Beach Property Rights - public/private

[Jdarg]

The Jolly bay project and height restrictions are discussed here:
http://www.sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?t=15944

And feel free to start a new thread just about height restrictions. Let's keep this thread on Beach rights - thanks!

Thanks- y'all start a new thread. I'm a little tired today.

 

[rancid]

Rancid, It seems that we are agreeing on this subject...Now I have no inside information on developers wanting to push the height restriction over what it is already zoned. I know many delevlopers - and all are not evil. Why dont we all bond together and fight this battle... then, when someone tries to push the height restriction then we can all fight for our right (to parrrrrrrrty sorry had to do it.) on that subject matter.

I honestly believe that if just sowal.com bonds and shows the commisioners that we do care, we will prevail. Strength in numbers.....So when is the next meeting and who is bringing dinner????

Allright I am with you. Public beaches for all and united opposition to increased development that might try to use the public beach designation to their advantage. Perhaps the county could try to limit " private beach clubs " which may be used as beach heads for developments that are not near the beach.
My feeling is that if beaches are public and there is public access then those should be used. I had heard some rumours that the Hyatt development at Grayton was trying to purchase the Red Bar as its beach access. I hope that is not true.
Lastly, I don't think developers are evil but they are businessmen and they are about making money. It is easy for them to rationalize that their mega development is giving access to beautiful beaches that many individuals would not otherwise have. Guilt free development.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Allright I am with you. Public beaches for all and united opposition to increased development that might try to use the public beach designation to their advantage. Perhaps the county could try to limit " private beach clubs " which may be used as beach heads for developments that are not near the beach.
My feeling is that if beaches are public and there is public access then those should be used. I had heard some rumours that the Hyatt development at Grayton was trying to purchase the Red Bar as its beach access. I hope that is not true.
Lastly, I don't think developers are evil but they are businessmen and they are about making money. It is easy for them to rationalize that their mega development is giving access to beautiful beaches that many individuals would not otherwise have. Guilt free development.

I agree totally with what you said. Thank you!

If these "beach heads" were not evolving, then I probably would not be so vocal about the beach situation. A few "offsite" people on the beach never hurt anyone. But when Redfish's beach access was so flagrantly passed against county code AND the fact that our condo association had to spend $50,000 against the county for another unrelated easement issue in which we prevailed, then I knew then we were heading for BIG trouble.

Right or wrong, the county does it their way, especially if there is no opposition.

The height thing is not really an issue as of now and I hope never will be. Look at how much undeveloped land there is north of 30A. Ask yourself what our area would like if 100 Redfish Villages were allowed to be developed with the "promise" of beach access. Without that, the numbers make no sense...the developers would not touch it with a 10 foot pole because they know they could not market it for enough $ without it.

Many here think all beachfront owners are the rich ones. I paid just over $100,000 for a unit in 2001. Today, a unit at Redfish goes for WELL over $1,000,000.

How much are the units at Rosemary and Seaside north of 30A? Point is those guys are trying to "protect" their investment as well, not just us beach front people.

Thank you again for a voice of reasonableness.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Don't be surprised to find that many agree with the ideas in post 173. The Planning Commission doesn't look at things like beach access when a project comes before them. They state that they look at only the subject property. Maybe they should think about the big picture, and until they do, the County Commissioners will keep passing every project which the Planning Comm approves. That is just the way our County Gov't works around here. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to drive through old 98 and see that the mega structures houses many people, who sit in chairs, three rows deep, on the beach.

I agree, stop the construction of these VMU "beach heads" which are being built on residentially zoned land, and I think the problems which BMBV will see in the near future, will cease for other people who have yet to be affected.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Don't be surprised to find that many agree with the ideas in post 173. The Planning Commission doesn't look at things like beach access when a project comes before them. They state that they look at only the subject property. Maybe they should think about the big picture, and until they do, the County Commissioners will keep passing every project which the Planning Comm approves. That is just the way our County Gov't works around here. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to drive through old 98 and see that the mega structures houses many people, who sit in chairs, three rows deep, on the beach.

I agree, stop the construction of these VMU "beach heads" which are being built on residentially zoned land, and I think the problems which BMBV will see in the near future, will cease for other people who have yet to be affected.

Agreed and thank you.

 

[InletBchDweller]

Allright I am with you. Public beaches for all and united opposition to increased development that might try to use the public beach designation to their advantage. Perhaps the county could try to limit " private beach clubs " which may be used as beach heads for developments that are not near the beach.
My feeling is that if beaches are public and there is public access then those should be used. I had heard some rumours that the Hyatt development at Grayton was trying to purchase the Red Bar as its beach access. I hope that is not true.
Lastly, I don't think developers are evil but they are businessmen and they are about making money. It is easy for them to rationalize that their mega development is giving access to beautiful beaches that many individuals would not otherwise have. Guilt free development.

I agree that the beach clubs should be limited. I dont think the Red Bar is going anywhere....

I agree totally with what you said. Thank you!

If these "beach heads" were not evolving, then I probably would not be so vocal about the beach situation. A few "offsite" people on the beach never hurt anyone. But when Redfish's beach access was so flagrantly passed against county code AND the fact that our condo association had to spend $50,000 against the county for another unrelated easement issue in which we prevailed, then I knew then we were heading for BIG trouble.

