More dirty dealing by Huckabee and friends to bankrupt our county.
Property owners challenge Walton beach closure
Arguing that they are being prevented from using their “backyards,” oceanfront property owners are asking a federal judge to block a Walton County ordinance that has closed beaches amid the COVID-19 crisis.
WALTON LAWSUITDownload
The property owners filed the lawsuit and a request for an injunction Monday in federal court in Pensacola. It came after numerous local governments across the state closed beaches to prevent potential spread of the disease — and as Gov. Ron DeSantis has resisted ordering statewide beach closures.
The lawsuit alleges a Walton County ordinance passed last week is unconstitutional on a series of grounds, including that it is an unconstitutional “taking” of property without compensation and violates privacy and due-process rights. The case focuses on how the ordinance affects the rights of oceanfront property owners, rather than issues related to the general public.
“The county’s ordinance forces family members into a confined space within their house rather than allow them to social distance and recreate in their sandy backyard,” a memorandum filed with the lawsuit said. “Or it forces them to public locations to recreate potentially closer to many other persons increasing the risk of spreading COVID-19. Either way, it is counterproductive. And it is beyond reasonable dispute that any hypothetical, negligible benefit conjured by those who passed the Walton County ordinance cannot possibly outweigh the profound trammeling of the present plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”
Under Florida law, privately owned beach property generally extends to a point known as the mean high-water line. The lawsuit also, however, points to property owners’ “littoral” rights, which provide access to the water.
The lawsuit alleges that the ordinance improperly applies to the private property, including allowing the Walton County Sheriff’s Office to enforce the restrictions against homeowners. Plaintiffs include former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Beach closures have been a closely watched issue as Florida has grappled with the novel coronavirus, which causes the highly contagious and deadly COVID-19 respiratory disease. Images of crowds of beachgoers, including spring breakers, flashed across the country last month as the numbers of COVID-19 cases began to escalate, leading to calls for beach closures.
The Walton County property owners’ lawsuit was filed as a Leon County circuit judge considers a case filed by a Walton County attorney, Daniel Uhlfelder, that seeks to force DeSantis to close beaches statewide. Judge Kevin Carroll is slated to hold a hearing in that case Tuesday afternoon.
Walton County, between Panama City and Destin, has seen a building boom in recent years, with multimillion-dollar homes popping up along its beaches. It also has been a battleground about a controversial 2018 state law that dealt with public access to beaches.
The newly filed lawsuit cites an executive order that DeSantis issued last week directing Floridians to stay at home. The executive order includes a series of exceptions, including for recreational activities such as walking, biking, fishing, running and swimming.
The lawsuit alleges that the Walton County ordinance violates the executive order because it prevents the oceanfront homeowners from fishing and swimming from their properties. It also describes the ordinance, which revamped an earlier version, as “arbitrary and capricious.”
“The amended ordinance purports to be designed to ‘prevent the spread of COVID-19’ yet it has the opposite effect,” the lawsuit contends. “The amended ordinance prevents the plaintiffs, many of whom own residences along the beach, from utilizing their own backyards to quarantine or stay safe at home. The chances of a family or landowner catching or spreading COVID-19 is far less in his or her own private backyard (where no one else should be less they be trespassing) than traveling to the grocery store or hardware store or other essential business.”
Replies
139
Beach Fanatic
Spin it however you want...the people and entities below are suing to get money from the county for closing the beach to protect our community.
Using this crisis to bully and profit.
While the information you posted is available to those who choose to do the work, what exactly is your purpose for posting their personal information here? They aren't hiding, so what does this accomplish?
Bay County found a way to allow deeded owners to set foot on their beaches while keeping guests, tourists, and renters off their beaches. That seemed like a reasonable way to retain constitutional rights, but remove the threat of congregating and/or bringing the virus from other areas. The Bay County owners are only allowed on THEIR beach property, no one else's, and not the public beach areas.
I am constantly amazed at how ugly and vindictive so many posters on here and other social media can get because they DISAGREE. Making assumptions about people's motives is just that: assuming (and you know what is said about that). You THINK you know why people are filing a lawsuit over their personal property rights, but you don't know. I bet money is the least of their motives, but I don't know either.
Eroding property rights is no different than eroding freedom of speech rights or firearm rights. Be careful what you criticize and be careful what you ask for.
Edited
Beach Lover
Eroding property rights is no different than eroding freedom of speech rights or firearm right. Be careful what you criticize and be careful what you ask for.What I ask for is for you to respect authority and be a good neighbor.
