Should Americans be denied access to the sand behind beachfront homes that American's rescue?

I don't think any beach, water, air, trees, minerals, or other resources should be privately owned, but certainly protected and managed. It is nice to have some property rights but can't imagine why anyone would want or need to own beachfront as long as we protect it from development or misuse. So there should be restrictions on how beaches are used but not by individual property owners. Whatever happened to doing things for the general good like national parks and such? The only reason I can think of for protections of public lands to diminish is for profit.

Some beachfront owners claim the county beach claims are all about tourism and tax dollars. This is true of course. The beach and our waterways and forests and dunes are what makes living here or visiting here desired. Why wouldn't we reserve the public enjoyment of such resources?

Today, the Public can walk the entire 26 miles of beach, swim, fish, take pictures, and enjoy. That right is protected by the State of Florida (not Walton County). What the Public cannot do is “day camp” with unlimited people with unlimited equipment on Private Property against the will of the property as the BCC proposed (for the first time ever in the 2016 Beach Ordinance). That has NEVER been permitted in the State of Florida.

Day Camping with unlimited people and unlimited beach equipment on private deed property against the will of the property owner is neither a right, nor privilege, nor legal. This has nothing to do with walking the beach, swimming, or fishing. Access to Private property is an independent decision each and every parcel owner makes for their unique deeded property boundaries. You can be an invited guest, or rent their property, or go the State Park, or to the Public beach if you want to day camp.

Approximately ½ of the 26 miles is available due to County purchases (Public Beach), State Purchases (State Parks) or beach that has been refurbished.

Why not just have the BCC or State purchase more beach property from the property owners like they have done in the past and turn it into Public Access property like Topsail State Park or the new public beach front property across from Stinky’s, instead of trying to steal it from people who have invested millions of dollars, some of the land has been in owned by some families for generations.

There is a reason taking property in the USA requires judicial approval instead of a couple of local elected officials deciding they want something for nothing because they like it or to chase billions of tourist dollars. If "taking" was permitted, every County Commissioner in the USA would just take any ad every property they wanted for the "good of the general public'. It might be just the BPO's that have their land stolen today, yours could be tomorrow....

Today, the Public can walk the entire 26 miles of beach, swim, fish, take pictures, and enjoy. That right is protected by the State of Florida (not Walton County). What the Public cannot do is “day camp” with unlimited people with unlimited equipment on Private Property against the will of the property as the BCC proposed (for the first time ever in the 2016 Beach Ordinance). That has NEVER been permitted in the State of Florida.

Day Camping with unlimited people and unlimited beach equipment on private deed property against the will of the property owner is neither a right, nor privilege, nor legal. This has nothing to do with walking the beach, swimming, or fishing. Access to Private property is an independent decision each and every parcel owner makes for their unique deeded property boundaries. You can be an invited guest, or rent their property, or go the State Park, or to the Public beach if you want to day camp.

Approximately ½ of the 26 miles is available due to County purchases (Public Beach), State Purchases (State Parks) or beach that has been refurbished.

Why not just have the BCC or State purchase more beach property from the property owners like they have done in the past and turn it into Public Access property like Topsail State Park or the new public beach front property across from Stinky’s, instead of trying to steal it from people who have invested millions of dollars, some of the land has been in owned by some families for generations.

There is a reason taking property in the USA requires judicial approval instead of a couple of local elected officials deciding they want something for nothing because they like it or to chase billions of tourist dollars. If "taking" was permitted, every County Commissioner in the USA would just take any ad every property they wanted for the "good of the general public'. It might be just the BPO's that have their land stolen today, yours could be tomorrow....

Maybe instead of displaying no trespassing signs you should display your deed and survey. Isn't that what the law requires?

Maybe instead of displaying no trespassing signs you should display your deed and survey. Isn't that what the law requires?

I have been asking one of them to post a Current (less than 1yr old) TOPO survey for years. Havent seen one yet. The significance of a CURRENT TOPO SURVEY you ask?? Its the only way the state of Florida accepts to determine where the MHWL actually is.

Isn't that what the law requires?

According to the laws in Florida “if the property is less than five acres in area, and a dwelling house is located on it, the property will automatically be treated as “posted land” even though no signs have been erected”

Under Florida law a criminal Trespass occurs where a person “willfully enters or remains upon property without authorization, or if initially allowed on the property refuses to depart upon request of the rightful owner or occupant”

The legal MHWL line is defined and available from the State of Florida and can be surveyed. A resident does not need to provide a topo survey nor do they determine the MHWL.

Of course the FBFA Plaintiff Attorney in the lawsuit against every deeded BPO in Walton County should be familiar with these laws.

According to the laws in Florida “if the property is less than five acres in area, and a dwelling house is located on it, the property will automatically be treated as “posted land” even though no signs have been erected”

Under Florida law a criminal Trespass occurs where a person “willfully enters or remains upon property without authorization, or if initially allowed on the property refuses to depart upon request of the rightful owner or occupant”

The legal MHWL line is defined and available from the State of Florida and can be surveyed. A resident does not need to provide a topo survey nor do they determine the MHWL.

Of course the FBFA Plaintiff Attorney in the lawsuit against every deeded BPO in Walton County should be familiar with these laws.

What does the sheriff ask for when you call him?

Pretty sure you have to prove you actually own the land to have someone arrested/charged with trespass. Otherwise its my word against yours where that imaginary line in the sand is.

But there is one way Walton Co. (and all other counties being affected) can put this BS to rest. Declare a "conservation easement" and be done with it.

But there is one way Walton Co. (and all other counties being affected) can put this BS to rest. Declare a "conservation easement" and be done with it.

This certainly an interesting approach and has some merit.

1. It will eliminate the unlimited occupation with unlimited equipment for conservation purposes
2. It will protect the turtle nesting area and other wildlife habitat and conserve the beach for future generations
3. It will permit use by the homeowner

It does not meet the 2016 BBC special meeting objective of turning our beach into a free for all to chase billions of tourists dollars, but that is a good thing since chasing billions of tourthat would be at the expense of our sensitive and unique ecosystem

This certainly an interesting approach and has some merit.

1. It will eliminate the unlimited occupation with unlimited equipment for conservation purposes
2. It will protect the turtle nesting area and other wildlife habitat and conserve the beach for future generations
3. It will permit use by the homeowner

It does not meet the 2016 BBC special meeting objective of turning our beach into a free for all to chase billions of tourists dollars, but that is a good thing since chasing billions of tourthat would be at the expense of our sensitive and unique ecosystem

Sounds great!

Except I imagine there will need to be specifics on what equipment is allowed. Pounds per person? By color? Material?

But if you read the statute it says it can be for "recreation" also. That word covers alot. The way I read it it would put more of an encumbrance on the property owner while making sure that the property would be available to the owner of the easement (the county) from now on. It would prohibit any signs, dumping of sand to "create" dunes so you can build on "un-buildable " lots.
(3) Conservation easements may be acquired by any governmental body or agency or by a charitable corporation or trust whose purposes include protecting natural, scenic, or open space values of real property, assuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational, or open space use, protecting natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality, or preserving sites or properties of historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance.
(13) A conservation easement agreement may include provisions which allow agricultural activities, including, but not limited to, silviculture, forestry management, and livestock grazing, if such activity is a current or historic use of the land placed under easement.
Sounds like it would even allow for the current use of "day camping" and the public "recreating" on the dry sand portion of the beach.

A conservation easement owned by the County for the purpose of public recreational use and habitat protection is an excellent idea. Something like this could save millions of dollars in lawsuits. However most of the power brokers will probably not go for it because they have money to burn for lawsuits. The power brokers simply do not want to share the beach with the public under any circumstances. They want the power to exclude. Since it is a voluntary program it would take a miracle. Trust me those with money and power know the tax benefits of a conservation easement but it is not as desirable to them compared to the power to exclude the public from the beach. They can prove me wrong of course and I hope they do.