Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[Stone Cold J]

The only compromise I can see is eliminate vending on public, county owned beaches, not as a consolation to make private beaches an easer pill to swallow but to rightly keep the public county owned beaches available for people to set up wherever they wish.

Vendor chair policy on public property is completely independent of USA and Florida Private Property Rights.

This is not a “compromise”. The Vendor Chair Policy is something that is causing problems and something that people from different view points all agree needs to be changed. The BCC fully controls Chair Vendor Policy on County owned property and the policy is within the full legal, lawful control of the BCC. A revised Vendor Chair Policy does not violate any Florida or Federal Laws.

A revised Vendor Chair Policy is a step in the right direction, but we still need to figure out how to REDUCE the number of tourists so we don't continue to destroy our unique ecosystem

 

[mputnal]

Okay I admit up front I am now in the twilight zone: If I were a BPO...I would get over my hurt feelings and stop calling anyone a socialist or worse and listen to what Dave proposed. There are only a few in this forum that attack other people but keep in mind that we ALL will defend with emotion because we are human. Dave's proposal: It is fair. It is reasonable. It makes common sense. Sometimes we all behave selfishly but we must check that at the door of community. "Strict rules of behavior with a hotline for BPO's to get quick results". If I were a BPO I would see that statement as a way toward compromise. Winning the lawsuit will not do anything for me as a BPO but make the whole thing worse for me. If FBB or anyone "disagrees" with that then there is something else going on within their purpose or intent. Exclusion is a dirty word to The People especially when I (as a BPO) already have exclusive views and access. Human behavior is what it is so manage it with strict rules. If I were a BPO I would not be calling "The People" dirty words...and I would think before I disagree!

 

[James Bentwood]

Okay I admit up front I am now in the twilight zone: If I were a BPO...I would get over my hurt feelings and stop calling anyone a socialist or worse and listen to what Dave proposed. There are only a few in this forum that attack other people but keep in mind that we ALL will defend with emotion because we are human. Dave's proposal: It is fair. It is reasonable. It makes common sense. Sometimes we all behave selfishly but we must check that at the door of community. "Strict rules of behavior with a hotline for BPO's to get quick results". If I were a BPO I would see that statement as a way toward compromise. Winning the lawsuit will not do anything for me as a BPO but make the whole thing worse for me. If FBB or anyone "disagrees" with that then there is something else going on within their purpose or intent. Exclusion is a dirty word to The People especially when I (as a BPO) already have exclusive views and access. Human behavior is what it is so manage it with strict rules. If I were a BPO I would not be calling "The People" dirty words...and I would think before I disagree!

It appears the goal for some is to make the beach as unappealing as possible. Reduce the number of people on the beach by being nasty.

 

[mputnal]

I would not want to be a BFO if the court overturns the BCC. Why is that not obvious? I am not wealthy and I am not poor. I do not want something for nothing. I just want to be able to move about the beach in my purpose of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while being respectful to the resource and other people. Does this not speak for the 99%? Take that away from me and I will not be happy. Trying to shame me into feeling "entitled" is not smart because I will defend. Others may take a more offensive approach in fighting unfairness, exclusion and inequality. This is not anything other than reality (say that several times or until it sinks in) and I will never understand why one value (property right to exclude people from the beach) is the battle cry for the BPO's. The feeling of superiority in any form is trouble. I may never understand why the exclusive views and sunsets at other people's expense is not enough. In wealth and power there is never enough...

 

[Reggie Gaskins]

I would not want to be a BFO if the court overturns the BCC. Why is that not obvious? I am not wealthy and I am not poor. I do not want something for nothing. I just want to be able to move about the beach in my purpose of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while being respectful to the resource and other people. Does this not speak for the 99%? Take that away from me and I will not be happy. Trying to shame me into feeling "entitled" is not smart because I will defend. Others may take a more offensive approach in fighting unfairness, exclusion and inequality. This is not anything other than reality (say that several times or until it sinks in) and I will never understand why one value (property right to exclude people from the beach) is the battle cry for the BPO's. The feeling of superiority in any form is trouble. I may never understand why the exclusive views and sunsets at other people's expense is not enough. In wealth and power there is never enough...

I completely understand your position. I do. Please hear this in a calm, professorial tone, no disrespect or malice intended here, it’s right out of our textbooks...

With all due respect, say THIS several times or until it sinks in:

Not You, nor the “community”, nor the 99%, nor Dave, nor FBFA, nor Daniel, get to decide what an individual must do with his/her property, period.

It is precisely acting with 100% entitlement by demanding personal use of someone else’s yard, regardless of whether it is sand or grass. Your happiness is indeed in the best interest of the collective community, but only to the extent that one wishes to prioritize collective community over independence. Your sense that you somehow get to decide the fate of someone else’s property misses the reality that you have no such right.

You will better succeed in your quest for compromise if you quit starting by arrogantly deciding the fate of someone else’s property as a “first” step. Stop giving away what is not yours to give.

And as far as the BPO’s wanting to “win” the lawsuit:
They were sued by the very folks who caused the problem. They are not wealthy as a group. They are being burdened with tens of thousands of dollars EACH in legal bills to protect their family investment. Put yourself in that position. Why in God’s name would anyone assume they should just lose against such a vile attack that for some, will significantly diminish their family’s very financial security?

Try and look at it through that lens. Just for a minute.

 

[Stone Cold J]

I do not want something for nothing. I just want to be able to move about the beach in my purpose of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while being respectful to the resource and other people.

