Beachfront Owners Sue Sheriff and County for Closing Beaches

Seems I've seen an upside down American flag in the avatar of a frequent Sowal lounge poster. Not condoning Camping on the Gulf but nobody has had an issue with that.

An upside down flag signifies that America is in distress, correct?

I had an inverted flag on trump Inauguration Day and Impeachment vote day.

Plaintiffs chatting after judgement Monday, April 13-

Huckabee: “Well, we’ve lost in court and I have a hard time figuring out how I could look like a bigger ass during this quarantine”.

Camping on the Gulf: “Hold my beer”.

They're coming out of the woodwork!

The tax dollars spent on this lawsuit you are so angry about will pale in comparison to the lost tax revenue from this stupid shutdown. People can champion the sheriff wining, but will you have won? Every day this shutdown continues results in another business that will most likely fail and never reopen, another vacation rental property that will be foreclosed on, and several thousands of people unemployed.

This shut down has had nothing to with a virus. Look at how grossly inaccurate all of the academic models have been. The virus has been used as huge grab of power by government. If anyone believes we will return to normal after this is over your kidding yourselves. Cite one single occurrence where governments have relinquished their powers once enacted. Government no longer represents the people. They have become our masters.

We will see how many of you on the sir are championing your goverment masters when your taxes start skyrocketing to make up for their huge budget shortfalls. Meanwhile, tune back in to CNN so you can get your daily fix Covid-19 porn.

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

Thank you for posting this and the link. Beyond the "legal" position or interpretation, it would be a nice change to have the county officials use some common sense. As stated, you can go in your backyard, i.e. on your "grassy" area, but can't walk 10 feet to the sand that is part of your property.

Talk about the proverbial "line in the sand".

But you can go on the sand that is associated with the bay. You can't surf or paddle in the GOM, but you can in the bay. ?????

I could understand closing the GOM to water enthusiasts if the reason was no lifeguards are allowed to be on the sand and offer their assistance. I may have missed this part if that is the position of the county.

It is also somewhat laughable that there are those "piling on" Mike Huckabee because of his legal action to access his own property. An easy path taken by the party of hate and hypocrisy these days. These same folks seem to have NO PROBLEM with the WCC group spending MILLIONS of OUR MONEY on legal action that really was not necessary. As a point of reference, Mr. Huckabee was the reasonable voice in the room during a "town hall" meeting on Customary Use when he suggested working toward a compromise and resolution. He had NO takers from the CU side.

I join ALL property owners that stand firm to control and use their respective land in a manner that is respectful of the law and their fellow neighbors.

Thank you for posting this and the link. Beyond the "legal" position or interpretation, it would be a nice change to have the county officials use some common sense. As stated, you can go in your backyard, i.e. on your "grassy" area, but can't walk 10 feet to the sand that is part of your property.

Talk about the proverbial "line in the sand".

But you can go on the sand that is associated with the bay. You can't surf or paddle in the GOM, but you can in the bay. ?????

I could understand closing the GOM to water enthusiasts if the reason was no lifeguards are allowed to be on the sand and offer their assistance. I may have missed this part if that is the position of the county.

It is also somewhat laughable that there are those "piling on" Mike Huckabee because of his legal action to access his own property. An easy path taken by the party of hate and hypocrisy these days. These same folks seem to have NO PROBLEM with the WCC group spending MILLIONS of OUR MONEY on legal action that really was not necessary. As a point of reference, Mr. Huckabee was the reasonable voice in the room during a "town hall" meeting on Customary Use when he suggested working toward a compromise and resolution. He had NO takers from the CU side.

I join ALL property owners that stand firm to control and use their respective land in a manner that is respectful of the law and their fellow neighbors.

When beaches are open, tourists flock here. Simple concept. Too complex for you and the Huckster.

When beaches are open, tourists flock here. Simple concept. Too complex for you and the Huckster.

Thanks Bob.

And remember, water is wet.

Back to the subject at hand, Sheriff Adkinson at the very end of today's Q&A session regarding the closure of the beaches and the short term rental ban, stated the following:

"I don't see them holding it past May 1st."

I'm pretty sure the sheriff initially recommended the closure of private beach to EACH commissioner on an individual basis.