Beach Fanatic
What I ask for is for you to respect authority and be a good neighbor.
Thanks, and THAT is a reasonable request. Unfortunately, what you did in the post I responded to was far different. Can we agree that a temporary suspension of the right to be on one's own deeded property, excluding all others except for the deeded owners, seems like an over reach? Similar to temporarily removing our rights to bear arms and/or our free speech? Everyone wants this to be over, and we all need to do our part to help get there. We just need to be very careful about eroding rights to an unnecessary extent. The next rights to be eroded could be yours or mine.
Beach Lover
Thanks, and THAT is a reasonable request. Unfortunately, what you did in the post I responded to was far different. Can we agree that a temporary suspension of the right to be on one's own deeded property, excluding all others except for the deeded owners, seems like an over reach? Similar to temporarily removing our rights to bear arms and/or our free speech? Everyone wants this to be over, and we all need to do our part to help get there. We just need to be very careful about eroding rights to an unnecessary extent. The next rights to be eroded could be yours or mine.Well let's be real. If my backyard was attracting millions of people I would be OK with closing it. I wouldn't whine. I wouldn't worry that the government is going to erode my property rights. I certainly wouldn't ask the county to pay me if they closed it. That's some grade A manure.
Beach Fanatic
Well let's be real. If my backyard was attracting millions of people I would be OK with closing it. I wouldn't whine. I wouldn't worry that the government is going to erode my property rights. I certainly wouldn't ask the county to pay me if they closed it. That's some grade A manure.
Maybe, but I bet you would be asking (like people did at the BCC emergency meeting) that you, as the owner, still be allowed to actually go in your backyard. Hopefully, you'll never have to find out how you would react. Don't misunderstand me, I wish everyone had voluntarily minimized any grouping on the beach, much less renting or inviting people who don't live here, during this time. Maybe things would be different if people had understood better and earlier how much the whole country would be affected by the virus.
Beach Fanatic
.....Pray tell us why how land is titled bears on this discussion.....I was referring to the Bay county ordinance that said the homeowner has to show that their name is on the deed in order to be on their "backyard"..... guess the list of "persons" suing the county shows what that has to do with this discussion...."LLCs" and "trusts" seems to make up quite alot of those involved. Be kinda hard to prove your the "person" on the deed if there arent any "persons" actually on the deed.
Beach Lover
Maybe, but I bet you would be asking (like people did at the BCC emergency meeting) that you, as the owner, still be allowed to actually go in your backyard. Hopefully, you'll never have to find out how you would react. Don't misunderstand me, I wish everyone had voluntarily minimized any grouping on the beach, much less renting or inviting people who don't live here, during this time. Maybe things would be different if people had understood better and earlier how much the whole country would be affected by the virus.It would be nice if our Federal Government wasn't gutted and we were not led by thieves and liars.
I'm glad we have local leaders taking action. Sorry to say these days you have to take a hard hand so people get the message. When we only shut "private" beaches that wasn't strong enough to keep people away.
Beach Lover
I was referring to the Bay county ordinance that said the homeowner has to show that their name is on the deed in order to be on their "backyard"..... guess the list of "persons" suing the county shows what that has to do with this discussion...."LLCs" and "trusts" seems to make up quite alot of those involved. Be kinda hard to prove your the "person" on the deed if there arent any "persons" actually on the deed.
No, it would not be difficult.
And, like it or not, the Constitution guarantees certain rights which the BCC chose to ignore against the advice of its own counsel. Fact or Fiction has made some excellent points in the preceding posts today.
If our local or state government chooses to ignore the law and infringe on your rights, you have an absolute right to seek justice in the courts. And so do the plaintiffs in the suit at issue. Do you really believe in anarchy? Either we are a government of laws or not. I prefer laws, however imperfect and however imperfectly construed and enforced, to mob rule.
Most still posting on this forum seem to believe that their emotions and prejudices should rule, and to question or object to that indefensible BS is to immediately be subjected to calumny and condemnation. The tyranny of small minds. And we unfortunately have a majority of such minds (and I fear I use the word loosely here) on our BCC.
The plaintiffs in this suit, and I am not one of them, aren't motivated by money in this action. They simply want the county to leave them alone, quit illegally discriminating against them, and allow them the quiet enjoyment of their private property to which they are entitled. A shame they have to endure the time, trouble and expense of a lawsuit to walk or sit in their own yards.
