Maybe they built there first and when the others came and saw what was happening they built back, or the whole thing took place after the CCL was established. What has that got to do with proactive code enforcement?
Beach Restoration Halted
- Thread starter yippie
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Maybe they built there first and when the others came and saw what was happening they built back, or the whole thing took place after the CCL was established. What has that got to do with proactive code enforcement?
Thanks.
It's a brief by a third party, not a legal opinion, and it doesn't answer my question of how it "cuts off access to the water," as it states.
maybe the ice cream man likes to go there first.
maybe they thought that being closer to the water would fuel sales faster. regardless, they are where they are, affecting everyone around them.
jetty east was completed in 1975.
regarding proactive code enforcement; if we had it, a lot of what is discussed in this forum wouldn't need to be.
I vote we send all the lawyers and "private" beach owners out to the beach during the next hurricane.
They can't leave until they come to an agreement of 30 words or less.........or until Mother Nature ends the discussion and solves the problem for us ;-).
They can't leave until they come to an agreement of 30 words or less.........or until Mother Nature ends the discussion and solves the problem for us ;-).
" My children, don't waste your time on looking for expensive quantites of so-called "matching white sand" to replace what I temporarily took away in the first place!
...Who do you think you are, me? As with all things, I will return the sand to you, my children, on my time at my own speed, not on the time of self serving, nuerotic humans like yourselves! Your laws do not apply here!" --God.[/quote]
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Now, you are really making me angry now, don't make me repeat myself....God.:angry:
...Who do you think you are, me? As with all things, I will return the sand to you, my children, on my time at my own speed, not on the time of self serving, nuerotic humans like yourselves! Your laws do not apply here!" --God.[/quote]
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Now, you are really making me angry now, don't make me repeat myself....God.:angry:
WaltonGOP, I understand what you are saying, but that is not what they wrote in the brief. They were specific.
Actually, this is one of the MAJOR areas of confusion. It's not about who pays. If it was then the owner "could" pay for their sand if that is what everyone wanted. It's about filling in state-owned properties, i.e. lands below the current MHW location, and then transferring ownership to a private owner (i.e. lands held in common good for state given to upland owner) This is why it's in the Supreme Court and why the takings argument is being used.
One question I have is that if it is determined to be a takings, could the $100 beach purchases in Blue Mountain from September 2007 be used as comparables.
Amicus Curiae
Definition: Latin term meaning "friend of the court". The name for a brief filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case.
"... a phrase that literally means "friend of the court" -- someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court's decision may affect its interest."
SJ, you must be a bigger "friend of the court" as you'll try to discredit everything and everyone that doesn't agree with you. I simply made reference to their brief and then you say it's just a brief.
Their brief is their position as per their interpretation of the law. Somehow I just have to believe they know the law a tad better than you.
If there was no basis to this entire argument as you suggest (customary use and all), why is the case of Save Our Beaches vs. Walton County all the way to the Florida Supreme Court? So far, the District Court of Appeals upheld their position.
Deny what you want.
And ask your question, "how it cuts off access to the water" to a lawyer who is well versed in this area as any I answer I would give you could not possibly be right since I already answered it. But that's status quo with you.
So the 60 million dollar question is do our beaches need renourishment bad enough at this moment in time to justify the expenditures? Or does the county just want to try and accelerate the "takings"?
You forgot all those
.
Last edited: