Redfish Village Beach Access

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I take every attorney's words with a block of salt.

The reason I often use the Property Appraiser's website as my first source for data is due to it being the quickest resource for much information and I usually find it fairly accurate, though I often find mistakes. I do not care to read the legal descriptions and dedication language in subdivision plats to find out a quick answer to these things for general reference. If I were looking for the most accurate information for business reasons, I would certainly cross reference several sources. However, this is a bulletin board and all of my information should be verified if it is important to you. Thanks for bringing up this matter of correction. I do have a question for you of which I am not certain of the answer. You seem to know a bit more about owning Gulf-front than I, so give it a whirl. I was always under the impression that the public is legally able to walk across private beach property, as long as they do not stop to loiter. It sounds like from your statement that this is not the case. Is this correct, and can you give me a source to verify?

I think you may be on to another backing reason for commercial use on this property, but if they dedicate the beach for public use, any services on the beach no longer relate directly to that parcel. Right? That would fall under County jurisdiction of Beach Service Vending Licenses I think. If they kept the beach, then, I think your argument may be more accurate.

"Thanks for bringing up this matter of correction."
SJ, as long as the truth is revealed regarding what is public vs. private property, no need to explain why your assumption was incorrect. While we're at it and since you mentioned it before, what about that public access you think exists next to Grande Beach?

"I was always under the impression that the public is legally able to walk across private beach property, as long as they do not stop to loiter. "
If that was true, the same logic would then hold for people going through your home. What is the difference? Ask an attorney. Remember if you do, besides the block of salt thing , inform the attorney that we are talking about the general public accessing private property.

Recall that Brad Zeitlin stated they had a right a right to use their property on the beach without any approvals from the county (during the public community meeting). He also stated they could legally access this part of the beach by going down the 83 access, walking to the water's edge, traverse west, then back north on to their property.

Regarding RFV giving the sandy part of the beach to the county, I guess you're correct about the commercial aspect possibly being negated somewhat BUT ONLY on the beach itself and to the extent of the activity. Also remember, for what it's worth, at the same time, RFV owners lose any private claims they may have to that "sand", perceived or promised. They can not then exclude the general public from the sand in front of their "private beach access" whatsoever.

The developers will eventually walk away from this thing. The owners may eventually find themselves asking why they must compete for "umbrella space" in front of their private access with the general public who will no doubt be moving on to that section of the beach from the 83 beach access.

I am not an attorney but I did sleep at a ..... oh never mind.

 

[Smiling JOe]

It is too late in the night for me to look up the property around Grand Beach. Does it pertain to this access, or are you just curious?

To me, it seems that Redfish Village, even if they can sell lot #1 for $3 Million, will still be in the hole well over $5 million for their deeded private beach access of which the only real benefit for owners will be restrooms above a public beach. Those bathrooms are not even built yet and they have already totalled more than $60,000 per condo unit at Redfish Village. Maybe some people sh_t doesn't smell. :funn:

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

It is too late in the night for me to look up the property around Grand Beach. Does it pertain to this access, or are you just curious?

To me, it seems that Redfish Village, even if they can sell lot #1 for $3 Million, will still be in the hole well over $5 million for their deeded private beach access of which the only real benefit for owners will be restrooms above a public beach. Those bathrooms are not even built yet and they have already totalled more than $60,000 per condo unit at Redfish Village. Maybe some people sh_t doesn't smell. :funn:

I'm really just curious about the access at Grande Beach that you mentioned. Honestly I think you're looking at the private access for Sun Seekers that is just owned (underlying fee) by the county but is still private none the less. If it "shows" 4 feet wide, that's the one.

I guess the point I've been making is that some of the beach is clearly public and some of the beach is clearly private. The beach is no different than bay front property (for example) as I've stated in the past. Fishermen have the right to fish right up to the edge, but they do not have the right to step off their boat on to private property above the MHW line.

As one lawyer calls this private/public beach thing: "The Beach Wars".

Even my own sister didn't believe the concept....at first. Now she understands. Heck, I didn't really think about it until not too long ago. My guess is most people do not understand the legalities involved (and I'm still learning). Most of us have gone to the beach as kids and never gave it a second thought as to what was private and what was public. So I can understand why some feel an automatic entitlement.

As more and more people come to the area, this facet becomes more and more an issue. But maybe we'll start another thread on private vs. public beach. I'm sure to be a "hit" with the funn crowd then.;-)

Back to your post...I agree with your math: over $60,000 per condo (and that's actual cost to the developer of just the land before tear down and improvements). That's over $10,000 more than the cost of my first home.

Seems to me that if the condo market was more realistic when these were marketed, most buyers would welcome, let's say, a $75,000 discount on their contract in exchange for the priviledge of sharing 2 "private" toilets with over 300 other owners and guests. Everyone would have walked away happy. But since the agreed upon contract prices are so out of touch with today's market, RFV has no choice but push this through so as not to give the buyers a way out now. If this could have been negotiated, the owners and guests would still have had a nice public beach access located closer along with new public restrooms that would not cost the future RFV association anything in the future such as dune walkover repairs, sand, landscaping maintenance, utilities, insurance, security, etc.

 

[Kevin Thompson]

Vagrant I guess now that I am correct that you don't even live here and you have a condo west of 83. Since I live east of 83 and have a real interest in not seeing all the Redfish owners walk down my street, I am starting to think you are the one with some kind of selfish interest.

Who cares what they paid for that lot, I am esctatic that they did that. Who cares if it $50 thousand per condo or not? Is it your money?

Even I know that Lot 1 had a public beach in front of it and I know you know that too so what is the big deal you are trying to make whether the beach in front of Lot 2 is private or public for their owners? They weren't going to have a private beach anywat. It was public on Lot 1 and they said "Private Beach Access" so what's the difference on Lot 2? There is none. You just sit around and try to manufacture ideas "oh it was private now it's public" to stir the pot. And the way I heard it they were giving an easement I don't think that's the same as "Deeding" as you keep saying.

I bet too that most people don't think about private and public beach. When was the last time you called the police when somebody was on "your beach"? Were they arrested and now in jail for walking on "your beach". I know only a little bit about the legal side of this but I do know the practical side of it.

You were the one who came on here after BMBW oddly disspeared and said "get this back on track" and now you are one who is taking this off on these conspiracy theory ideas.

Why don't you stick to your points that you just don't want this use in near your condo. These other ideas just make me think my feelings are a lot less selfish than yours. I have a clear benefit of more private enjoyment of my property because I see less of their owners. And by the way, I don't care if they are on the beach because I accept the fact that I live at the beach and everybody can come to it.

Now take my post and then break it up into all these blue sections (how do you do that by the way?) and tear me up since you are the expert bulletin board guy.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Vagrant I guess now that I am correct that you don't even live here and you have a condo west of 83. Since I live east of 83 and have a real interest in not seeing all the Redfish owners walk down my street, I am starting to think you are the one with some kind of selfish interest.

KT, you're critical of me because I do not want to see me OR MY NEIGHBORS , some who also live here full-time, "harmed" by this development. I guess that's your definition of selfish.

Who cares what they paid for that lot, I am esctatic that they did that. Who cares if it $50 thousand per condo or not? Is it your money?

KT, you're just generating static here. SJ brought up the cost of the lot more than once. I simply made an observation along the same lines that there might have been a "way out" for everyone. You're absolutely right...I don't really care what they paid for the lot(s).

Even I know that Lot 1 had a public beach in front of it and I know you know that too so what is the big deal you are trying to make whether the beach in front of Lot 2 is private or public for their owners?

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about regarding what's public or private in your neck of the woods (east of the 83 access). Please give me the reference showing where Walton County owns the beach in front of your subdivision, if you can find it.

They weren't going to have a private beach anywat. It was public on Lot 1 and they said "Private Beach Access" so what's the difference on Lot 2? There is none.

I have no real idea what you're driving at here. But your assumptions are wrong regarding what is public and private are wrong.

You just sit around and try to manufacture ideas "oh it was private now it's public" to stir the pot. And the way I heard it they were giving an easement I don't think that's the same as "Deeding" as you keep saying.

Fine. If they give the County an easement instead, then the use of that sandy part of the beach would then be under more scrutiny as to any activity RFV did there in regards to what is commercial and what is not. The reason being that RFV would still own the property which would still be an extension of the development.

I bet too that most people don't think about private and public beach. When was the last time you called the police when somebody was on "your beach"? Were they arrested and now in jail for walking on "your beach". I know only a little bit about the legal side of this but I do know the practical side of it.

Your attempt to "villafy" my postion regarding private property rights (which is legally backed by the laws of Walton County and the State of Florida in case you've forgotten) is nothing short of pathetic.

You were the one who came on here after BMBW oddly disspeared and said "get this back on track" and now you are one who is taking this off on these conspiracy theory ideas.

What are you saying or implying here in particular?

Why don't you stick to your points that you just don't want this use in near your condo. These other ideas just make me think my feelings are a lot less selfish than yours. I have a clear benefit of more private enjoyment of my property because I see less of their owners. And by the way, I don't care if they are on the beach because I accept the fact that I live at the beach and everybody can come to it.

It's VERY apparent you don't own beach front property and as such you don't give a damn about private property rights.

Now take my post and then break it up into all these blue sections (how do you do that by the way?) and tear me up since you are the expert bulletin board guy.

SJ is the expert on this bulletin board. ;-)

By the way, you (nor anyone else) have ever responded to my accusations that BMBCA has turned their back on our neighborhood regarding this issue.

 

[edroedrog]

KT-So it is all public now? Great that means that RFV has more space than 75' of beach front down to the waters edge. However, it is still not private. So I can walk down from the Public area were all the ordinary citizens hang and rent an umbrella from the RFVers and have the same "experience" as RFVers. This is great news. I hate carrying all that stuff to the beach. Now all I need is a bag full of toys and sun block. I might have to arrive a little earlier than normal to make sure I experience one of those umbrellas in the front.

So PrivateBA goers of Public Beach can move on down out of the cluster of folks trying to bake in the sun. That is great to know I am going to move my chairs away from the public access to what I thought was going to be private beach. I might buy me a condo in the area and rent it out and use this as one of my amenities just give them a map of how to get to the area without walking.

This is good news to PUBLIC beach goers. Bad news for folks owning land on the beach.

Smoothie anyone?

 

[Kevin Thompson]

Vagrant talk about static you said absolutely nothing except that at least we know now that you are just sticking up for your capitalized neighbors. You are a good person. Are you really saying the beach east of 83 is private?

Edroedrog what is wrong with you there is nothing you say that makes sense. What does a smoothie have to do with anything first of all and second of all the beach in front of Lot 1 is public do you understand what that means to this discussion? Did you see Vagrant take some shots at me and think you can just pile on now? Do you not think we all remember your agenda and you don't live here and don't own property here.

Does anybody else find it a little ironic that the two people who stir up the most "static" don't even live here?

 

[Smiling JOe]

I'm really just curious about the access at Grande Beach that you mentioned. Honestly I think you're looking at the private access for Sun Seekers that is just owned (underlying fee) by the county but is still private none the less. If it "shows" 4 feet wide, that's the one.

To clarify an earlier statement -- I don't have my quote in front of me, but I believe I was referring to the property located west of Grande Beach, not Grande Beach itself.

 

[edroedrog]

Vagrant talk about static you said absolutely nothing except that at least we know now that you are just sticking up for your capitalized neighbors. You are a good person. Are you really saying the beach east of 83 is private?

Edroedrog what is wrong with you there is nothing you say that makes sense. What does a smoothie have to do with anything first of all and second of all the beach in front of Lot 1 is public do you understand what that means to this discussion? Did you see Vagrant take some shots at me and think you can just pile on now? Do you not think we all remember your agenda and you don't live here and don't own property here.

Does anybody else find it a little ironic that the two people who stir up the most "static" don't even live here?

KT-It all makes since to the RFVers.

Look KT - I do understand the difference between Private and PUBLIC. Remember my earlier comments about your buddies at RFV.? Maybe they need to understand the difference.

My agenda is to make sure that you get everything in writing that RFV tells the community that is all.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Vagrant talk about static you said absolutely nothing except that at least we know now that you are just sticking up for your capitalized neighbors. You are a good person.

"capitalized"???? What's your real beef and what difference does that make?

Are you really saying the beach east of 83 is private?

Do you know for sure that it's public? Just SHOW ME the warranty deed or quit claim deed or easement or something and I'll shut up about the beach east of the 83 access. But remember YOU brought it up again saying it was public.

....and second of all the beach in front of Lot 1 is public do you understand what that means to this discussion? Did you see Vagrant take some shots at me and think you can just pile on now?

Just damn....

Does anybody else find it a little ironic that the two people who stir up the most "static" don't even live here?

Just damn....again....

I'm done debating you KT, unless I see some evidence of a thoughtful post. I'll just yield to edroedog and BMBW to reply to your nonsense.

You can answer a couple of simple questions for me, if you can:
1. Has BMBCA turned their back on the neighborhood?
2. Have you found the document that makes "your" part of the beach public?

Let's see if you're capable of adding anything real to this discussion besides your calling yourself, selfish AND your calling me selfish. Why not give someone else a chance to call US selfish. Oh yea, that's just you being selfish AGAIN .