Beach Fanatic
The plaintiffs in this suit, and I am not one of them, aren't motivated by money in this action.Then why are they seeking money? Pretty clear there is a segment of our society that is using this crisis to grab money. Do you doubt Huckabee is following the example set by his buddy in the white house?
Beach Lover
Sheriff is due in Federal Court on Monday because of this. I would rather his time be spent focusing on more important issues. This BS lawsuit is costing taxpayers money. Draining our county resources and causing us to spend time and money. The people who are doing this are NOT good people.
Beach Fanatic
Maybe, but I bet you would be asking (like people did at the BCC emergency meeting) that you, as the owner, still be allowed to actually go in your backyard. Hopefully, you'll never have to find out how you would react. Don't misunderstand me, I wish everyone had voluntarily minimized any grouping on the beach, much less renting or inviting people who don't live here, during this time. Maybe things would be different if people had understood better and earlier how much the whole country would be affected by the virus.
@FactorFiction, I am convinced that there are several "silent" people on this forum who FULLY UNDERSTAND what's really at stake. When the county's own lawyer, a PRO-CUSTOMARY USE ADVOCATE, basically advises the BCC that taking this action will certainly result in a law suit (closing of specific private residential properties, outside the scope of their power), that you would think the BCC would do the right thing and not violate the law, AGAIN.
A commissioner doesn't have to pass a civics class or law exam to be elected. However, they do swear to uphold the Constitution. SELECTIVE DEPRIVATION of one's private property without due process by the government runs against the Constitution. And I'm certain that's what Sidney Noyes was trying to tell the BCC.
Too many vocal folks on this forum reduce their arguments to nothing but emotional diatribes and have little understanding of the law and what's at stake: government encroachment on our liberties. That's not to diminish the seriousness of Covid-19 and distancing.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised that Sheriff Adkinson encouraged the BCC to unlawfully amend the original PUBLIC beach closure ordinance to include private property. The Sheriff's justification, per his online video, was that since the BCC has the authority to issue a mandatory hurricane evacuation (legally enforceable "at gun point"), that they have the same authority to shut down private beach property. The fallacy is that private beach is legally no different than anyone else's backyard. Can you imagine not being to go in your own yard?
When a mandatory hurricane evacuation is issued, ALL PEOPLE must leave. It's not selective. That's where the Sheriff's hurricane evacuation analogy to shutting down particular private properties falls flat on its face.
Now, if the BCC ordered EVERYONE that they cannot use their PRIVATE yards, I believe that order would at least be more consistent, whether or not they truly have the power to do as such.
In reality, at least in Blue Mountain Beach, there was not an issue with too many people using private beach. As a matter of fact, it was pretty much abandoned due to the rental ban. Now I've read that many people are checking into rental properties this week. Assuming these were "renters", I'm all for enforcing the current no short term rental policy (I've obeyed that aspect). Truthfully, it's probably easier to pick on private beach owners for sitting on their own property than it is to figure if these new check-ins are legit or not (i.e. non-rental).
We are all in this together and everyone has been tremendously impacted by this pandemic. I sincerely hope everyone stays safe.
Beach Fanatic
When a mandatory hurricane evacuation is issued, ALL PEOPLE must leave. It's not selective.It actually is. Otherwise they'd make people in Paxton leave.
Skunky
Interesting release from Congressional Research Service. Crash course on Federal Law regarding Constitutional protections for private property owners in context of COVID-19 taking. I am not going to even pretend to act like I am an authority on legal matters, but, it sounds to me that this lawsuit's outcome hinges on whether or not the local government has recognized police power to temporarily close the beach, some of which is private dry sand. Good reading regardless.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10434
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10434
Edited
Beach Fanatic
"The Constitution does not create property rights. Other sources of law, such as state statutes or common law, create property rights."....
Did I just read that right?
Did I just read that right?
SWGB
Once again the idiotic yard argument rears its inbred head.
Beach Fanatic
@30A Skunkape , thanks for the link.
So internally, I’ve wrestled with the idea whether the county should have the authority to shut down private beaches such as Seaside and Rosemary (very dense use of the beach). Fortunately these associations stepped up and did the right thing by self-closing their own beaches anyway. I believe we’re all in support of that as it would be impossible for them to maintain the distancing policy otherwise.
On the other hand, a single gulf front home owner who is in full control of their beach property is on the other end of the density spectrum. Should they be excluded from using their own beach? Absolutely not. Remember the short term rental ban takes care of the multi-family occupation of a single beach home.
