Eastern Lake Outfall Parcel Purchase

[carson]

I met Peter this past week, turns out we work with the same real estate guy in South Florida and he connected us. He seemed to be a really good guy and had no problems at all with people using the property to go over to the lake. I would imagine that he wanted it to be vendor free if he sold it, and maybe they couldn't make that assurance. Just my guess, because that really would impede on his view.

Talking with many of the gulf front home owners over the past few years it seems like people and chairs, even umbrellas in front of their houses isn't the bugaboo, it is tents.

 

[Lake View Too]

That could be the case. I was told by Bill Head, he had language prohibiting vendors as a part of his deed conveyance. When I asked Meadows about doing this with Russell property, she said it couldn't be done. However, Russell has always been trying to get county to abandon the Sandroy Road easement, so that he could put a gate on his property, and have more parking. That could also still be the sticking point.

 

[Lucas Reynolds]

The beachfront is a special case in that the general public has been allowed for decades by the previous and current owners to use the white sandy beach and thus has established a "customary use" of that beachfront.

Danny you seem to be a voice of reason and an informed person, unlike many who are against littoral private property rights. I think you are correct, you cannot unscramble the egg and about 80% of littoral beaches in Walton is private property with all the rights you and any owner north of Hwy 98 have. Owners paid their hard earned money and have abided by the law to have the property rights they have had an have today. Commissioners have to deal with the facts and Sheriff Atkinson is obligated to enforce the current law or his is derelict in his duty. Please be informed of the facts and help clarify what the doctrine of custom is and is not and not perpetuate the misinformation of customary-use as you have.

You have to go back historically to understand the very-narrow common-law doctrine of custom and customary-use of private property. “Allowing” the public to use private property for tens of years does NOT, a claim of custom make. That's grace (courteous goodwill). There are historically multiple-criteria to make a claim of custom. You could make a claim of custom on contracts or family law, ... or use of private property. That's why custom has to be limited and the bar set high to take what belongs to someone else. Time is but one criteria and the time, has to be ancient, from time immemorial, “That it have been used so long, that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.”

The doctrine of custom first arose in medieval England where, by immemorial custom, citizens could acquire the right to use land in specific localities. Much of American common law is based on the leading legal treatise discussing the doctrine of custom is Sir William Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England". Blackstone described the criteria and limits of common-law custom claims. Blackstone also stated; "So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community."

Do you know what all the historical limits of common-law custom are? One of the limits, upheld by Florida courts, is that customary-use is limited to the parcel it is claimed against. There are about 1,000 littoral private property owners in Walton. How much do you think the final bill to Walton tax payers will be? Millions or multi-Million$? What if property owners prevail? Then what? You will have a 1,000 very unhappy littoral property owners. I doubt the Commissioners will refund the tax payers money for Theriaque's bill (at $450/hr) and Walton Commissioners may have to pay for the property owner's attorney fees too. Maybe Walton Commissioners should work with owners to find solutions, and spend those millions litigating against 1,000 property owners, on infrastructure.

 

[Danny Glidewell]

Lucas Reynolds, the point is that if the beaches are not open to the public the economy of the county, north and south, will take a severe hit. So, while fighting for customary use may anger 1,000 beachfront owners, not fighting for it will anger 10's of thousands of Walton County residents, north and south, who depend on the beach for their livelihood or live here so that they can enjoy using it. And I think the county has an excellent case for defending customary use on the vast majority of Walton County beaches RIGHT NOW. The beaches have been used by the public since the first settlers met the Indians here. The Indians used it, the settlers used it and every native resident can remember using it all their life. I certainly have used it during my 54 years here. So, unless the county allows those rights to be terminated I think the county will prevail in court. I do think this is a fight that neither side should want and that cooler heads should prevail. An environmental easement on beachfront property where the public can use the beaches south of the toe of the dunes in exchange for a percentage of their property tax reduced would be good policy and avoid lawsuits that will be expensive for both sides. But if no compromise is made then have no illusions about the county abandoning customary use because voting to end customary use is political suicide.

 

[Lucas Reynolds]

Sorry for the long reply but there is so much misinformation and opinion to reply to.

Danny, free market economy is based on supply and demand. You presuppose that taking private property rights will reduce the demand for the beach and negatively impact the Walton economy. My crystal ball says it won’t change demand in the long term and could be better in the long term. So we are even on opinions. The economy will likely be different. Just like it was different 20 years ago. If you have facts of how the long term Walton economy will be impacted if private property rights are protected let’s see them otherwise it’s an opinion and everyone has one of those. Let's govern with facts.

Whose fault is it that Walton is dependent on tourism and does not have a diversified economy? Not littoral private property owners. Who abides by the law and has today recognized littoral property rights since 1776, FL became a state, Walton became a county and have paid for and pay property taxes on? Private property owners have. Since when is the majority rule superior to any Constitutional individual private property owner rights? Owner rights-of-property for private exclusive use and enjoyment like you have, among others. The last time the Government thought the economic benefit of the majority was superior to Constitutionally protected individual rights we fought a civil war over it. How did that turn out? Government may be able to use police powers to tell owners how to use their property but NOT who can use their property that’s called a taking, with few very very narrow legal exceptions. If taking private property rights owners have today is acceptable to benefit the economy; what individual Constitutional rights are next? Freedom of speech?

You didn’t read or answer any of the questions. Do you know what ALL the historical limits of common-law custom are? There are many or do you choose to ignore ALL the criteria? Time is but one limit. 54 years is hardly, since time-immemorial. How much do you think the final bill to Walton tax payers, north and south of the bay, will be? Millions or multi-Million$? What if property owners prevail? Then what? You will then have a 1,000 very angry littoral property owners, who you just cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars each to protect the property rights they have today. If I was a littoral property owner I would not be very appreciative, would protect, and enforce my property rights even more. It will be too late to ask for property owner consideration then. You “think” the Commissioners have a good case; here’s the test of how good of case you think you have, would you personally be willing to refund the taxpayer their money to litigate if owners prevail? It’s easy to have an opinion to litigate when it’s not your own tens of thousands or millions of dollars. Want to have a referendum of north and south Walton voters if they would be willing to spend multi-millions to litigate? Property owners do not really get a choice to protect their property rights or not against Commissioners litigation. Commissioners will costs Owners millions in addition to the property taxes they will waste for nothing.

Given the Commissioners ineptness planning the growth of Walton economy and vilifying the 1,000 property owners in the primaries for standing up for their legally recognized rights they have today; owners are not under any illusions that the commissioners are against private property rights and will litigate against 1,000 of their citizens that have played by the rules/law. Owners understand the Commissioners win politically either way to claim custom and litigate against the 1,000 evil minority property owners. First it’s not their money, it’s tax payers money, it’s not like Commissioners will have to pay tax payers back the millions in litigation if property owners prevail, so what do Commissioners care? Commissioners get votes win-or-lose to litigate with tax payers money. Although it didn’t help Imfeld or Meadows to vilify property owners and be against property rights. Customary-use may not be as much political suicide as you think. Wasting millions of tax dollars is. If owners prevail Commissioners will blame and vilify the judges for upholding recognized property rights and say it was the mean-ol judges that would not take private property rights and give to the public, if it was up to us Commissioners we would have - vote for me at the next election - ignore the millions of your taxes we spent for nothing.

Owners also understand your and others position against individual property rights will not change your emotional position against property rights even with facts. It’s just sad you and other outspoken proponents perpetuate the misinformation of customary-use and the majority-public vs minority-“elite”; defined as elite because they have earned and paid for the property rights the majority want (for free), regardless of the consequences to Constitutional rights.

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

Lucas Reynolds, the point is that if the beaches are not open to the public the economy of the county, north and south, will take a severe hit. So, while fighting for customary use may anger 1,000 beachfront owners, not fighting for it will anger 10's of thousands of Walton County residents, north and south, who depend on the beach for their livelihood or live here so that they can enjoy using it. And I think the county has an excellent case for defending customary use on the vast majority of Walton County beaches RIGHT NOW. The beaches have been used by the public since the first settlers met the Indians here. The Indians used it, the settlers used it and every native resident can remember using it all their life. I certainly have used it during my 54 years here. So, unless the county allows those rights to be terminated I think the county will prevail in court. I do think this is a fight that neither side should want and that cooler heads should prevail. An environmental easement on beachfront property where the public can use the beaches south of the toe of the dunes in exchange for a percentage of their property tax reduced would be good policy and avoid lawsuits that will be expensive for both sides. But if no compromise is made then have no illusions about the county abandoning customary use because voting to end customary use is political suicide.

