Public vs Private Beach [threads merged]

[steel1man]

So if we rent in old seagrove in the magical forest with multiple beach accesses off 30a where do y'all think we can we place our umbrella and chairs with peace of mind that we will not be asked to move? Thank you. Planning our vacay.

No Sleeping Late anymore on30A!!!!! You better be at the beach by 6:00AM daily to get a good spot, Low Life Vendors steal all the good spaces....with chairs that will remain mostly empty all day....But the BCC and TDC ain't going to stop them....#rethinknextyear

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Are you part of the reason for the development or are you a native of Walton County?

Interesting gotcha question. Here are two back at you: Who really is a native? And when did development start?

Anyway, the reason for the relatively recent "huge" development is of course money. I have clearly stated this before. And I know this is no surprise to anyone. How many people do you know who simply bought and flipped properties (or tried to flip and got caught) during the boon? It's all about money.

I'm not going to fault development in of itself. That would be hypocritical and I despise hypocrites. And I won't even fault the flippers who enabled the developers to get many of these projects underway.

But who I will fault is Walton County - pure and simple. They were fully aware that most of the beach was private. But they made little to no effort to let the general public in on this "secret" that they'd like to keep.

Now the cat is out of the bag and has been for a few years. MRBS recently asked on this thread about public access. I gave her a link. The link comes up as a text PDF with addresses of the access points. That's it! The normal beach goer has no idea once they get to the beach if all or part of the area is public or private. That's why I encourage the county to provide a fully interactive map showing all the public accesses AND the extent of the public beach adjacent to the accesses.

I just found out all the beach along Montgomery Street in Seagrove was public. That's great! But I did not know that until the recent BCC meeting when a new walkover was discussed for that neighborhood.

Many people who bought off-beach assumed getting to the beach was a non-issue. And as long as there was room at the public access, it was a non-issue. Of course, times have changed.

Now, parking and traffic studies must be submitted before a development is approved by the planning department. Yet there is no requirement that I know of to be able to accommodate the increased load on the public beach.

I know I'm beating a dead horse, really, but I'll repeat this anyway:
The county got caught with its pants down BIG TIME when phase II of the beach nourishment didn't go through. The "public" and the developers are breathing down their necks for access. Developers want to be able to build more large off-beach "Redfish Villages" and advertise wide open beach access and make more money. And of course the "public's" interest is apparent.

The county has to show their constituents that they are doing something to fix the major nourishment project screw-up, i.e. perform a Customary Use study. And NOBODY will fault them on the money spent, even if they lose.

If I was on the BCC, I probably would do the same thing at this point if I wanted to continue to serve. And that is cave in to the "public".

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Maybe some of your neighbors should read your post..just sayin..west of BMB public access.

At least AndyA speaks the truth as he sees it unlike some others.

 

[steel1man]

At least AndyA speaks the truth as he sees it unlike some others.

Yeah when you walk in the bathroom tonight don't look in the MIRROR

 

[Bob Wells]

Interesting gotcha question. Here are two back at you: Who really is a native? And when did development start?

Anyway, the reason for the relatively recent "huge" development is of course money. I have clearly stated this before. And I know this is no surprise to anyone. How many people do you know who simply bought and flipped properties (or tried to flip and got caught) during the boon? It's all about money.

I'm not going to fault development in of itself. That would be hypocritical and I despise hypocrites. And I won't even fault the flippers who enabled the developers to get many of these projects underway.

But who I will fault is Walton County - pure and simple. They were fully aware that most of the beach was private. But they made little to no effort to let the general public in on this "secret" that they'd like to keep.

Now the cat is out of the bag and has been for a few years. MRBS recently asked on this thread about public access. I gave her a link. The link comes up as a text PDF with addresses of the access points. That's it! The normal beach goer has no idea once they get to the beach if all or part of the area is public or private. That's why I encourage the county to provide a fully interactive map showing all the public accesses AND the extent of the public beach adjacent to the accesses.

I just found out all the beach along Montgomery Street in Seagrove was public. That's great! But I did not know that until the recent BCC meeting when a new walkover was discussed for that neighborhood.

Many people who bought off-beach assumed getting to the beach was a non-issue. And as long as there was room at the public access, it was a non-issue. Of course, times have changed.

Now, parking and traffic studies must be submitted before a development is approved by the planning department. Yet there is no requirement that I know of to be able to accommodate the increased load on the public beach.