So in the ever guiding light of consistency and uniform application of the government heavy’s hand, there must be some other way to achieve the desired result without stepping on ALL private beach front property owners.
Somewhere in the middle is the appropriate answer. It truly is a tough call.
Now, my sincere belief is that the private property owners who filed the FEDERAL suit against the county and the sheriff probably would not have done so considering the seriousness of the pandemic had the county not acted in such bad faith historically speaking in more ways than one. And all the hostility exhibited to private beach owners here and elsewhere doesn’t help.
So internally, I’ve wrestled with the idea whether the county should have the authority to shut down private beaches such as Seaside and Rosemary (very dense use of the beach). Fortunately these associations stepped up and did the right thing by self-closing their own beaches anyway. I believe we’re all in support of that as it would be impossible for them to maintain the distancing policy otherwise.
On the other hand, a single gulf front home owner who is in full control of their beach property is on the other end of the density spectrum. Should they be excluded from using their own beach? Absolutely not. Remember the short term rental ban takes care of the multi-family occupation of a single beach home.
So in the ever guiding light of consistency and uniform application of the government heavy’s hand, there must be some other way to achieve the desired result without stepping on ALL private beach front property owners.
Somewhere in the middle is the appropriate answer. It truly is a tough call.
Now, my sincere belief is that the private property owners who filed the FEDERAL suit against the county and the sheriff probably would not have done so considering the seriousness of the pandemic had the county not acted in such bad faith historically speaking in more ways than one. And all the hostility exhibited to private beach owners here and elsewhere doesn’t help.
Beach Fanatic
Well we will see tomorrow how many BFOs are really being good neighbors and taking it seriously when the short term rental ban goes away and they are allowed to let 4/5 families pack themselves into their houses and our lives.....unless our governor does some literal 11th hour announcements.
EDIT: just announced the rental ban extended until 4/30..
EDIT: just announced the rental ban extended until 4/30..
Edited
Beach Fanatic
Technically the ordinance doesn't prevent them from being as far south as the vegetation line behind their homes or the seawall in places where there is a seawall.
Beach Fanatic
@30A Skunkape , thanks for the link.
So internally, I’ve wrestled with the idea whether the county should have the authority to shut down private beaches such as Seaside and Rosemary (very dense use of the beach). Fortunately these associations stepped up and did the right thing by self-closing their own beaches anyway. I believe we’re all in support of that as it would be impossible for them to maintain the distancing policy otherwise.
On the other hand, a single gulf front home owner who is in full control of their beach property is on the other end of the density spectrum. Should they be excluded from using their own beach? Absolutely not. Remember the short term rental ban takes care of the multi-family occupation of a single beach home.
So in the ever guiding light of consistency and uniform application of the government heavy’s hand, there must be some other way to achieve the desired result without stepping on ALL private beach front property owners.
Somewhere in the middle is the appropriate answer. It truly is a tough call.
Now, my sincere belief is that the private property owners who filed the FEDERAL suit against the county and the sheriff probably would not have done so considering the seriousness of the pandemic had the county not acted in such bad faith historically speaking in more ways than one. And all the hostility exhibited to private beach owners here and elsewhere doesn’t help.
Your post goes hand in hand with my long held premise that all BPO beaches are not all the same. Just off the top of my head, we have resort beaches, planned community beaches, neighborhood beaches, condo beaches, and individually owned single home beaches. There are probably others that I haven't even mentioned. The density can vary dramatically from one kind to the next. Creating additional differentiation, there are daily rentals, weekly rentals, monthly rentals, longer term rentals, second homes, and primary homes (including homesteaded) properties.
If people don't like this array of private beach considerations, don't blame the owners because they didn't do this. There has been a long standing practice in Walton County of allowing private beach in all its various forms. It really doesn't matter who likes it or doesn't, the law will ultimately make the determination.
Beach Lover
Your post goes hand in hand with my long held premise that all BPO beaches are not all the same. Just off the top of my head, we have resort beaches, planned community beaches, neighborhood beaches, condo beaches, and individually owned single home beaches. There are probably others that I haven't even mentioned. The density can vary dramatically from one kind to the next. Creating additional differentiation, there are daily rentals, weekly rentals, monthly rentals, longer term rentals, second homes, and primary homes (including homesteaded) properties.FREE THE BEACH! EVERY GRAIN EVERY INCH!
