Beach Property Rights - public/private

[rancid]

BeachBliss, Thank you for responding to my questions.

I honestly do see both sides. That is why I am trying to ask questions.

Say if I had a gulf front house that was next to a public beach access. That access had massive amounts of people using it- they all camp out on the beach in front of my house and there was no room for my family to get on the sand and enjoy themselves. OR If loud music was playing so that I could hear it in the house, or if teenagers were funneling beer , etc etc etc then I would be upset. I would deal with it at that time. But that is how the cards fall, IMHO if you are unlucky?? enough to be beside a public beach, lake or river access. When you purchased your Gulf Front property were the beach access already in place?? If so then, even if I understood that I "owned a part of the beach" I would have thought more about it. Times do change and growth is inevitable.

If you have a gulf front house that is no where close to a public beach access and if a family comes and camps out in front of your house, and made a hike doing so, because there is a nice close sandbar, or just because, I just dont see the harm. That is why I asked the question how close the house was to the actual water. Some homes are super close to the water and some are hundreds of yards away. If your home is 100 feet from the gulf really how could several people aggravate you??? (unless they were causing a ruckus) EX. I had a board member for Paradise by the Sea call me b/c I am president of the Board for a condo across the street. She was rude and steaming mad (at me) because a renter from "my" complex was on "their" beach sitting on a towel. She told me that it was a private beach and he was to get off and for me to contact all owners that they were NOT to be on their beach. I tried to pacify her, b/c of my position, but I really wanted to say...Your subdivision has some of the largest homesites on the Gulf in the area. THere is probably 6-8 homes where people actually stay so why does it matter??? Even if the subdivision was full of homes what does it matter??? I thought that there are alot of other things to worry about than a single man sitting on the beach. :roll:


Now as a local I understand/agree with the "other side' because I believe God created all this for us to enjoy and to block others is just not right. If people want to use the beach then they should be able to use the beach. Not your backyard, your dune, your shower or your steps. I dont think that anyone wants to take away your property they just want to use the beach. As far as the trash issue goes- I own inland and still I have to pick up trash that people throw out (which is on the countys property) but that is just part of being a responsible property owner, keeping it clean.

I dont believe that the County will allow mega story buildings in the area. Keep it at the issue at hand and dont try to steer the sheeple in your corral by scaring them.

I am all for everyone being able to use all beaches, everywhere.


Thanks for letting me put my dog in the hunt....

I dont believe that the County will allow mega story buildings in the area. Keep it at the issue at hand and dont try to steer the sheeple in your corral by scaring them.

What are you basing your assumption on that the county won't allow mega story buildings?

 

[Smiling JOe]

And your point?

My point is that FL law allows for the taking of property by prescriptive use, if it isn't hostilely defended by the owner of record. If people are coming into your yard to use the grill, chase them out. If people have been using the beach for years, without the deeded owners "hostilely defending" it, the beach goers may have a legal right to use the property, even if you hold the deed. Look up the property laws in FL. As I mentioned before, holding a deed to a property does not give the deed holder exclusive, unlimited rights. Ownership comes with restrictions of many types.

 

[Smiling JOe]

InLetBchDweller you have asked some great questions.
Along time ago before any of us were at the beach, before walkovers, before the Red Bar, before Seaside-Walton County sold beach front property to individuals. The deeds state that ownership includes "to the mean high water line (MHWL) of the Gulf of Mexico." Yes, Walton County sold the beach to individuals. They built houses, condos, townhomes, etc. on their property. They have since sold them to others, as real estate goes.
...

The trash pick-up is not for free-beach front owners pay very high taxes-we understand that, it is part of owning beach front property. Trash pick-up is the only service beach front owners receive different from non-beach front owners.
...

I bet the good ole boys elected themselves as County Commissioners then sold the beach to themselves back then. If the use of those beaches was by the public prior to the sale, that is a great case of prescriptive use by the public. Again, a deed doesn't come without limitations.