So, why on G-d's green earth, would the sheriff and the BCC implement such an order that they knew would be HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL when there would be a high possibility that the beaches could open in a matter of a very few weeks anyway?

And PLEASE keep in mind, ALL the beaches were practically empty because of the short term rental ban BEFORE they closed the private beach as I personally observed East and West for a mile. This overreaction (IMHO) was highly influenced by those who complained that they could not be on the beach, so the private beach front owner should suffer as well trying to use their own private property.

That's exactly how I see it and believe many others see it as well, i.e. resulting in the filing of the lawsuit.

Now, I saw where a sheriff in Michigan had the guts to state that he would NOT enforce some of the governor's orders where he was convinced were outside the oath he took to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution - a little Mutiny on the Bounty. That genuinely brightened my day. And yes he's also elected.

I don't envy Sheriff Adkinson's duties in these trying times and believe he is genuinely trying to do the right thing. But when he keeps reiterating that he and his deputies will be reasonable for the main purpose to keep us safe, but then threatens "me" with arrest because 5 commissioners deemed it so (if I desire to sit on my own private property all by my lonesome), well there appears to be a lot if inconsistency.

Yep, one can drive through the liquor store, congregate at church, go to "free standing" gyms, go to Home Depot and purchase BBQ grills, go to Walmart and buy whatever, have up to 10 friends go to your bay front lot and swim / paddle board / fish, even congregate 10 people in a single boat, build homes, remodel decks, paint, etc.

If I wasn't so paranoid, I'd think they were singling out beach front owners. Can't imagine why.

Stay safe.

If my backyard or frontyard were to become a hotbed of tourism activity and the county decided to close it for the general welfare of the citizens and to discourage tourism and the spread of this virus, then so be it.

Back to the subject at hand, Sheriff Adkinson at the very end of today's Q&A session regarding the closure of the beaches and the short term rental ban, stated the following:

"I don't see them holding it past May 1st."

I'm pretty sure the sheriff initially recommended the closure of private beach to EACH commissioner on an individual basis.

So, why on G-d's green earth, would the sheriff and the BCC implement such an order that they knew would be HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL when there would be a high possibility that the beaches could open in a matter of a very few weeks anyway?

And PLEASE keep in mind, ALL the beaches were practically empty because of the short term rental ban BEFORE they closed the private beach as I personally observed East and West for a mile. This overreaction (IMHO) was highly influenced by those who complained that they could not be on the beach, so the private beach front owner should suffer as well trying to use their own private property.

That's exactly how I see it and believe many others see it as well, i.e. resulting in the filing of the lawsuit.

Now, I saw where a sheriff in Michigan had the guts to state that he would NOT enforce some of the governor's orders where he was convinced were outside the oath he took to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution - a little Mutiny on the Bounty. That genuinely brightened my day. And yes he's also elected.

I don't envy Sheriff Adkinson's duties in these trying times and believe he is genuinely trying to do the right thing. But when he keeps reiterating that he and his deputies will be reasonable for the main purpose to keep us safe, but then threatens "me" with arrest because 5 commissioners deemed it so (if I desire to sit on my own private property all by my lonesome), well there appears to be a lot if inconsistency.

Yep, one can drive through the liquor store, congregate at church, go to "free standing" gyms, go to Home Depot and purchase BBQ grills, go to Walmart and buy whatever, have up to 10 friends go to your bay front lot and swim / paddle board / fish, even congregate 10 people in a single boat, build homes, remodel decks, paint, etc.

If I wasn't so paranoid, I'd think they were singling out beach front owners. Can't imagine why.

Stay safe.

Have you never seen TV or a movie?

The evil landowners must install their own Sheriff in order to subjugate the common man. Until then you can continue the whine and cheese party and enriching your lawyers.

Have you never seen TV or a movie?

The evil landowners must install their own Sheriff in order to subjugate the common man. Until then you can continue the whine and cheese party and enriching your lawyers.

bitter1 oh, bob1

The last few weeks on 30A, the walks and paths are full of people getting exercise and most are adhering to the social distance requirement, but not all. Hard to control all of that from a common sense standpoint.

But if all of the congregating on the 30A paths is acceptable, what is the problem if the "evil beach front owners" walk out their back door, cross the demarcation point, and put their feet in the sand that they own? All the while practicing the social distance guidelines. Maybe that makes too much sense for some to grasp.

bitter1 oh, bob1

The last few weeks on 30A, the walks and paths are full of people getting exercise and most are adhering to the social distance requirement, but not all. Hard to control all of that from a common sense standpoint.

But if all of the congregating on the 30A paths is acceptable, what is the problem if the "evil beach front owners" walk out their back door, cross the demarcation point, and put their feet in the sand that they own? All the while practicing the social distance guidelines. Maybe that makes too much sense for some to grasp.

Sorry you can't always get your way. Keep stamping your feet and acting indignant instead of being a good example for public health.

Sorry people aren't who you want them to be. Tourists are barely held in check, ready to invade. Is that what you want? If they see people on the beach (you) at all they will come. We already have tourists and 2nd homeowners traveling here. Apparently there is an entire segment of the population who thinks restrictions are a communist plot. Is that you?

Sorry you can't always get your way. Keep stamping your feet and acting indignant instead of being a good example for public health.

Sorry people aren't who you want them to be. Tourists are barely held in check, ready to invade. Is that what you want? If they see people on the beach (you) at all they will come. We already have tourists and 2nd homeowners traveling here. Apparently there is an entire segment of the population who thinks restrictions are a communist plot. Is that you?

Get my way? Ouch.

My wife and I have had our four family groups cancel their visits for all of April and May and reschedule later this summer. All as a result of not being able to go on our property. In a very small way, this hurts the local restaurants for additional pick-up meals and that would have been made, etc.... gas, groceries, hardware store items, etc....

We will continue to abide by the directive handed down by the county. Never have any intention of doing anything to the contrary.

Regardless of the constitutional violation or lack of clear thought by the county.

And it's "stomping" not "stamping".

Try some decaf - that could be a good start.

lol so sorry for your loss. Those family group visits are so essential.

lol so sorry for your loss. Those family group visits are so essential.

Thanks.

Can't think of a time when a family visit would not be "essential".

Even to the crazy aunt or uncle.

If my backyard or frontyard were to become a hotbed of tourism activity and the county decided to close it for the general welfare of the citizens and to discourage tourism and the spread of this virus, then so be it.

Bob, hope you're enjoying retirement. I'm sure its nice to know you have a check coming in regardless of the complete shutdown of the economy in our area. But I digress.

I think you completely missed my point regarding the actual beach density BEFORE the BCC took the EXTRA step of excluding private property owners from their own property.

Once again, the beaches were practically EMPTY after the public beaches were closed and after the short term rental ban. THEN the BCC shutdown privately owned beaches just for the hell of it. Over 99% of the desired result for reducing the number of people on the beach was achieved BEFORE the private beach shutdown. Now, if you disagree with that observation show me some consistent proof. The live camera feeds that I saw FULLY support my position along with comments from on social media.

Now, after all these years, I know the majority of everybody here on SoWal disagree with every comment I make.

You have been relatively reasonable through the years even though we disagree on customary use as well as the drowning in Grayton Beach (lack of info dissemination) on July 3rd, 2018. I just wish that once, just once, you could be respectful with the very valid point that I made regarding the core issue at hand - extremely low beach density BEFORE the BCC closed our private property. BTW I'm not asking you to take a side on customary use and the subject at hand has absolutely nothing to do CU.

Mark my words, the next major controversy (much sooner than later) will be how soon the beaches will open back up. I can't imagine being in the service industry....the ABSOLUTE attitude that nobody should be in South Walton except locals is causing such economic damage to all, especially those in the service industry who have little to no financial reserves. And the point of private beach usage by owners will seem so insignificant and petty. And again the point is a few extra private property owners using the beach would not change the pandemic in the least.

Of course this assumes that the highly dense private properties (Seaside, Rosemary) would voluntarily stay closed as they did BEFORE the BCC closed all private beaches, even single homes.

Stay well and I truly hope retirement agrees with you.

Now, after all these years, I know the majority of everybody here on SoWal disagree with every comment I make.

I disagree.

Bob, hope you're enjoying retirement. I'm sure its nice to know you have a check coming in regardless of the complete shutdown of the economy in our area. But I digress.

I think you completely missed my point regarding the actual beach density BEFORE the BCC took the EXTRA step of excluding private property owners from their own property.

Once again, the beaches were practically EMPTY after the public beaches were closed and after the short term rental ban. THEN the BCC shutdown privately owned beaches just for the hell of it. Over 99% of the desired result for reducing the number of people on the beach was achieved BEFORE the private beach shutdown. Now, if you disagree with that observation show me some consistent proof. The live camera feeds that I saw FULLY support my position along with comments from on social media.

Now, after all these years, I know the majority of everybody here on SoWal disagree with every comment I make.

You have been relatively reasonable through the years even though we disagree on customary use as well as the drowning in Grayton Beach (lack of info dissemination) on July 3rd, 2018. I just wish that once, just once, you could be respectful with the very valid point that I made regarding the core issue at hand - extremely low beach density BEFORE the BCC closed our private property. BTW I'm not asking you to take a side on customary use and the subject at hand has absolutely nothing to do CU.

Mark my words, the next major controversy (much sooner than later) will be how soon the beaches will open back up. I can't imagine being in the service industry....the ABSOLUTE attitude that nobody should be in South Walton except locals is causing such economic damage to all, especially those in the service industry who have little to no financial reserves. And the point of private beach usage by owners will seem so insignificant and petty. And again the point is a few extra private property owners using the beach would not change the pandemic in the least.

Of course this assumes that the highly dense private properties (Seaside, Rosemary) would voluntarily stay closed as they did BEFORE the BCC closed all private beaches, even single homes.

Stay well and I truly hope retirement agrees with you.

Retirement didn't agree with me and am working at a different agency. I am pro customary use and that hasn't changed. This issue here is different for me than that. Let me be clear, I don't want folks to get Covid 19, period. I don't want them to congregate on the beach behind your house or Huckabees. I don't want renters or a large family gathering deciding they want a family reunion. I do think outside of customary use, the health and wellbeing of the community is important, period. I have pretty much kept my mouth shut as to the customary use issue because it is in the courts and they will decide it. Government has a responsibility and personally I think it did the right thing.
As an aside, when folks want to call me out with snarky remarks, I am at least a person of integrity who will say what I believe and put my name on it. I participate in this community and at least attempt a certain modicum of respect even when I disagree. I owe that to most everyone I meet, even those who use screen names. I don't ask you to agree with me, hell I don't even want to change your mind. As I tell myself and others, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

One last thing, I have encouraged you to find out about the "Grayton Beach Drowning" by asking someone who has the info they could disseminate. You for whatever reason have failed to do it. Take the tinfoil hat off and go talk to David Vaughn 2671090.

To go along with your wishes that nobody gets the virus is shared by everyone, including me.

Now to the point, you COMPLETELY ignored my reference to the fact that the private beaches were practically empty before the BCC decided to trample on private property rights. It absolutely was not necessary to close these basically unused private properties as there was no threat to the “public” whatsoever. Please reread my last post and I think I made that point perfectly clear. You make it sound like parties were taking place, but they weren’t.

And just because Judge Vinson ruled for the county against private property rights, doesn’t necessarily make his decision right (appeal on the horizon?). EVERYBODY was surprised by it, including the county attorney. It still is private property regardless.

The inconvenient truth of the matter is the BCC shut down private beaches because they can pass any ordinance / order they want. Yes, that’s right….just like they did when they declared private beach public with NO DUE PROCESS (the state then had to spank them hard and void that customary use ordinance). The county doesn’t always do the right thing – that may surprise some. So it’s typically up to the harmed citizen to file suit / defend against the county at considerable expense, time, effort and emotional distress.

Let’s get down to brass tacks…..
The real reason, IMHO, the county shut down private beaches was because of optics. I’m confident they were flooded with complaints from those who were not able to go to the beach because public beaches were already closed. To appease the masses, they decided to shut down private beaches as well to make their constituents happy as there was no “clear and present danger” of crowds descending on those private beaches.

Now, if the BCC had not had a horrible track record of infringing on private property rights regarding the initial customary use ordinance, I sincerely believe “we” would have looked the other way when they closed the private beaches considering the pandemic and what we were being told by CDC (in general).

And now just a couple weeks after the decision, Jacksonville beaches have opened up. Georgia beaches are open. Georgia is lifting other bans. The rest of Florida is probably in line.

To me, closing of private beaches was an overreaction by the BCC for questionable reasons.


“……As an aside, when folks want to call me out with snarky remarks, I am at least a person of integrity who will say what I believe and put my name on it.”.
So are you inferring that I’m not a person of integrity? BTW, I reread my post to you and found it respectful with no snarky remarks whatsoever – just trying to state my position; not unless my pointing out that we disagree on the two issues offended you.

“…..Take the tinfoil hat off…”
Would your statement be considered snarky????

Regarding the drowning in Grayton Beach on July 3rd, 2018, I don’t need to call David Vaughn to find out what happened. I didn’t mean for us to rehash all that but merely pointed it out as one of two things we disagreed on as to how it was handled by the county.

But since you are instructing me to take the tinfoil hat off and make calls, you seem to be bothered with my understanding of the events of the drowning. In my opinion your comment was rude and condescending. But that’s OK. Admins, please don’t delete his post – I can handle it, really.

I spoke first hand to the people that were at the beach including the brave man from Fort Walton who saved the kid but couldn’t save the great uncle of the kid who was trying to save the kid and ended up drowning. By the way, the brave man got ZIP recognition for his VERY HEROIC ACT from the county. For others, the link to the thread is here:
SWFD June Activity Report

And one critical point to add to the event, only yellow flags were flying that day when the weather service was issuing riptide WARNINGS all day long. Okaloosa changed their yellow flag to red on the SAME AFTERNOON that the drowning took place. That combined with the deafening silence by Walton County of the drowning is why I get "worked up" about this event. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

Looking forward to some semblance of normalcy in Santa Rosa Beach and when we can all get along.

To go along with your wishes that nobody gets the virus is shared by everyone, including me.

Now to the point, you COMPLETELY ignored my reference to the fact that the private beaches were practically empty before the BCC decided to trample on private property rights. It absolutely was not necessary to close these basically unused private properties as there was no threat to the “public” whatsoever. Please reread my last post and I think I made that point perfectly clear. You make it sound like parties were taking place, but they weren’t.

And just because Judge Vinson ruled for the county against private property rights, doesn’t necessarily make his decision right (appeal on the horizon?). EVERYBODY was surprised by it, including the county attorney. It still is private property regardless.

The inconvenient truth of the matter is the BCC shut down private beaches because they can pass any ordinance / order they want. Yes, that’s right….just like they did when they declared private beach public with NO DUE PROCESS (the state then had to spank them hard and void that customary use ordinance). The county doesn’t always do the right thing – that may surprise some. So it’s typically up to the harmed citizen to file suit / defend against the county at considerable expense, time, effort and emotional distress.

Let’s get down to brass tacks…..
The real reason, IMHO, the county shut down private beaches was because of optics. I’m confident they were flooded with complaints from those who were not able to go to the beach because public beaches were already closed. To appease the masses, they decided to shut down private beaches as well to make their constituents happy as there was no “clear and present danger” of crowds descending on those private beaches.

Now, if the BCC had not had a horrible track record of infringing on private property rights regarding the initial customary use ordinance, I sincerely believe “we” would have looked the other way when they closed the private beaches considering the pandemic and what we were being told by CDC (in general).

And now just a couple weeks after the decision, Jacksonville beaches have opened up. Georgia beaches are open. Georgia is lifting other bans. The rest of Florida is probably in line.

To me, closing of private beaches was an overreaction by the BCC for questionable reasons.


“……As an aside, when folks want to call me out with snarky remarks, I am at least a person of integrity who will say what I believe and put my name on it.”.
So are you inferring that I’m not a person of integrity? BTW, I reread my post to you and found it respectful with no snarky remarks whatsoever – just trying to state my position; not unless my pointing out that we disagree on the two issues offended you.

“…..Take the tinfoil hat off…”
Would your statement be considered snarky????

Regarding the drowning in Grayton Beach on July 3rd, 2018, I don’t need to call David Vaughn to find out what happened. I didn’t mean for us to rehash all that but merely pointed it out as one of two things we disagreed on as to how it was handled by the county.

But since you are instructing me to take the tinfoil hat off and make calls, you seem to be bothered with my understanding of the events of the drowning. In my opinion your comment was rude and condescending. But that’s OK. Admins, please don’t delete his post – I can handle it, really.