I know I'm beating a dead horse, really, but I'll repeat this anyway:
The county got caught with its pants down BIG TIME when phase II of the beach nourishment didn't go through. The "public" and the developers are breathing down their necks for access. Developers want to be able to build more large off-beach "Redfish Villages" and advertise wide open beach access and make more money. And of course the "public's" interest is apparent.

The county has to show their constituents that they are doing something to fix the major nourishment project screw-up, i.e. perform a Customary Use study. And NOBODY will fault them on the money spent, even if they lose.

If I was on the BCC, I probably would do the same thing at this point if I wanted to continue to serve. And that is cave in to the "public".

Wasn't a gotcha question at all. The people that have added to the growth of SoWal are the ones who seem to be complaining. I guess it is like, I got mine screw everyone else because it is different than what I move here for. Just my 2 cents, also nice non answer.

 

[MRBS]

I am going to tout my military backround and experience as I highly value it. I, and I imagine thousands of others that have sered, view our pristing white sands bordering the Gulf of Mexico in the same context as our national and state forests. It is there for all American citizens and their guests to use respectifully for their enjoyment and relaxation. If some choose to do otherwise, the authorities should be notified.
When I purchased here in1991, there were no signs littering these beautiful beaches. Nor were there any in 20003 when we moved here permenantly. These signs are a blight on the beauty of our beaches. It should be mandated that they be taken down!

Thank you for your service. Thank you for your comment. My thoughts exactly. Are the laws re nesting turtle that prohibit impediments being enforced? What's the deal there?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Wasn't a gotcha question at all. The people that have added to the growth of SoWal are the ones who seem to be complaining. I guess it is like, I got mine screw everyone else because it is different than what I move here for. Just my 2 cents, also nice non answer.

Some fellow SoWalers here disagree with me make a valid point that they don't agree with some of the "class warfare" rhetoric. Part of your comment is borderline that.

OK, I thought I answered your question in the best way I knew how considering I needed clarification:

Here are two back at you: Who really is a native? And when did development start?

Of course neither of these two concepts can ever be quantified as it is one's opinion.

So.....

Are you part of the reason for the development or are you a native of Walton County?

Once more, development of itself is not a bad thing. Being a native is something to be proud of but a non-event. However development with the expectation that beach is an unlimited resource as to opposed to part public AND part private is not good. Lots of people bought (and still buying in) with the false expectation of unimpeded beach access. Beating the dead horse harder...fault of Walton County.

Now my situation: So of course somebody developed my property a long time ago. When I bought it in the early 2000's, I had full expectations (and rights) of beach access as the property is beach front. If my development helped stimulate other development at that time, that's great! BUT back in the early 1980s when they were built, I can guarantee you that the public had no problem finding plenty of room at the public accesses. There were no "beach occupancy" issues then at public beaches.

That's not the case today.

I believe most if not all people can get to a public beach when they want. I've asked that question but nobody ever responds no, I believe because it simply isn't true. It just might not be as convenient as it was 15 years ago.

Now however. they can't just go anywhere (and never had to in the "old days"). And when one tries to go on private beach because it's more convenient than a crowded public access down the road, they are now "trespassing". Instead of moving on, they demand the whole beach should be made public through customary use.

And here we are.

It's not about me against you, Bob. I'm only one out of about 1000 who feel this way (majority Walton County beach front owners). And you are one out of about 60,000 who agree with your position (rest of Walton County). And I understand when you attack me, you are really attacking all beach front private property owners.

From a pure numbers game, you win. From a legal point of view, private property rights win (for now). And we should just agree to make the best of it and be civil to one another until the customary use suits are settled if they ever go to court..

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Yeah when you walk in the bathroom tonight don't look in the MIRROR

 

[Bob Wells]

Now you have thrown the Mr Trump mentality in. I am being persecuted, the system is against me.
First I believe the beaches should be open, second although I don't personally own property on the beach I do own property south of the bay. So infrastructurely I am part of the problem as I guess you are also. My views are not because of the majority, if that was the case I would always vote Republican, which I don't. When I make my decision on who to vote for in the BCC race I would venture a guess that this won't be even a blip on my reasoning for the candidate I chose. Third, I believe that the courts will decide the issue and I am willing to wait. To be honest I have had to consider something when I was reading comments about this topic that could sway my decision. As of right now though, I still believe in customary use. I am not against development, but it does bother me that those who seem to complain the loudest are the ones who are part of the problem. Just my 2 cents.

 

[buster]

I thought impediments to endangered nesting sea turtles was a federal violation.