Regarding your high tax dollars of beach front property paying for trash pick-up, you are incorrect. Your property tax dollars do not pay for trash pick up on the beach. The bed tax revenues collected by the TDC pay for that service, and those taxes are paid by the people renting for periods of six months or less. Your beach front tax millage rate is the same as my interior property tax rates, and if your beach home is your primary residence and you have owned it for more than seven years, it is highly likely that your property taxes are not much different than my property purchase just a few years ago. Don't feed us that crap about your high property taxes. Our millage rate in SoWal is around 8.25 mills, and that is a third of what I've paid in other towns.

 

[Smiling JOe]

The MHWL is not the edge of the water!
Check this page out ..http://www.floridageomatics.com/publications/legal/mhwl.htm

Nor is "the approx. MHWL." Most of the legal descriptions I've read for these gulf front properties have terminology such as "meandering along the approximate Mean High Water Line." The word, "approximate" is a very vague word regarding a precise piece of land. I would like to see that hold up in a Court of Law for a trespass trial.

 

[Smiling JOe]

BlueMtnBeachVagrant[/B]]
.
That concept is where I have a real problem.

If "someone" uses your property over and over, they feel entitled to it. There is some law here in Georgia that if you've driven a path over private property everyday for x number of years unimpeded, you basically get an easement. I can see that. It is one individual usually trying to get to their property that may be landlocked (public road wise), etc.

But the difference between the above and the beach situation, in my opinion only, is that we're NOT talking about an individual. We're talking about the public. I'm no lawyer, but I believe the legal rights afforded to the "public" are not the same as the rights afforded to an individual or other LEGAL entity. I believe this is the only reason why Walton County, a legal entity, can drive on the beach through our property. They have done it for x number of years without oppsosition.

So what defines the public as using the beach for X years? Joe Blow showed up in 1987 and Jane Doe showed up in 1994? I hope you see my point. I believe this is exactly why the attorney general said it would have to be decided on a case by case basis.

What is your opinion on the definition of "the public has used the beach for years"?

You seem to make some inaccurate assumptions in your case. I can think of several properties around here which would prove your basis inaccurate. One is a property which I own, where I have a deed for the property. There was a jeep trail going across the depth of my property for years, even though the road is platted to go on the property adjacent to me on the opposite side which remains wooded. The County expanded their right of way from a jeep trail to 60ft and then paved the road. I own the property without a question, according to the deed, but there is a 60ft right of way, utilities, drainage ditches, a two lane paved road and a driveway feeding off of my property to a neighbor's, all except for the driveway, is available for use by the public.

On another point of interest, did you know that if you hold the deed for the property including the sandy beach, you may be liable? If someone steps into a hole in the sand on "your beach," and they break their leg, die from infection, you may have to pay up. Tis true. It seems to me that every Gulffront property owner would reduce their liability greatly by quitclaiming that sandy lower elevation of the property, giving it back to the State. You would also see a reduction in your assessed value and your taxes if you are reducing the area of your property. To me, it seems like a no-brainer, but what do I know? I don't own GulfFront.

 

[InletBchDweller]

I dont believe that the County will allow mega story buildings in the area. Keep it at the issue at hand and dont try to steer the sheeple in your corral by scaring them.

What are you basing your assumption on that the county won't allow mega story buildings?

First I am/was speaking of the scenic corridor, I dont want you to think that when I said area I meant all of SoWal...

Here ya go, NO MEGA STORY BUILDINGS straight from the county website.


5.00.06. Height Limitation, Exceptions and Measurement Methodology.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Code, no man-made improvements
higher than four stories of habitable space or 50 feet in height, whichever is less, shall
be permitted south of the Choctawhatchee Bay and the Intracoastal Waterway in Walton
County, except as noted herein.
a.​

​

Building height means the vertical distance between (1) the average elevation of the
existing natural ground beneath the footprint of the building and (2) either the highest
point of the coping of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof, or the mean height level
between eaves and ridge for gable, hip, and gambrel roofs.
b. Height exceptions. The height limitations stipulated may not apply to the following,
contingent on conceptual review/approval on a case by case basis by the Board of
County Commissioners:
Church Steeples and spires;
Chimneys;
Aircraft radio towers and navigational aids;
Solar energy collectors or Windmills;
Utility transmission towers;
Civic structures relating to public welfare;
Safety and Health related facilities, public or private;
(Ord. No. 01-12, ? 2, 7-3-01)​

 

[rancid]

First I am/was speaking of the scenic corridor, I dont want you to think that when I said area I meant all of SoWal...