Right or wrong, the county does it their way, especially if there is no opposition.

The height thing is not really an issue as of now and I hope never will be. Look at how much undeveloped land there is north of 30A. Ask yourself what our area would like if 100 Redfish Villages were allowed to be developed with the "promise" of beach access. Without that, the numbers make no sense...the developers would not touch it with a 10 foot pole because they know they could not market it for enough $ without it.

Many here think all beachfront owners are the rich ones. I paid just over $100,000 for a unit in 2001. Today, a unit at Redfish goes for WELL over $1,000,000.

How much are the units at Rosemary and Seaside north of 30A? Point is those guys are trying to "protect" their investment as well, not just us beach front people.

Thank you again for a voice of reasonableness.

It seems the we agree also. I am knowledgeable about the Redfish debaucle so I can not comment.

As far as the county doing things their way, next election we should all make a stand...

I know that many beachfront owners are not rich ones. I never have thought that.

I dont know about the Rosemary and Seaside situation. I do know that Rosemary does not want people from Seacrest, The Village, etc. using the beach access at the end of West Water Street. If someone could let me know- is the access at the end of West Water a public /county maintained access? I know that the colored flags are flying there so I assumed it was public. However if Rosemarys roads are private then you cant get to the beach access.... Also, this needs to be discussed on another thread....or is there one already??

Now when is the next meeting on this???

 

[Smiling JOe]

Now when is the next meeting on this???

You can check the TDC site for the map of the public accesses maintained by the TDC. Having flags and TDC trashcans doesn't equate to "public maintained accesses."

I don't think the County has the authority to make such ordinance regarding public/private beaches. Just my opinion. Nor do I think that the County is willing to face a class action lawsuit if they decide to act on creating such an ordinance.

 

[Pirate]

I agree totally with what you said. Thank you!

If these "beach heads" were not evolving, then I probably would not be so vocal about the beach situation. A few "offsite" people on the beach never hurt anyone. But when Redfish's beach access was so flagrantly passed against county code AND the fact that our condo association had to spend $50,000 against the county for another unrelated easement issue in which we prevailed, then I knew then we were heading for BIG trouble.

Right or wrong, the county does it their way, especially if there is no opposition.

The height thing is not really an issue as of now and I hope never will be. Look at how much undeveloped land there is north of 30A. Ask yourself what our area would like if 100 Redfish Villages were allowed to be developed with the "promise" of beach access. Without that, the numbers make no sense...the developers would not touch it with a 10 foot pole because they know they could not market it for enough $ without it.

Many here think all beachfront owners are the rich ones. I paid just over $100,000 for a unit in 2001. Today, a unit at Redfish goes for WELL over $1,000,000.

How much are the units at Rosemary and Seaside north of 30A? Point is those guys are trying to "protect" their investment as well, not just us beach front people.

Thank you again for a voice of reasonableness.

First of all I wanted to re-state my opinion that the Redfish beach club opens the door to some pretty undesirable development possibilities and I think it is ridiculous. I also feel that the beach should be accessible to anyone within a certain disctance from the ocean.

That being said, if the beaches had public use rights of some type it would be much easier to fight something like the Redfish club. I feel that the private beach issue makes it that much easier for an off beach development to do a similar thing. If I was looking to develop there I assure you I would use it as a tool.

BMBV I never realized you were a condo owner. Surely you realize that If single family gulf front owners got their way you wouldn't even own a property where you do. Many gulf front owners think multi family actually started the "beach head" problem.

I am not sure if this is where you own but in the instance of the Inn at Blue Mountain I find it hilarious that so many owners fight so hard to keep people off of their 100 feet of beach when the neighbors at White Cliffs and The Retreat think these very people are the problem. I guess if you are an owner there it's OK the height restriction didn't apply and this development was built, but now thank god there's a height restriction?

I wonder how the interior lot owners and off gulf condo owners in these developments are allowed on the beach? They are after all trespassing on private property. Are they automatically allowed on private property because they are a neighbor? Thats flat out discrimination. Maybe the condo and homeowners associations will have to assign a 2 foot strip of beach to each owner in future developments and this will not be an issue.

Funny quote..

A developer is someone who wants to build a house in the woods. An environmentalist is someone who already has a house in the woods


-Dennis Miller

 

[SGB]

I wonder how the interior lot owners and off gulf condo owners in these developments are allowed on the beach? They are after all trespassing on private property. Are they automatically allowed on private property because they are a neighbor? Thats flat out discrimination. Maybe the condo and homeowners associations will have to assign a 2 foot strip of beach to each owner in future developments and this will not be an issue.

The Retreat has a 50ft easement all along the oceanfront for all the owners in The Retreat. Plus the pool and clubhouse is beachfront and all the sand there is common area.

 

[NotDeadYet]

If someone could let me know- is the access at the end of West Water a public /county maintained access? I know that the colored flags are flying there so I assumed it was public.

No, it is not a public access. It was built, is owned and maintained by the Rosemary homeowners. SJ is correct, the flag locations don't have anything to do with the accesses being public or not. Some are at public accesses and many are not.