a motion to intervene. Go figure.

The loudest voices that are driving this private beach train are beachfront homes closest to Public Beach Accesses. I have been a proponent of tightening the rules near Public Beach Accesses to address the complaints from Beach front owners. But it appears that “behavior“ is just a false flag when really it’s always been about excluding the public and declaring beaches behind their homes private all the long. They see and realize the value of exclusion and exclusivity for their own financial gain all the while homes that are across the street and in nearby neighborhoods of some of these beach accesses will see property values decline and rental incomes decline as well. What they have done is not fair to every person who has ever invested here and visited here.
Property values have absolutely NOTHING to do with customary use - again not one of the 4 cornerstones of customary use. And Dave made a comment on Facebook, when challenged, that he's not a hypocrite regarding his gated Watersound subdivision. In the end, their gate and fence accomplishes the same exclusivity, without a doubt. It's the lipstick on a pig thing someone mentioned.

The only path to fairness is to restore our beaches from the dune line to the water line for all. They hope to silence our voices and they have a fantasy that we may get used to not having the full use of our beaches but it is just that, a fantasy. Dave's concept of fairness is, indeed, a made-up fantasy which has no place in the bundle of private property rights.

This issue crosses the cultural and political divide that plagues our country. Conservatives and liberals predominately support open public beaches and not private exclusive beaches. Every politician in Florida knows this and the day will come when they will have to right this wrong because it’s not about left and right or conservative or liberal it truly is about right and wrong and it is wrong to exclude people from any beach in Florida. Has overtones of @mputnal righteousness.

Why do people come to Florida? To spend money and get sunburned. It’s the beaches. Why do people invest in Florida? To own private property along with the right to exclude, hopefully get a return for their investment, fish, drink mai-tais and swim all at the same time. It’s the Beaches. Why do people move here and raise their children? To teach them how to be surfer dudes and dudettes. It’s the Beaches. The beach is Florida’s heartbeat. So is a Chevrolet. A continuous ribbon of life from the Gulf of Mexico to the Atlantic. Our common shared border. It’s the beaches and they are all of ours. Florida’s beaches, Americas beaches. Sorry, none of the above are listed in the 4 cornerstones of customary use even though that last description did bring tears to my eyes.

I don’t believe it’s about elite wealth or power. Many beachfront owners saved the majority of their lifetimes to be able to afford beachfront, and others handed down property from generation to generation. Sure, there are the mega-mansions owned by the wealthy, but that isn’t the point. This is about property rights plain and simple. If you can take their land, what prevents me from thinking I have the right to take over your business? Who decides that the beach/sand doesn’t count as true/real property because it’s created by mother nature, but pine straw from trees in forests that have been around forever is different?

Okay so I am going to ask you to please be respectful. You obviously know my business but I do not know yours which is okay as long as we are civil. BTW the organic life of a pine needle is very similar to the life of many agricultural products which are consumed. Both are consumed. One is consumed by humans and other organic life and the other is consumed by the elements that make up earth. Sand is different. It is not consumed. It has a shelf life of forever and it does not stay in any one place.

I really do not have a problem with those bfo's who saved their money to build on the beach or those that had the property handed down. We are talking modest and many are on pilings which I believe is less exclusive. Now imagine the beaches lined with visually exclusive mega-mansions as you say. Add to that the exclusive use of the beach behind the exclusive mega-mansions. This will happen in the near future because this is a valuable resource and guess who already owns over 50% of our available land resources? Okay so you say you are okay with that but I am not okay with that so do we keep arguing about who is right and who is wrong or just let the court figure it out? This is not a court room and we all have opinions! Your opinion is important. My opinion is important. Yes even these power brokers have an opinion and it is important. But the point is we are expressing opinions. When there are facts on both sides we as a community need to find compromises. If one side will not listen to the facts of the other side or attack those facts as being less than then we have a problem of civility and respect. We can argue all day and night and not solve anything that way and actually make things worse. That is what this thread intended. Create enough fear and anger that the government can take away your property rights and well isn't it obvious what the reaction will be?

