beach goers harrassed

[BeachSiO2]

I was down for the wonderful Seaside wine festival last week and stayed in a house on Redfish Circle by the Inn at BMB. There is a public beach walkover to the west of the Inn that apparently leads to nowhere. When you step off the boardwalk onto the sand there is a sign to your right directly in the center of the beach stating Retreat only and one 3 feet to the left of that stating Inn at BMB only and another about 100 feet farther to the left stating White Cliffs only. I specifically remember a publicly funded renourishment of the area a few years back. This boardwalk must serve at least 30-40 homes on the south side of 30-a and 100's on the other side. How is anyone visiting supposed to get a positive feeling about the area with idiots putting up such a fuss about a beach? Even if you visited the Inn or White Cliffs or the Retreat it seems one would come away feeling strange about this. I own property on and off the beach and just feel lucky to be there no matter where I stay. Does anyone have an update on this issue?

The walkover beside the Inn at BM is not publically-OWNED, it is owned by the Village of Blue Mountain HOA (or something like that) and they let the public use it. The closest publically-owned accesses are Gulfview Heights behind Goatfeathers to the west and the one at the end of CR 83 to the east. I think they are currently building the restrooms and parking at the one at the end of CR 83 so I would go to Gulfview Heights.

As far as a County beach nourishment project there, it is still in the planning phases as part of the 30-A project. Here is a link to the update.

http://www.protectwaltoncountybeaches.com/Future_Initiatives.asp

 

[30ABandMan]

In my opinion and this is only my opinion, none of these areas are "towns". At best, they could be classified as subdivisions or communities but in all honesty, they are tourist destinations. They are businesses that have a "small town theme". Just like the facade put on by Disney, Busch Gardens or any other fanciful place, this area is a "theme park" that selling the beach with a small town, upscale feel. People who come here get bugged when parts of our theme park are off limits to them. Those of us who live here accept all of the cars and tourist flocking to our area because they are spending money. They are our lifeblood and we will lose them if they feel that they can have a better time somewhere else.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

The walkover beside the Inn at BM is not publically-OWNED, it is owned by the Village of Blue Mountain HOA (or something like that) and they let the public use it. The closest publically-owned accesses are Gulfview Heights behind Goatfeathers to the west and the one at the end of CR 83 to the east. I think they are currently building the restrooms and parking at the one at the end of CR 83 so I would go to Gulfview Heights.

As far as a County beach nourishment project there, it is still in the planning phases as part of the 30-A project. Here is a link to the update.

http://www.protectwaltoncountybeaches.com/Future_Initiatives.asp

Per the above link:

"3. Litigation ? A lawsuit began in 2005 during the Western Walton County beach restoration project by a group of homeowners who are questioning ownership rights. On April 19th, the Florida State Supreme Court held a hearing to decide the case. The outcome of this lawsuit will directly impact the future of this project. A ruling in favor of the owners group may lead to a lengthy delay or halt the project all together. No decision has been made to date.

What do you think will happen to all the renourshiment planning if the County loses the case? Do you have any guess as to the timeframe for a decision?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I was down for the wonderful Seaside wine festival last week and stayed in a house on Redfish Circle by the Inn at BMB. There is a public beach walkover to the west of the Inn that apparently leads to nowhere. When you step off the boardwalk onto the sand there is a sign to your right directly in the center of the beach stating Retreat only and one 3 feet to the left of that stating Inn at BMB only and another about 100 feet farther to the left stating White Cliffs only. I specifically remember a publicly funded renourishment of the area a few years back. This boardwalk must serve at least 30-40 homes on the south side of 30-a and 100's on the other side. How is anyone visiting supposed to get a positive feeling about the area with idiots putting up such a fuss about a beach? Even if you visited the Inn or White Cliffs or the Retreat it seems one would come away feeling strange about this. I own property on and off the beach and just feel lucky to be there no matter where I stay. Does anyone have an update on this issue?

I thought by now the Florida Supreme Court would have made their ruling regarding the Walton County vs. Save Our Beaches case. Of course, for now, the beach whose adjacent private property line extends to the MHWL is private.