Don't waste your time debating this issue with LR. It's a waste of time. Heaps of praise on the BCC for taking a stand on this.

 

[Lucas Reynolds]

Don't waste your time debating this issue with LR. It's a waste of time. Heaps of praise on the BCC for taking a stand on this.

Dave R. you are correct. Don't waste your time if all you have is opinions, misinformation, emotional calls for I'm right and you're wrong, and NO facts. You and Danny seem to be the biggest advocates against property rights and litigating against property owners with tax payers million$. Yep, no doubt the inept Commissioners will litigate against 1,000 property owners in court. Why don't you at least correct the misinformation about common-law custom in the public forum, if you understand custom so well or if you think I'm incorrect. What if property owners prevail? Then what? If you are so sure of your legal position why don't you personally agree to repay the Walton tax payer multi-million dollar legal bill should property owners prevail; if you want to praise the BCC so much and see them litigate against 1,000 of their tax paying citizens. Property owners do not get that choice to spends tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars each defending their property rights they have had and have today.

Dave weren't you the one who was so confident about the recent primaries you stated; "This cast of characters will stop at nothing to place a career Mailman, Tony Anderson in the Walton County puppet seat. Thankfully, nearly 1500 brand new Republicans [or were you referring to Democrats temporarily switching parties to vote in the Republican primary?] will ensure Cindy [Meadows] will rise above the Walton County blues and keep her rightful seat of true leadership." Meadows lost by a 2 to 1 margin. I doubt any characters have that much influence. Might want to rethink how confident you are about your position against property rights too.

 

[BeachArkie]

No property ownership changes under Customary Use, so there is no taking.

No property rights change, so there is no taking or loss.

All it is is legal recognition that the public's beach use shall continue as it has for decades. Nothing new, nothing radical, just the same property and recreation rights that have been the norm for many years and generations.

 

[Lucas Reynolds]

No property ownership changes under Customary Use, so there is no taking.

No property rights change, so there is no taking or loss.

All it is is legal recognition that the public's beach use shall continue as it has for decades. Nothing new, nothing radical, just the same property and recreation rights that have been the norm for many years and generations.

You mean littoral property owners have paid a premium and property taxes for public use of their private property to their deeded MHWL property boundary all these decades? Then the Walton Sheriff over the many decades have falsely and illegally enforced Constitutionally protected private property rights of enjoyment, exclusion and the Florida Statute of trespass for those who do not respect owner's rights? I don't think there is an exception of public use of littoral private property without permission, unless you can educate us of this law. If the Sheriff fails to enforce the current law he is derelict in his duty.

Do you think all Florida beach property rights are now declared public because it's "Nothing new, nothing radical, just the same property and recreation rights that have been the norm for many years and generations."? Please educate us which common-law public customary-right of private property is now in effect? Fifteen spring-breakers, with boom boxes, 15 foot canopies, ice chests of beer, crude language, and public indecency? Walton has not enforced public behavior over the decades why would you think that would change now? What about the property owner's and their family's right to enjoy their property that they have used customarily and have memories for multiple decades and pay compulsory property taxes for the right of use? Facts not opinion please.

The public has had and will have use of all 26 miles of Walton foreshore. What's wrong with the over 6+ miles of Walton public dry sand beaches (some beaches Walton even permits you to drive vehicles on) and 5,000+ acres of public parks with parking, rest rooms, and camping? Too far to walk?

 

[Danny Glidewell]

Lucas Reynolds, I am absolutely for private property rights. I certainly do not see my position as radical and would like for cooler heads to prevail and come to a compromise on the issue. An ugly legal fight is something no one wants and will help no one. But make no mistake. If pushed, I think the case can be proven that the public has used the white sand portion of the beach below the toe of the dunes since man first came to these shores. That use has continued to the present. The economy of this county and region is tourist based and has been for several years. That economic model requires that the beach be open to the visitors we bring in and we have been guided by this model for many years. NO ONE objected or tried to change this operating procedure until very recently. That sounds like customary use to me and changing the model has the potential of harming thousands of our citizens and their ability to make a living. That is intolerable and the county must fight to protect those citizens and their economic well-being. The property owners who have tried to block the beach are the individuals who precipitated this and they will be responsible for the legal bills that are incurred.'