beach goers harrassed

[BeachSiO2]

During the last year and a half I've seen dredgers, cranes and heavy equipment restoring the beach and dunes in front of The Retreat. According to the US Supreme Ct decision upholding Florida in its case with the Destin homeowners suing over the restoration here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1151.pdf
It seems that if the county, state or federal govt funded any of that restoration that I saw take place recently then they absolutely have no right running beach goers away with security force - if they ever did have that right in the first place. In addition I would argue that the storm that eroded that part of the beach a year and a half ago significantly raised the high water mark that once prevailed thus creating a significant amount of dry sand "public" in it's current state. In addition, their HUGE "Private Beach" sign has been erected on public sand right off of the public access and should be removed immediately. Certainly there is an ordinance preventing people from putting major signage on the beach? It may as well be a billboard it's so large and it's the only sign of its kind I've seen on the beautiful beaches around here! I'll gladly call someone to remove it if pointed in the right direction - I just moved here full time so I don't know the govt entities yet. But I can tell you I'm hot about this and don't intend on dropping it!

Not weighing in on the use of the beach, but there has not been any work at the retreat that was county,state or federally funded. There is a project being developed for 30-A beaches, but it is still being developed. That project will include the retreat area.

 

[miznotebook]

I spoke with Sheriff Adkinson today and he said it is not acceptable behavior for beachgoers to be harrassed. He suggested that anyone encountering this call his office and he will send someone to mediate between the beachgoer(s) and the property owner so that a common-sense solution can be reached. The sheriff's office number is 892-8186.

 

[jodiFL]

[SIZE=-1]http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0177/0177.html
177.28 Legal significance of the mean high-water line.—(1) Mean high-water line along the shores of land immediately bordering on navigable waters is recognized and declared to be the boundary between the foreshore owned by the state in its sovereign capacity and upland subject to private ownership. However, no provision of this part shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of state ownership of sovereignty submerged lands, nor shall any provision of this part be deemed to impair the title to privately owned submerged lands validly alienated by the State of Florida or its legal predecessors.
...and this part is where the current topographical survey and surveyor in good standing come into play...
[SIZE=-1]177.26 Declaration of policy.—The Legislature recognizes the desirability of confirmation of the mean high-water line, as recognized in the State Constitution and defined in s. 177.27(15) as the boundary between state sovereignty land and uplands subject to private ownership, as well as the necessity for uniform standards and procedures with respect to the establishment of local tidal datums and the determination of the mean high-water and mean low-water lines, and therefore directs that uniform standards and procedures be developed.[/SIZE]

and if you want even more reading material/ammunition this link goes into even more...
[/SIZE]

 

[jodiFL]

[SIZE=-1]161.053 Coastal construction and excavation; regulation on county basis.—(1)(a) The Legislature finds and declares that the beaches in this state and the coastal barrier dunes adjacent to such beaches, by their nature, are subject to frequent and severe fluctuations and represent one of the most valuable natural resources of Florida and that it is in the public interest to preserve and protect them from imprudent construction which can jeopardize the stability of the beach-dune system, accelerate erosion, provide inadequate protection to upland structures, endanger adjacent properties, or interfere with public beach access.

[/SIZE]

 

[jodiFL]

blue mountain. isn't the public beach access on both sides of the public access very narrow? did he try to get you to move from the public area are people strayed onto the retret area?The high water mark is the avg amount the tide comes in over a 17 or 18 yr period which unless they hire a full time surveyor to commute daily its not legal. You can 1005stay in the wet sand are an up to min 10 feet above it and he can't do crap. as you can see from the oldness of this note its been going on for 6-8 yrs. it died own the last 2 yrs after destin lost the supreme ct decision for owners to not allow nourishment of san on there property which kin of says the beach I the countrys and not orivate. 2 yrs ago I sat were I wanted on a private beach and the life guars aske me to move dily but admitted there was nothing they could do.don't let anyone bully you

Topo surveys are usually good for a year I think, but cost a TON... Most people only have one done at the beginning of construction to make sure they dont go over the CCL then never get another one done. But that is the only way to get the current MHWL so they really cant do anything unless they are ready to produce one. And it is their responsibility to have it not the person they want to say is "trespassing"

 

[NotDeadYet]

Not weighing in on the use of beaches, but there has not been any work at the retreat that was county,state or federally funded. There is a project being developed for 30-A beaches, but it is still being developed. That project will include the retreat area.

Not even weighing in on the use of beaches after they are restored? Isn't it a little disingenuous to consult on a project that will be financed with tax dollars (the public's money) and refuse to weigh in on whether or not you think the public then ought to get some use out of their money?

 

[Andy A]

He is one person running basically a federal project. What he thinks is his business and he doesn't need to express it here or anywhere else if he so desires. The project he is heading will do a great service to Walton County. If you don't think so, you are welcome to come look at our beach, what there is left of it.

 

[NotDeadYet]

He is one person running basically a federal project. What he thinks is his business and he doesn't need to express it here or anywhere else if he so desires. The project he is heading will do a great service to Walton County. If you don't think so, you are welcome to come look at our beach, what there is left of it.

You missed my point. I'm not complaining about the project or the need for it. After the beach in Miramar along Old 98 was renourished, at least one condo across the street placed private beach signs on the renourished beach. Both the county and the DEP told me they couldn't do anything about it. Surely you don't think the federal government should spend all that money solely for the benefit of gulf front owners? Why would I want my tax dollars to be spent restoring a beach that I would not be able to use?
Brad can keep his opinion to himself if he likes. But I am entitled to express my own opinion that doing so is disingenuous. And you are free to disagree.

 

[Blue Mtn Mama]

It is not only your opinion but the opinion of the US Supreme Court that once the beach is renourished with public funds it and all of its dry sands (not just mean high tide line) are public. I posted a link to the ruling above. About the signage - we don't see signs advertising hot wings on the beach... The only signage I see are terrible private beach signage that could impede turtle nesting. I want it removed.

 

[BeachSiO2]

Whoa, whoa, whoa... My point was that I wasn't going to weigh in on the discussion of public access on privately-owned property on this non-nourished beach at the Retreat as I went back in forth with BMB Vagrant years ago and it was exhausting. I am completely on board with nourished beaches being publicly-accessible. Sorry for the confusion...