The walkover you refer seems to be a royal screwup in regards to a "beach access to nowhere". If you followed some of the Inn@BMB history, the SAME developer is creating the huge project on the north side of 30A that spans all the way over to 83. All along, he thought he would have full access to the Inn@BMB (pool, beach access, BEACH, etc.) for use with the new development north of 30A. As of today, he does not (litigious history). Is this another bill of goods sold without a "complete" product (i.e. beach access to nowhere)?

Do you recall my little "graphic" representation of the Blue Moutain Beach area a few months ago where I showed the intense use of that single beach access by all the property in ("green hash")? Look at the concentration and there you have the most conflict.

I'm not posting this to rekindle the private/public beach debate. We can argue that all day long but until it is ruled upon on a case by case basis or unless the couny prevails in the supreme court decision and then the beaches are renourished, it is a moot point.

My point is, as others have acknowledged, I (we) have not thrown people off our beach.......yet. But the day is coming when Redfish Village will be completely sold. When it sells out and becomes fully occupied and then hundreds of people pour on to their 80 feet of beach bordered by private property on both sides, THEN will there be a problem (for them). Right now only less than 30 units of 80 units have closed for what I believe to be the very same reason.

The only beach available to them will be their 80 foot part and just the public access at the end of 83. All the rest of Blue Mountain Beach is private.

This is the problem. Too much "inappropriate" development...too little public beach...too many assuming bureacrats and too much abuse from the counties have resulted in private property owners banding together saying enough is enough.

Think about it: you never heard of a person getting run off the beach in our area (SoWal) just a few years ago.

 

[Smiling JOe]

BMBV, you refer to "their" 80ft of beach, when talking about Redfish Village, but their attorney agreed to dedicate the sandy part of the beach, seaward of that parcel which they bought, to the County for public use. Therefore, that 80ft of beach is "our" beach," without objection.

 

[Bob]

I thought by now the Florida Supreme Court would have made their ruling regarding the Walton County vs. Save Our Beaches case. Of course, for now, the beach whose adjacent private property line extends to the MHWL is private.

The walkover you refer seems to be a royal screwup in regards to a "beach access to nowhere". If you followed some of the Inn@BMB history, the SAME developer is creating the huge project on the north side of 30A that spans all the way over to 83. All along, he thought he would have full access to the Inn@BMB (pool, beach access, BEACH, etc.) for use with the new development north of 30A. As of today, he does not (litigious history). Is this another bill of goods sold without a "complete" product (i.e. beach access to nowhere)?

Do you recall my little "graphic" representation of the Blue Moutain Beach area a few months ago where I showed the intense use of that single beach access by all the property in ("green hash")? Look at the concentration and there you have the most conflict.

I'm not posting this to rekindle the private/public beach debate. We can argue that all day long but until it is ruled upon on a case by case basis or unless the couny prevails in the supreme court decision and then the beaches are renourished, it is a moot point.

My point is, as others have acknowledged, I (we) have not thrown people off our beach.......yet. But the day is coming when Redfish Village will be completely sold. When it sells out and becomes fully occupied and then hundreds of people pour on to their 80 feet of beach bordered by private property on both sides, THEN will there be a problem (for them). Right now only less than 30 units of 80 units have closed for what I believe to be the very same reason.

The only beach available to them will be their 80 foot part and just the public access at the end of 83. All the rest of Blue Mountain Beach is private.

This is the problem. Too much "inappropriate" development...too little public beach...too many assuming bureacrats and too much abuse from the counties have resulted in private property owners banding together saying enough is enough.

Think about it: you never heard of a person getting run off the beach in our area (SoWal) just a few years ago.

All the beaches are public, and you are going to get it handed to you in court one day. Please hire an attorney who bills north of 500/ hr.

 

[Pirate]

The walkover beside the Inn at BM is not publically-OWNED, it is owned by the Village of Blue Mountain HOA (or something like that) and they let the public use it. The closest publically-owned accesses are Gulfview Heights behind Goatfeathers to the west and the one at the end of CR 83 to the east. I think they are currently building the restrooms and parking at the one at the end of CR 83 so I would go to Gulfview Heights.

