Open question for beach front homeowners, their lawyers and their politician friends

[Dave Rauschkolb]

So I have an open question for beachfront owners, their lawyers and their politically connected, powerful, politician friends:

To those of you who were against customary use and were not happy when the Walton County passed the original customary use ordinance. You went to court to stop it. You lost two cases when the Judge ruled against you. You also lost the Federal Lawsuit when the Judge ruled against you. You lobbied and pressed the Florida Legislature to pass a law to stop Walton County from maintaining it's CU ordinance and you won. CU is stopped for the time being.

So now it appears some or many of you don't want the process to play out as set forth in HB631. The process that will result in a vote on November 3rd to move forward with the court case.

So my question is this: If you supported the swift passing of a Legislative Bill, HB631 to force Walton County to court to prove CU than you must be in favor of the process playing out, right? You can't have it both ways. You can't be against the County Ordinance and also against the Legislated law that the County is proceeding with. You can't have it both ways. If you are so confident you are right than let the Judge decide. Right? You can't have it both ways.

 

[FloridaBeachBum]

I speak for myself but why do you think property right advocates are not for FLORIDA STATUTE 163.035 (HB631)?
Most beachfront owners are for Constitutionally protected property rights and think those rights are superior to old English common law custom and will spend their own money as defendants to prove it in court.

Which two cases? Be specific or offer facts of the case. Which Federal lawsuit? Did you read the most recent Federal case? In summary, my layman understanding, the court said the case was not ripe because Walton had not acted to litigate customary use in the state court yet, although we all know the hearing and vote is a formality, no doubt the commissioners will, and was dismissed without prejudice. Which can be appealed or litigated again when it becomes ripe. But I could be wrong - just prove it - not say it.

Walton County also had lobbyist, at least one commissioner, and multiple paid opponents to the bill, more than the property owners, trying to stop the bill and it passed overwhelmingly by both houses - including local Rep Brad Drake. It’s all available online.

Why because Walton County is the only county where elected politicians declared a customary use ordinance WITHOUT due process. The legislature did not want other counties to follow suite, because the legislators knew Walton’s legal tactic would not likely standup in court. Read the bill sponsors' comments online.

Without FS 163.035 property owners were forced, to be Plaintiffs, to prove Constitutional property rights were superior to old English common law custom, with the burden of proof. Instead of the commissioners who made the claim on private property rights. Commissioners can tell owners HOW to use their property (within Constitutional limits) but only the courts can determine WHO can use private property - not elected politicians with a political agenda.

Many property owners believe old English common law custom violate the Constitution of the United States. Many of the Bill of Rights, that Americans fought a revolutionary war against the English, rejected old English common law - including the right protecting property unless just compensation for taking property rights is paid.

Otherwise bring it on in court. I’d put my money on the beach owners multiple attorneys over the commissioner’s attorneys regardless. Although Walton tax payers may be footing the whole bill.

No idea where you came up with your opinions or questions about beachfront owners. More fake facts and illogical reasoning.

 

[Teresa]

@FloridaBeachBum I believe Dave is referring to those beach front owners who are complaining bitterly about Walton County going through the legal process and also attacking people who support customary use and working to submit their affidavits. There was one BFO who recently threatened all of the 8000 who have submitted affidavits. A "property rights" beach front owner here in the forum recently said she hopes that HB631 is repealed. I think just a small group of people are angry about the overwhelming support for CU we're seeing in our community. Let us hope we can remain civil. The attacks on local leaders I've seen online are really unfortunate

It makes no sense to me either. We have a process. Just do it.

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

Prior to HB631 there were two rulings in Walton County in two separate cases that upheld Customary Use. One was the "Alford" case and I don't know the name of the other one. The Blessey Case, the Federal Case filed a few months ago with the aim to have Customary Use ruled unconstitutional was just dismissed. Those are the cases I am referring to. So far it's 3 to zero in favor of Customary Use. I am wary of anyone touting "compromise" instead of letting the Judge decide after our BCC votes to proceed.

 

[L.C. Bane]

FloridaBeachBum you see this as soley about private property rights and if that were the case, I'd be behind you. But its not. The area we are talking about (among other things) is a national resource. I also believe its quite significant that the Muscogee Nation of Florida supports CU.


HB631 created this path but I am sure other paths will be available.

You should fight for what you believe in and you should encourage anyone else to fight for what they believe in. Dissent is patriotic and is one of the many things that has made America great.

 

[Teresa]

Thank you for your thoughtful post @L.C. Bane. I agree with every word.

 

[lazin&drinkin]

Dave,

I think you'd find were you to take the time to inquire that most BFOs are absolutely in favor of this controversy being resolved fairly by the courts under the dictates of FL statutory and case law and the much longer-established guarantees and standards set forth in the Constitution. They would like this done without any further clown show missteps by the county costing more tax dollars private funds than necessary to resolve the controversy.

I also understand you have in your summary dismissal history of the federal suits to date ignored that in fact the only Constitutional issue decided to date by Judge Rogers was a loss for the county in that she unequivocally castigated the county for the manner in which it had conducted itself in discussing and passing the ordinance and further unequivocally overturned the sign portion of the Beach Activities Ordinance as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. An interesting read. I recommend it to all.

As stated by FBB above, the other issues in that suit were not decided due to citation of lack of ripeness and were remanded to state court for adjudication there. Whatever that state court decision might be, we may be sure the losing side will appeal.

While you may have read each of the decisions in question, I think it reasonable to believe that >95% of readers here have not. I am among the however small percentage who have.

Fact is that repeal of 631 will not do anything but make this a much longer and more expensive process for both sides unless there is an intervening amendment or three to the Constitution, which is not going to happen. With or without 631, only a judge may invoke CU. Neither side has to like it, but that is the law of this country.

I found an earlier invocation of the blessings of civil disobedience to imbue "This Sand Ain't Your Sand, I Don't Care What The Law Says" with a protective patina of nobility as ludicrous and insulting to people who have suffered the consequences of civil disobedience in service of a noble goal as leaders of the Civil Rights movement were long ago.

They risked their lives to defend their Constitutional rights which were being wrongly, abusively, and sometimes murderously denied them by local governments and citizens who chose to ignore the Constitutional rights of black people.

CU proponents trespassing on private property are seeking to deny BFOs their Constitutional rights. What galls many is the simple greed openly expressed by so many on the CU side of the fence and their concomitant hypocrisy, accusing BFOs of being greedy and afraid of the law. Utter garbage!

Proponents of CU risk public funds in the tens of millions. probably many tens of millions. Opponents risk their share of not only those dollars but their own private funds. Show me some nobility in the actions of proponents with a straight face, please, Teresa.

Until such time as you and others made an issue of this, there was no big issue bitterly dividing us on this matter. The biggest problem on the beach itself came from the county refusal to rein in beach vendors, with the result that they enacted a right of those vendors to preemptively exclude the public from 50% of public beach in the county. And that was a tourist-friendly, resident-friendly move? Reversing that should be a high priority no-brainer.

We can expect another decade of discord and extraordinary legal expenses paid with tax dollars that could be better used. Why? Follow the money!

 

[Shannon Lince]

Dave,

I think you'd find were you to take the time to inquire that most BFOs are absolutely in favor of this controversy being resolved fairly by the courts under the dictates of FL statutory and case law and the much longer-established guarantees and standards set forth in the Constitution. They would like this done without any further clown show missteps by the county costing more tax dollars private funds than necessary to resolve the controversy.

I also understand you have in your summary dismissal history of the federal suits to date ignored that in fact the only Constitutional issue decided to date by Judge Rogers was a loss for the county in that she unequivocally castigated the county for the manner in which it had conducted itself in discussing and passing the ordinance and further unequivocally overturned the sign portion of the Beach Activities Ordinance as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. An interesting read. I recommend it to all.

As stated by FBB above, the other issues in that suit were not decided due to citation of lack of ripeness and were remanded to state court for adjudication there. Whatever that state court decision might be, we may be sure the losing side will appeal.

While you may have read each of the decisions in question, I think it reasonable to believe that >95% of readers here have not. I am among the however small percentage who have.

Fact is that repeal of 631 will not do anything but make this a much longer and more expensive process for both sides unless there is an intervening amendment or three to the Constitution, which is not going to happen. With or without 631, only a judge may invoke CU. Neither side has to like it, but that is the law of this country.

I found an earlier invocation of the blessings of civil disobedience to imbue "This Sand Ain't Your Sand, I Don't Care What The Law Says" with a protective patina of nobility as ludicrous and insulting to people who have suffered the consequences of civil disobedience in service of a noble goal as leaders of the Civil Rights movement were long ago.

They risked their lives to defend their Constitutional rights which were being wrongly, abusively, and sometimes murderously denied them by local governments and citizens who chose to ignore the Constitutional rights of black people.

CU proponents trespassing on private property are seeking to deny BFOs their Constitutional rights. What galls many is the simple greed openly expressed by so many on the CU side of the fence and their concomitant hypocrisy, accusing BFOs of being greedy and afraid of the law. Utter garbage!

Proponents of CU risk public funds in the tens of millions. probably many tens of millions. Opponents risk their share of not only those dollars but their own private funds. Show me some nobility in the actions of proponents with a straight face, please, Teresa.

Until such time as you and others made an issue of this, there was no big issue bitterly dividing us on this matter. The biggest problem on the beach itself came from the county refusal to rein in beach vendors, with the result that they enacted a right of those vendors to preemptively exclude the public from 50% of public beach in the county. And that was a tourist-friendly, resident-friendly move? Reversing that should be a high priority no-brainer.

We can expect another decade of discord and extraordinary legal expenses paid with tax dollars that could be better used. Why? Follow the money!

According to 19th century legend, the Truth and Lie meet one day. The Lie says to the Truth, "It's a marvelous day today!", the Truth looks up to the sky and sighs, for the day was really beautiful.

They spend a lot of time together, ultimately arriving beside a well. The Lie tells the Truth: "The water is very nice, let's take a swim together!" The Truth once again suspicious, tests the water, and indeed it is very nice. They undress and start swimming.

Suddenly the Lie comes out of the water, puts on the Truth's clothes, and runs away. The furious Truth comes out of the water and runs everywhere to find the Lie and to get her clothes back. The town people, seeing the Truth naked, turns their gaze away with contempt and rage.

The poor Truth returns to the well and disappears forever, hiding in it's shame. Since then the Lie travels around everywhere, wearing the clothes of the Truth, satisfying everyone's needs. The town people have no desire to see the naked Truth.

Shannon

 

[Lake View Too]

Oh, I get it. You own the truth. What a Trumpanzee!! And an allegory with "town people" is just precious. You, of course, not being one of the "town people", must be living in the castle on the hill. You need to get over your superiority complex.

 

[bob bob]

According to 19th century legend, the Truth and Lie meet one day. The Lie says to the Truth, "It's a marvelous day today!", the Truth looks up to the sky and sighs, for the day was really beautiful.

They spend a lot of time together, ultimately arriving beside a well. The Lie tells the Truth: "The water is very nice, let's take a swim together!" The Truth once again suspicious, tests the water, and indeed it is very nice. They undress and start swimming.

Suddenly the Lie comes out of the water, puts on the Truth's clothes, and runs away. The furious Truth comes out of the water and runs everywhere to find the Lie and to get her clothes back. The town people, seeing the Truth naked, turns their gaze away with contempt and rage.

The poor Truth returns to the well and disappears forever, hiding in it's shame. Since then the Lie travels around everywhere, wearing the clothes of the Truth, satisfying everyone's needs. The town people have no desire to see the naked Truth.

Shannon