People can move up and down the entire coastline. They can fish, swim, build sandcastles, watch sunsets, take family pictures. Not under questions. What is under question is the ability to day camp (set up chairs, umbrellas, and other beach equipment) on deeded property against the will of the property owner. Does not matter if the owner is the State of Florida, the County, the Military, or an individual. That also does not mean that a BPO is not going to permit people to set up beach equipment on their property. Each BPO (and non-BPO) can make their own decision on who and who not, and most importantly, how many people, are allowed on their property. The property right of the owner to determine who can and cannot be on their property is protected by the constitution. I don't think a BPO is going to give up their property rights and allow unlimited forced occupation on their deeded property against their will just because people want it. Unlimited tourists placing beach equipment on private deeded property against the will of the property owner does not pass ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute test which the county has based their lawsuit. Just like non-BPO are going to give up their property rights and be forced to allow tourists to park in every driveway in Walton County.

People can not just storm area 51 because they feel entitled. And the county cannot take away property rights of a certain group of people because other people want those rights. I do understand you don't like that the county has permitted homes to be build which blocks the view of the water as you drive 30A. Hopefully we can keep the ordinances that does not permit homes and buildings more than 4 stories.

Reduce the number of people on the beach by being nasty.

4 million tourists are destroying our unique ecosystem. Why are we destroying our coastal dune lakes for the sake of businessmen that want to bring in MORE tourists so they can make more money expanding their businesses, people making deals behind closed doors changing wetland classification so they can make millions more on real estate, developers making deals to increase housing density, which will increase run off that is going to do even more Bay damage.

This is not about being "rude" so we reduce below 4 million tourists. It is about limiting the number of visitors that the infrastructure can accommodate without destroying our unique ecosystem.

 

[mputnal]

Okay I think our lens have different coatings because I have already made the effort to do exactly that. Our perspective is different. Seems like there is no opportunity to compromise because The People will not accept the exclusion part of your belief or right in owning the resource (beach). Keep in mind we are talking about "beach" property NOT your yard. A yard is different than a beach. We are debating the issue of property rights versus human rights. Human rights demand fairness, equality and an even distribution of resources. I believe in Capitalism. I love my Country. Again and again I do not want something for nothing and I am not asking for that. I have "earned the right to enjoy the "beach" just as you. Yes just as you. Different lens or different coatings but we are different in perspective. FBB first made me aware of this difference. Before that I thought that we could see things from a common position of humanity. Humanity does not exist with your exclusive right to any part of the beach. I wish I were wrong but we will probably never see through the same lens. I will never have your existing and exclusive views of the water and magnificent colors of the sunset. NEVER. You can blame me for that but that does not solve your problem with public opinion. The bone I want is just to be able to walk up and down the beach without interruption and without signage telling me that I have not earned the "right" to do so. That is my perspective, my reality and my life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In my opinion you are going to force the State to take your property. It did not have to be that way. Anyway, good luck to you and I am sorry to all the BPO's that are not part of exclusion.

 

[Stone Cold J]

mputnal said: ↑
I do not want something for nothing. I just want to be able to move about the beach in my purpose of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while being respectful to the resource and other people.

People can move up and down the entire coastline. They can fish, swim, build sandcastles, watch sunsets, take family pictures. Not under question. What is under question is the ability to day camp (set up chairs, umbrellas, and other beach equipment) on deeded property against the will of the property owner. It does not matter if the owner is the State of Florida, the County, the Military, or an individual. That does not mean that a BPO is not going to permit people to set up beach equipment on their property. Each BPO (and non-BPO) can make their own decision on who can and who can not, and most importantly how many people, are allowed on their property. The property right of the owner to determine who can and cannot be on their property is protected by the constitution. I don't think a BPO is going to give up their property rights and allow unlimited forced occupation on their deeded property against their will just because people want it. Unlimited tourists placing beach equipment on private deeded property against the will of the property owner does not pass ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute test which the county has based their lawsuit. Just like non-BPO are not going to give up their property rights and be forced to allow tourists to park in every driveway in Walton County.

People can not just storm area 51 because they feel entitled. And the county cannot take away property rights of a certain group of people because other people want those rights. I do understand you don't like that the county has permitted homes to be build that blocks the view of the water as you drive 30A. Hopefully we can keep the ordinances that limits buildings to less than 4 stories.


James Bentwood said: ↑
Reduce the number of people on the beach by being nasty.

4 million tourists are destroying our unique ecosystem. Why are we destroying our coastal dune lakes for the sake of businessmen that want to bring in MORE tourists so they can make more money expanding their businesses, people making deals behind closed doors changing wetland classification so they can make millions more on real estate, developers making deals to increase housing density to make millions more, however the higher housing density and destroyed wetlands will also increase run off that is going to do even more Bay damage? Have we learned nothing from Driftwood?

This is not about being "rude" so we "encourage people to go other places" which reduces tourists. It is about limiting the number of visitors that the infrastructure can accommodate without destroying our unique ecosystem. We should actually be working on how to retain and encourage tourists that add to our economy and have year round visitors instead of just during the summer. More full time residence and less tourists will also help improve our economy without the ecological destruction.

Disneyland and State Parks and others all LIMIT the number of people that are allowed based on the infrastructure available. Some try to limit by increasing price to reduce demand and other just have a cut off on the number of people. Either way they are limited which is control over Density Management.

 

[mputnal]

Reggie, I will not tell you what to do with your property EVER. All I am asking is that you do not tell me to stay off any part of the beach UNLESS I am being disrespectful. Our common ground is that neither of us should accept disrespectful behavior. To start with exclusive rights to the beach is arrogant and superior. You are either missing the point or are misdirecting. Which is it?

 

[Stone Cold J]

ADMINS!

I tried to edit post #1116 but could not. Finally started over in new post (#1118) and tried to delete #1116 but can not. Can you please delete #1116 (and this one).