If people don't like this array of private beach considerations, don't blame the owners because they didn't do this. There has been a long standing practice in Walton County of allowing private beach in all its various forms. It really doesn't matter who likes it or doesn't, the law will ultimately make the determination.
Beach Fanatic
Sure seems that selective enforcement is a hot issue these days. Personally, I think the BCC will have their hands sternly slapped on Monday. They are not the only ones who have gone too far in my opinion...
DOJ: 'Expect action' on government regulation of religious services amid COVID-19 outbreak
If the BCC is so concerned about social distancing, you would think they would have certainly closed the churches as well as private beaches. But they didn’t. The blowback would have been tremendous had they shut down churches.
Yes folks, the BCC thinks it’s OK to pile into a church and have you believe you can stay safe with 6 foot social distancing but you cannot go on your OWN private property OUTSIDE and practice the exact same distancing. Embarrassing.
DOJ: 'Expect action' on government regulation of religious services amid COVID-19 outbreak
If the BCC is so concerned about social distancing, you would think they would have certainly closed the churches as well as private beaches. But they didn’t. The blowback would have been tremendous had they shut down churches.
Yes folks, the BCC thinks it’s OK to pile into a church and have you believe you can stay safe with 6 foot social distancing but you cannot go on your OWN private property OUTSIDE and practice the exact same distancing. Embarrassing.
Beach Fanatic
From FB earlier today...
Dave Rauschkolb:
“Yes,. The problem is this lawsuit is coming from on high. They have to win it and they will because the deck is stacked. It will be swift and definitive. Just my prediction. No dragging out this lawsuit for months. Political power has been behind this from the very beginning.”
The U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with it, right? I’m not rich nor politically powerful but when the BCC recently closed private beaches after they already closed public beaches weeks before, I knew it was not legal. And worse, it was very selective, namely going after beach front private property owners - can’t even sit on their OWN property.
Again, nobody is arguing the seriousness of the pandemic. But you can’t throw out the Constitution on a “judgement call”.
Many of you reading probably don’t realize that this suit is a good thing for EVERYONE, except socialists, communists and the like. This pandemic has come and it will go. The Constitution is our ever guiding light and hopefully will be around for a long time. Let’s not support its erosion.
Dave Rauschkolb:
“Yes,. The problem is this lawsuit is coming from on high. They have to win it and they will because the deck is stacked. It will be swift and definitive. Just my prediction. No dragging out this lawsuit for months. Political power has been behind this from the very beginning.”
The U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with it, right? I’m not rich nor politically powerful but when the BCC recently closed private beaches after they already closed public beaches weeks before, I knew it was not legal. And worse, it was very selective, namely going after beach front private property owners - can’t even sit on their OWN property.
Again, nobody is arguing the seriousness of the pandemic. But you can’t throw out the Constitution on a “judgement call”.
Many of you reading probably don’t realize that this suit is a good thing for EVERYONE, except socialists, communists and the like. This pandemic has come and it will go. The Constitution is our ever guiding light and hopefully will be around for a long time. Let’s not support its erosion.
Beach Fanatic
#491
If you are seeing new rentals showing up at homes near you this is the avenue to take to hold accountable the rental management agency or rental owner breaking the rules. They may lose their license or worse if they are caught. By filling out this form you are doing our Community an important service to us all.
"Executive Order 20-87 orders all parties engaged in rental of vacation rental properties to suspend vacation rental operations. Vacation rentals are prohibited from making new reservations or bookings and shall not accept new guests for check-in for the duration of the order.
If you believe any licensee is operating contrary to the Governor’s Executive Order 20-71 or Executive Order 20-87, please report the information to DBPR using the below form:"
COMPLAINTS REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH EXECUTIVE ORDERS 20-71 AND 20-87 – MyFloridaLicense.com
"Executive Order 20-87 orders all parties engaged in rental of vacation rental properties to suspend vacation rental operations. Vacation rentals are prohibited from making new reservations or bookings and shall not accept new guests for check-in for the duration of the order.
If you believe any licensee is operating contrary to the Governor’s Executive Order 20-71 or Executive Order 20-87, please report the information to DBPR using the below form:"
COMPLAINTS REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH EXECUTIVE ORDERS 20-71 AND 20-87 – MyFloridaLicense.com
Beach Fanatic
interesting how claim to be able to identify the bias in another’s words while remaining ignorant to your own histrionic bias. “Massacre” the Constitution? What a ludicrous word to use. Besides, this whole issue is a version of “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Beach Fanatic
#511
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.