That is correct. I was just wandering why you would post the comment but not the image showing what you were saying. Since you didn't post it, I thought I would.
Sanctuary at Redfish
- Thread starter Unplugged
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Although it is a different subject than Sanctuary at Redfish, that corrective deed is interestingly filed in 2007, when the developer's company dissolved many years ago. It could be argued that that due to the absence of a claim to the property for more than twenty years, it was abandoned.
Because I was hoping for once (just hoping) that you would believe something I posted without me having to go to the damn official records website each time.
But since you challenged me again, I was forced to get an image of the "proof" you seem always need from me at 9:59am today. Then while I was typing a reply to your post and getting ready to include "my" snapshot, you grab the snapshot without any acknowledgement from where it came from - a typical SJ CYA. Note the times of the two posts are the same.
SJ, you originally generated post #128 at 9:04am where you call me out forceing me to defend my statement with proof in a manner that I have become accustomed to with you.
Then right after I took the "snapshot" at 9:59am, you cleared out your post #128 and inserted my image in your post knowing you screwed up (again). The updated time on your edit was 10:19am.
You really seemed to be in a hurry to beat me to my own point. Probably doesn't look as bad....right?
Next time, why don't you leave the original "meat of the matter" in your post, THEN "...stand corrected"?
If it was just an honest mistake, that's one thing. But the original tone you exhibited (and you know what I'm taliking about), well....
I don't know what's worse...you pissing on me or me pissing back on you.
.
.
.
Or adults acting like kids who missed their nap time! :roll:
I just happened to notice the pic in the photo albums for the day. I could really care less of when what was posted. The only thing I was quick to do was to post the error which I made after seeing the image you posted. Read into whatever you want. I guess that you don't see my statement, "I stand corrected," as I was incorrect and acknowledge that you are correct. I'm not sure how you want me to better say that.
I'm not sure if I can ask an "innocent and sincere" question on this thread,but here goes...
I heard recently (last week maybe) on the local news "fill-in" portion of the NPR morning news that the US Army Corps of Engineers was working on a feasibility study (with input from Walton Co TDC) for beach re-nourishment for Walton County beaches between Topsail Preserve and Seagrove (I think) due to beach erosion. IF this is true AND they actually spend the $40 to $60 million that they are currently planning what affect does this have on the Public vs. Private dilemma? I know how this was addressed in Okaloosa Co and Walton Co up to Topsail, at least I think I know. Does that represent legal precedence?
As a matter of disclaimer: I live in Blue Mountain Beach and frequented the contested area this past Summer, we moved here June 1, 2007. I didn't hear of the Public vs. Private debate until October, and after hearing of it I was always respectful of the wet sand line as I would jog from the Co Rd 83 access to the East to the Redfish Lake outflow. No one ever seemed overly interested that I was there and I usually said good morning to those that I saw - if I wasn't out of breath.
I have a conflicting opinion on this issue. A) I have strong Libertarian beliefs that lead me to advocate for private property rights and see a very narrow window for eminent domain seizures if any window at all. B) The concept of owning THE (emphasis added in sarcasm) Beach has never occurred to me previous to moving here. I guess (maybe) I can see a difference in owning lake front real estate that has limited movement in the water/land line (discounting the recent drought conditions in many areas) and the Gulf/Ocean front real estate that is in a constant state of movement. For example, in my beach jogging excursions this Summer and Fall I noticed that the "white sand" area of the beach moved more than 25 feet inland in some areas due to erosion. I can also find many examples of the courts finding "abandonment" with similar scenarios of long term usage by the public. How many times has the property owner added sand? How many times has the government? Whose sand is there now? It's all too ambiguous.
All that said I truly am an "innocent" bystander... at least I was.
And I really want the thoughts of others on what happens if the COE and TDC re-nourish THE Beach.
I heard recently (last week maybe) on the local news "fill-in" portion of the NPR morning news that the US Army Corps of Engineers was working on a feasibility study (with input from Walton Co TDC) for beach re-nourishment for Walton County beaches between Topsail Preserve and Seagrove (I think) due to beach erosion. IF this is true AND they actually spend the $40 to $60 million that they are currently planning what affect does this have on the Public vs. Private dilemma? I know how this was addressed in Okaloosa Co and Walton Co up to Topsail, at least I think I know. Does that represent legal precedence?
As a matter of disclaimer: I live in Blue Mountain Beach and frequented the contested area this past Summer, we moved here June 1, 2007. I didn't hear of the Public vs. Private debate until October, and after hearing of it I was always respectful of the wet sand line as I would jog from the Co Rd 83 access to the East to the Redfish Lake outflow. No one ever seemed overly interested that I was there and I usually said good morning to those that I saw - if I wasn't out of breath.
I have a conflicting opinion on this issue. A) I have strong Libertarian beliefs that lead me to advocate for private property rights and see a very narrow window for eminent domain seizures if any window at all. B) The concept of owning THE (emphasis added in sarcasm) Beach has never occurred to me previous to moving here. I guess (maybe) I can see a difference in owning lake front real estate that has limited movement in the water/land line (discounting the recent drought conditions in many areas) and the Gulf/Ocean front real estate that is in a constant state of movement. For example, in my beach jogging excursions this Summer and Fall I noticed that the "white sand" area of the beach moved more than 25 feet inland in some areas due to erosion. I can also find many examples of the courts finding "abandonment" with similar scenarios of long term usage by the public. How many times has the property owner added sand? How many times has the government? Whose sand is there now? It's all too ambiguous.
All that said I truly am an "innocent" bystander... at least I was.
And I really want the thoughts of others on what happens if the COE and TDC re-nourish THE Beach.
Bob, if I remember correctly and can add confusion, Walton County was waiting on 30A due to all of the issues around renourishment. Permitting, legal challenges for "private beaches", turtles, etc.
As for jogging, that has never been the issue. Anyone is free to walk down the beach. Provided they keep moving. Stop and try to set up camp and the men in green come down to get you.
As for jogging, that has never been the issue. Anyone is free to walk down the beach. Provided they keep moving. Stop and try to set up camp and the men in green come down to get you.
I believe all of this was ruled on in Hillary Supporters vs. Obama Supporters in the 1st circuit court of the politics forum.
Not to even get into the privatization issue-
Hasn't the beach pretty much renourished itself by now? Sure looks that way down here by Eastern Lake. Why waste the $60M on dredging?
Why not spend the bucks on 4-laning the 331 bridge? Or some other large-scale project that's truly in the public interest.
Yeah, I know, different programs, different agencies, different funding.
But still...
Last edited: