Public vs Private Beach

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I'm curious to know how your particular deed reads regarding the southern boundary. If it, like many others, states, "to the water's edge," it is my belief that you don't own beyond that, regardless of where that happens to be at any given time. Therefore, adding sand to extend your property to where it was at some historical point in time, is not allowed.

I'm well aware of that aspect, that is why I immediately edited my post and CLEARLY stated "we cannot extend the beach past the new water line to where the old water line was".

You laugh, but not defending that which you call your own property, allowing other people to use it without complaint, builds customary use cases. That is why everyone will tell you that it matters not what your deed reads, but what you allow to happen.

:funn:
Guess what? I'm still laughing! I guess I should have deployed my new 100,000 watt ray gun and just stung that kid on the sand dune a few times. The Army ain't got nothing on me! Would that be better for my private property rights in your eyes?

SJ, like I've said in the past, I try to keep things in perspective. But you are just itching for me to go out there and have someone thrown off our beach.

Again damn if I do. I become a mean greedy beach front owner as it seems you want me to be.

Damn if I don't. I lose my property because of customary use as you think it should be.

Just damn.

 

[Busta Hustle]

BMBV: the only yes to nourishment without a majority rule vote would be for the emergency protection of life and limb or for roads or other necessary infrastructure.

Now may we move together amicably to the laws of property deeds. If your gulf front deed states that you have the specific land in between say 4 GPS points there is really no discussion needed. You own what you own period like any other interior lot.

If however somehow the county was dumb enough to give you a deed that states you own it to the gulf, i can only think that they owe you an apoligy and some compensation if they have to "take" that back sometime in the future.

If they say you own it to the mean high water mark well that is just stupid cuz the future mean high water mark may be 50 feet north of you in the near future, God forbid. Does Florida Law littoral or riparian, state that you lose it completely if you go completely under water and the water line is north of your property?

It is my opinion that your deed and all gulf front deeds need to be amended to 4 specific GPS points if that is not the case already( i guess that is obviously NOT the case)

So here we sit with the courts to undo what the county has done with the help of the state and feds and a bunch of PUBLIC $$$...all without the consent of the public for use of those Public $$$...Lawyers REJOICE!!!

Any thoughts?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

BMBV: the only yes to nourishment without a majority rule vote would be for the emergency protection of life and limb or for roads or other necessary infrastructure.

Now may we move together amicably to the laws of property deeds. If your gulf front deed states that you have the specific land in between say 4 GPS points there is really no discussion needed. You own what you own period like any other interior lot.

If however somehow the county was dumb enough to give you a deed that states you own it to the gulf, i can only think that they owe you an apoligy and some compensation if they have to "take" that back sometime in the future.

If they say you own it to the mean high water mark well that is just stupid cuz the future mean high water mark may be 50 feet north of you in the near future, God forbid.

It is my opinion that your deed and all gulf front deeds need to be amended to 4 specific GPS points if that is not the case already( i guess that is obviously NOT the case)

So here we sit with the courts to undo what the county has done with the help of the state and feds and a bunch of PUBLIC $$$...all without the consent of the public for use of those Public $$$...Lawyers REJOICE!!!

Any thoughts?

Regarding voting on beach nourishment: Is that somthing that was voted on before my time for Western Walton County and Okaloosa? I don't think so but I'm not 100% sure.


The laws are very clear that the state owns any submerged lands bordering the gulf (navigable waters). They have defined the "border" as the MHWL which has a very exact definition associated with it. I have no problem with this aspect.

And you are right...if we lose beach, we lose property. If we gain beach, we gain property.

What's interesting is the amount of tidal change on the Atlantic coast. Where there are private beaches, the public can "time" the tide and have somtimes hundreds of feet of beach available to them. The difference on the gulf, as you know, is the tide doesn't change much. And as it is highest during the summer, the wet sand concept provides a reasonable means to delineate the beach. I'll even throw in a foot or two of beach (low tide vs. high tide) for all the SJs out there.

Did you know a kid digging a big hole at water's edge could actually be changing our legal boundary. OK SJ, now go get your shovel and let the games begin.

BeachSiO2 is an expert on this topic as he set me straight a while back.

Edit: Forgot to address your important question: "If they say you own it to the mean high water mark well that is just stupid cuz the future mean high water mark may be 50 feet north of you in the near future, God forbid. Does Florida Law littoral or riparian, state that you lose it completely if you go completely under water and the water line is north of your property?"
I can only hope that I don't have to address this in my lifetime. All the seawalls in Walton County would certainly and admittedly throw a kink into the analysis (at least for the walls still standing).

 

[Smiling JOe]

...
Guess what? I'm still laughing! I guess I should have deployed my new 100,000 watt ray gun and just stung that kid on the sand dune a few times. The Army ain't got nothing on me! Would that be better for my private property rights in your eyes?

SJ, like I've said in the past, I try to keep things in perspective. But you are just itching for me to go out there and have someone thrown off our beach.

Again damn if I do. I become a mean greedy beach front owner as it seems you want me to be.

Damn if I don't. I lose my property because of customary use as you think it should be.

Just damn.

From a private property owner's perspective, according to the private property laws, you would have been better defending the property a long time ago. In reality, the first owners who had the property deeded should have been defending the property, to establish their boundary. Since none of the previous owners consistently stopped the public from using the beach for sunbathing or other recreation, they have essentially given up some rights to the property.

I don't want you to become a greedy beach front owner. I am just telling you about the real estate law as it relates to customary use of private property. IMO, it is too late to start defending it now, as The Retreat and others are doing.

 

[Busta Hustle]

one other thought is that now that the beaches are so "short" and properties are armored up you may find that more and more GULF beaches go under water at high tide in the future...that is the natural progression around armored properties without continuous nourishment. As mentioned before you have to swim around the bottom of the stairs already between redfish and 83 with the slightest wind driven surf.

As far as i know there were never public votes on any of these issues.
Perhaps the experts can chime in again on that.

 

[Smiling JOe]

BMBV: the only yes to nourishment without a majority rule vote would be for the emergency protection of life and limb or for roads or other necessary infrastructure.

Now may we move together amicably to the laws of property deeds. If your gulf front deed states that you have the specific land in between say 4 GPS points there is really no discussion needed. You own what you own period like any other interior lot.

If however somehow the county was dumb enough to give you a deed that states you own it to the gulf, i can only think that they owe you an apoligy and some compensation if they have to "take" that back sometime in the future.

If they say you own it to the mean high water mark well that is just stupid cuz the future mean high water mark may be 50 feet north of you in the near future, God forbid. Does Florida Law littoral or riparian, state that you lose it completely if you go completely under water and the water line is north of your property?

It is my opinion that your deed and all gulf front deeds need to be amended to 4 specific GPS points if that is not the case already( i guess that is obviously NOT the case)

So here we sit with the courts to undo what the county has done with the help of the state and feds and a bunch of PUBLIC $$$...all without the consent of the public for use of those Public $$$...Lawyers REJOICE!!!

Any thoughts?

I have a few. You make some good points, but as a Realtor, I'm sure you are aware of easements on property. I've stated numerous times, that having a deed to a property does not give one full rights to the property. That is a huge misconception. There are plenty of things which could limit one's full rights to a property. Zoning, easements, encroachments, customary use, building height codes, restrictions, covenants, property taxes, liens, etc. Holding a deed to a property may give rights to the property, but full rights are not guaranteed. In the cases of the beach, the public has been using the beach for many years, without interference by the property holders of the deed. This, IMO, establishes customary use.

In regards to the County taking the property for compensation, I believe that eminent domain isn't a tool which can be used for taking property for recreational use. Sunbathing is a recreational use. Why would the gov't want to pay for something which has been used by the public for decades, anyway?

 

[John R]

BTW, do you have an interest in the RFV? The only other post you've made was to find out the result of the initial "meeting" such as it was.

Be careful jmschill, before you know it, you'll be labeled a RFV supporter, and once the BMB crew have made up their minds, it's a done deal.

 

[BeachSiO2]

As far as i know there were never public votes on any of these issues.
Perhaps the experts can chime in again on that.

The only area that has been built is Western Walton County after 7 workshops, numerous TDC meetings, about 50 monthly beach nourishment committee meetings, numerous BCC meetings, and other one-on-one and group meetings. As a matter of fact, I think Brad Pickel of the TDC got the 2006 Person of the Year Award by the Northwest Chapter of the Florida Public Relations Association for his efforts on spreading the word.

For the Phase 2 project for 30A, there have been two workshops, 30 plus beach nourishment meetings, at least two BCC meetings, and numerous one-on-one and group meetings- once with SJ in attendance. Unfortunately, no more than 50 people have attended any workshop but the first one in 2000 and they are typically the same 50 people who want it.

There have been at least two votes (maybe 3) so far on moving forward with 30A restoration by the BCC. As of now, Phase 2 restoration for 30A is in permitting and I would expect another workshop to be held on that in the next couple of months. I expect to meet all of you there because last time there was a workshop and the audience was asked if anyone had heard about the meeting on sowal.com where it was also publicized, you could have heard crickets chirping.... but then again they weren't there either. Also, there is a monthly beach management meeting held at the TDC at 8:30 on April 10th where it will be discussed again.

 

[Smiling JOe]

For the record, I attended more than one, but thanks for noticing my interest in the matter.

 

[Busta Hustle]

BSIO2...So no public voted other than commissioners. I guess a referendum where the issue was voted on by all the registered public that care to vote is the legal terms of what i would like to happen on the issue of beach renourishment. By the way i thought you were b.p. i did not know there were others around with such knowledge of beach science. That's good to know.
And yes i know it has been litigated to the hilt as well as discussed! Maybe 1 of these cyber nerds...sorry web masters can start another poll cuz we all can't show up for meetings or already know how we would vote if given the chance. I in no way suggest that any decisions have been made without plenty of public opportunity for KNOWLEDGE or COMMENTS. I have an idea that at least 1000 people would vote on a sowal poll. WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY.

SJ i'm sure you know even though you are not a lawyer that in some court decisions by jury and in some cases by judges that facts don't matter and opinions matter less. Also your interpretation of customary use may be correct and ignored. Or your interpretation is just wrong as far as the judicial ruling, when that occurs. Why would the government pay for something already used by the public? Because they know they screwed up somewhere along the line when they deeded the beach as private to an individual. And as usual when new precedents are set it may not even be called eminent domain. Right now the law is on BMBV's side or at least the interpretation of the law is. Also my customary use of the beach for almost a century has been to sit and enjoy everywhere i please, and i have never been asked to leave so far. Happy St. Patty's day everyone.