As far as a County beach nourishment project there, it is still in the planning phases as part of the 30-A project. Here is a link to the update.

http://www.protectwaltoncountybeaches.com/Future_Initiatives.asp

The walkover to the east side is built by the Inn. The walkover to the west was built by and is maintained by the county. The path leading to it was part of the deal that let the Inn be built, but is indeed a public access. Unfortunately the public beach doesn't exist. This beach was definitely renourished in approximately 2003 with taxpayer money, our money. I most likely will not return to this area and hope the beach there is eroded straight to the dunes unless it is approved for use by the general public. I wrote a letter to the county, hopefully everyone that reads this will as well.

 

[BeachSiO2]

The walkover to the east side is built by the Inn. The walkover to the west was built by and is maintained by the county. The path leading to it was part of the deal that let the Inn be built, but is indeed a public access. Unfortunately the public beach doesn't exist. This beach was definitely renourished in approximately 2003 with taxpayer money, our money. I most likely will not return to this area and hope the beach there is eroded straight to the dunes unless it is approved for use by the general public. I wrote a letter to the county, hopefully everyone that reads this will as well.

I hate to disagree with you but I am pretty tight with the guy from the County that has been responsible with the walkovers and beach renourishment since 2000 and rechecked with him and the walkover has not been rebuilt by the County since then.

 

[Pirate]

I thought by now the Florida Supreme Court would have made their ruling regarding the Walton County vs. Save Our Beaches case. Of course, for now, the beach whose adjacent private property line extends to the MHWL is private.

The walkover you refer seems to be a royal screwup in regards to a "beach access to nowhere". If you followed some of the Inn@BMB history, the SAME developer is creating the huge project on the north side of 30A that spans all the way over to 83. All along, he thought he would have full access to the Inn@BMB (pool, beach access, BEACH, etc.) for use with the new development north of 30A. As of today, he does not (litigious history). Is this another bill of goods sold without a "complete" product (i.e. beach access to nowhere)?

Do you recall my little "graphic" representation of the Blue Moutain Beach area a few months ago where I showed the intense use of that single beach access by all the property in ("green hash")? Look at the concentration and there you have the most conflict.

I'm not posting this to rekindle the private/public beach debate. We can argue that all day long but until it is ruled upon on a case by case basis or unless the couny prevails in the supreme court decision and then the beaches are renourished, it is a moot point.

My point is, as others have acknowledged, I (we) have not thrown people off our beach.......yet. But the day is coming when Redfish Village will be completely sold. When it sells out and becomes fully occupied and then hundreds of people pour on to their 80 feet of beach bordered by private property on both sides, THEN will there be a problem (for them). Right now only less than 30 units of 80 units have closed for what I believe to be the very same reason.

The only beach available to them will be their 80 foot part and just the public access at the end of 83. All the rest of Blue Mountain Beach is private.

This is the problem. Too much "inappropriate" development...too little public beach...too many assuming bureacrats and too much abuse from the counties have resulted in private property owners banding together saying enough is enough.

Think about it: you never heard of a person getting run off the beach in our area (SoWal) just a few years ago.

I agree it was abuse by the county to allow the beach club by Redfish Village. The real problem is that the entire beach in the area should be public. Maybe the county should have bought the Redfish lot and put public bathrooms there. The ocean isn't private and neither should 20-50 feet of beach be.

When I am at the beach I appreciate it and realize how lucky I am. To see other people enjoying it is wonderful. Unless people are being a nuisance or destroying things how could that possibly affect a high and mighty gulf fronter? Why not just realize you are fortunate to even walk on the beach instead of making a graphic about how awful it will be if people come to "your" beach.

If I ever buy gulf front in BMB I will be happy to grant the use of the sandy beach to the public. For anyone to be so self absorbed and bored that they feel in the right to run someone off of a gift to all of us like a beach is beyond words.

 

[Pirate]

I hate to disagree with you but I am pretty tight with the guy from the County that has been responsible with the walkovers and beach renourishment since 2000 and rechecked with him and the walkover has not been rebuilt by the County since then.

My friend states he has an e-mail from the county regarding the issue from 4-5 years ago. I am told the access is a condition of the construction of the Inn and the path was to be constructed by the Inn and the dune walkover by the county. This access definitely has a county maintained flag. I will post the pertinent quotes here when I have a copy. I believe you are incorrect but will certainly verify it.