My point here is that we just need to listen to each other and figure out a compromise. Apparently the County realized that something changed on our beaches regarding shared enjoyment and they had to do something about it. I am not letting the County off with being without fault here but what else could they do? The power brokers are adamant on exclusion. There are no other disputes regarding property rights but that power to exclude people from the beach. Those bfo's that you are referring to have always practiced shared enjoyment of the beach but something changed. Do you think it is possible that those with political influence believe that the Supreme Court will agree with exclusive private beach enjoyment? If you do I see a big risk in that it will be costly and not a slam dunk. We did take land from the native Americans and sent them packing. How do you get around that? Coastal boundaries are constantly changing because the forces of nature are greater than the forces of man. How do you get around that? Land use is a conservative application of property law and the public has no way of knowing where property lines are. How do you get around that? The Sandy beaches were formed in the sea and deposited on the coastline so who owns the sand. How do you get around that. When a public recreational beach uses the beach where are the boundaries? How do you get around that. Of course the power brokers have facts but there are many facts here that our Justice System will now have to figure out because the community was not able to compromise on exclusive private enjoyment or shared public enjoyment. It just seems like common sense should have led to a compromise but why do you think compromise was not an option? Because elite power does not compromise...

Yep, that would be about right but I don't think it is the actual definition which is "gang like mentality". Sheesh could I run with that... Listen we should try and find our civility genes. What is wrong with being civil and respectful? What is wrong with disagreement if we do it with civility and respectful behavior. Truth has perspective. Honor has process. Our justice system is the appropriate place truth and honor. This forum is about community where people engage and interact with each other. We have to listen to both sides otherwise it will be chaos if one side believes they have the prime directive of all things. I will be the first to apologize if I hurt anyone with my words because that was not my intent. I believe it is time for all of us to move on and live and let live. Hard feelings are not worth being right or justified. Can we all agree that life is short and so we need to enjoy the time we have? If we could all just agree to be happy and joyous that life is good and people are good and the future is good...why is that so hard? The court will figure this thing out. Why not we all stop posting the same things over and over? I will try my very best to not post on this thread again...I know I said that before but this time I will try harder.

I really do hate to distract from the new, very intelligent, and salient voices in the room. But I must confess in their defense...I am the guilty party who typed the word...

Hooligan;

One who drums up emotional mob mentality in a community by broadcasting inflating and knowingly false info to public

One who Intentionally creates community division through staged video ambush events aimed at elevating discourse and community tension

One who avoids adult discussion on facts, and resorts to censoring all opposition voices and thoughts

One who discloses sensitive personal information on those in disagreement with his views, for the sole purpose of intimidation and silencing of any opposition

Hooligan, noun, indigenous to civic areas acutely susceptible to local bully tactics and dysfunctional authority

CU believers perceive facts that point out false CU beliefs (lack credibility) as attacks on CU believers personally. Like a belly-button everyone can have an opinion. But not all opinions are credible. I guess if CU believers have no alternative facts to dispute the facts; they have to resort to claims of being “attacked” ... by the facts. Which shows the lack of CU believer’s credibility.

mputnal believes the sand and beach are not “normal land”. Heard recently from other BPOs that local REALTORS believe the same thing. Guess REALTORS are CU believers too.
#2033 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
“The sandy beach is unlike normal land in that sand is formed in the ocean and deposited along the coastline.”

Science has shown the facts are “this [FL panhandle] sand came from a process [of water erosion] involving the Appalachian Mountains and the Apalachicola River 20,000 years ago.” History of our Sand
New Judge for Florida-Georgia Water War - Southeast AgNET
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/af/e5/0f/afe50fc6cab66ca37bd0a415472768de.jpg

#1985 “Again, please understand that the State of Florida owns the sandy beach and we all share it.”
#1994 6. “... The sand is owned by the State of Florida. ...”
Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#1996 “In other words the [BPO’s] deeds are inaccurate or incomplete at best.”

With this non-linear thinking can you concluded that people from Atlanta can own the Walton dry white quartz sand (land) washed down from the Appalachian Mountains and the Apalachicola River?

Just not credible CU beliefs or opinions no matter how many times CU believers say them.

DanaMarie thank you for your insight and two-cents as a Walton (American) property owner.
By the way the Walton Sheriff has used the term “hooligans” in his CU FB video before. Testing the sand for Customary Use