I spoke first hand to the people that were at the beach including the brave man from Fort Walton who saved the kid but couldn’t save the great uncle of the kid who was trying to save the kid and ended up drowning. By the way, the brave man got ZIP recognition for his VERY HEROIC ACT from the county. For others, the link to the thread is here:
SWFD June Activity Report

And one critical point to add to the event, only yellow flags were flying that day when the weather service was issuing riptide WARNINGS all day long. Okaloosa changed their yellow flag to red on the SAME AFTERNOON that the drowning took place. That combined with the deafening silence by Walton County of the drowning is why I get "worked up" about this event. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

Looking forward to some semblance of normalcy in Santa Rosa Beach and when we can all get along.

I think you should check your priorities and start losing your shyt instead because the BCCallows people to level dunes and put up buildings in their place. Could you get behind the ordinance?

Thanks.

Can't think of a time when a family visit would not be "essential".

Even to the crazy aunt or uncle.

You know, if you're wanting them to live.

SUP View said: ↑
Thanks.

Can't think of a time when a family visit would not be "essential".

Even to the crazy aunt or uncle.

You know, if you're wanting them to live.

Straight from the SJW-morally superior-"we know better than you" playbook of replies.

Must take quite an effort to reach that level of misery.

Five years ago...
"Judge rejects private beach owners’ lawsuit to continue using their ‘backyards’ during pandemic."

Then private beach owners appeal and lose over a year later...
"Judge Rejects COVID-19 Property Rights Case to Closed Beaches"

Over five years later after original ruling...
"Walton County’s COVID beach closure overturned by appeals court"

Private property owners who were not allowed to use their own backyards are finally vindicated as am I after taking the hard stand in this thread that the BCC over-reached with the rule that prohibited private beach property owners from using their own backyards during the pandemic. It truly made no sense at that point from a private property rights standpoint and also from the fact that when the rule was passed, the beaches were 99% empty due to the rental ban that had already been in place.

As shown in the first and second links, the initial two rulings went against the private property owners. I was beyond shocked that the original judges saw it that way. I knew it was a very bad a decision at that point. And I'm not even an attorney. But what I saw was a BCC caving in to constituents that were full of "private beach envy." "If we can't go to the public beach because of the public beach closures, then beach front owners should not be able to go on their own private beach."

There is no demarcation of private property regarding one's back yard and its use just because that property's boundary touches the water. Those private property owners had every constitutional right to use their own back yard as anyone else in the county.

I sincerely hope these private property owners sue the county for loss of use of their own property as well as all legal fees.

Five years ago...
"Judge rejects private beach owners’ lawsuit to continue using their ‘backyards’ during pandemic."

Then private beach owners appeal and lose over a year later...
"Judge Rejects COVID-19 Property Rights Case to Closed Beaches"

Over five years later after original ruling...
"Walton County’s COVID beach closure overturned by appeals court"

Private property owners who were not allowed to use their own backyards are finally vindicated as am I after taking the hard stand in this thread that the BCC over-reached with the rule that prohibited private beach property owners from using their own backyards during the pandemic. It truly made no sense at that point from a private property rights standpoint and also from the fact that when the rule was passed, the beaches were 99% empty due to the rental ban that had already been in place.

As shown in the first and second links, the initial two rulings went against the private property owners. I was beyond shocked that the original judges saw it that way. I knew it was a very bad a decision at that point. And I'm not even an attorney. But what I saw was a BCC caving in to constituents that were full of "private beach envy." "If we can't go to the public beach because of the public beach closures, then beach front owners should not be able to go on their own private beach."

There is no demarcation of private property regarding one's back yard and its use just because that property's boundary touches the water. Those private property owners had every constitutional right to use their own back yard as anyone else in the county.

I sincerely hope these private property owners sue the county for loss of use of their own property as well as all legal fees.

Are you suing the county or are you just trying to stir the pot again? I think you may be having "litigation envy" maybe from our political leadership who seems to sue baby sue...

Are you suing the county or are you just trying to stir the pot again? I think you may be having "litigation envy" maybe from our political leadership who seems to sue baby sue...

GET OFF MY LAWN (BEACH)!!!

Some people should just move somewhere else. I'll pay for the Uhaul.