Here ya go, NO MEGA STORY BUILDINGS straight from the county website.


5.00.06. Height Limitation, Exceptions and Measurement Methodology.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Code, no man-made improvements
higher than four stories of habitable space or 50 feet in height, whichever is less, shall
be permitted south of the Choctawhatchee Bay and the Intracoastal Waterway in Walton
County, except as noted herein.
a. Building height means the vertical distance between (1) the average elevation of the
existing natural ground beneath the footprint of the building and (2) either the highest
point of the coping of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof, or the mean height level
between eaves and ridge for gable, hip, and gambrel roofs.
b. Height exceptions. The height limitations stipulated may not apply to the following,
contingent on conceptual review/approval on a case by case basis by the Board of
County Commissioners:
Church Steeples and spires;
Chimneys;
Aircraft radio towers and navigational aids;
Solar energy collectors or Windmills;
Utility transmission towers;
Civic structures relating to public welfare;
Safety and Health related facilities, public or private;
(Ord. No. 01-12, ? 2, 7-3-01)​

I understand the current height restrictions. My question was regarding furure changes in the building code. While I am all for public beach access and usage, I think some on this post are naively dismissing the claim that developers will attempt to exploit any issue to increase their profits . I would be at least as fearful of developers as some here are of beach front property owners.

 

[Jdarg]

Also, the new hight restrictions as I understand them will apply to the entire county, not just south of the Bay, which is the case for the current code.

 

[Capricious]

Ok, I am going to open my big mouth here.

I don't (currently) own an SoWal property but I own
some "lake front" land in another state.

I could have gone to a privately-owned (i.e. electric utility) lake
where I could have actually owned the water frontage.

Or I could have gone to a Corp of Engineers lake where all the
lakefront is government (i.e. public) property.

I chose the latter.

When you own your little 50 feet or what-ever of frontage, then that
is the ONLY frontage that you have the legal right to use.

The rest of the shore is off-limits

No long walks along the shoreline.

No landing your boat anywhere but on your own frontage.

Did not make any sense to me. Give up my access to ALL of
the shore just in order to deny others the right to use that tiny
piece of frontage in front of my property? Ya gotta be kidding me.

I have about 400 feet of frontage on the government property line. About
100 to 150 feet from the water's edge.

I can access that Gov. property (following the rules, of course, just as the beach has rules) and so can anyone else as long as they don't cross the
line onto my land. And I can walk on the shore for miles without
be accused of trespassing. I can land my boat anywhere if, for
example, I need to "find a tree."

It sure made no sense to me to give up my rights to the whole shoreline
just to make one tiny little portion of that shoreline exclusively mine.

 

[Santiago]

Ok, I am going to open my big mouth here.

I don't (currently) own an SoWal property but I own
some "lake front" land in another state.

I could have gone to a privately-owned (i.e. electric utility) lake
where I could have actually owned the water frontage.

Or I could have gone to a Corp of Engineers lake where all the
lakefront is government (i.e. public) property.

I chose the latter.

When you own your little 50 feet or what-ever of frontage, then that
is the ONLY frontage that you have the legal right to use.

The rest of the shore is off-limits

No long walks along the shoreline.

No landing your boat anywhere but on your own frontage.

Did not make any sense to me. Give up my access to ALL of
the shore just in order to deny others the right to use that tiny
piece of frontage in front of my property? Ya gotta be kidding me.

I have about 400 feet of frontage on the government property line. About
100 to 150 feet from the water's edge.

I can access that Gov. property (following the rules, of course, just as the beach has rules) and so can anyone else as long as they don't cross the
line onto my land. And I can walk on the shore for miles without
be accused of trespassing. I can land my boat anywhere if, for
example, I need to "find a tree."

It sure made no sense to me to give up my rights to the whole shoreline
just to make one tiny little portion of that shoreline exclusively mine.

You need to hush with all of that talk Capricious, you're making too much sense for some of these people.