Private Beaches in South Walton - Customary Use Updates & SB1622

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I wonder how those who supported private beaches with ropes, signs and chains are reacting to this.

Nothing's changed as a result of the bill being passed (here in Walton County) sans the threat of beach nourishment.

Then there's the question, as I have brought up on this thread, are the beaches truly critically eroded and better yet, what is critically eroded? Some Fort Meyers beachfront owners got Florida DEP to back down from the critically eroded designation on their beach:

Watch on YouTube

And since the 2004/2005 hurricanes, I can testify that Blue Mountain Beach has accreted, not eroded, ever since.

And can the state truly "eliminate the need of public easements by private landowners" for nourishment? That is the next legal battle, IMHO.

Obviously most of the readers of this thread want public beach at ANY COST even if the rights of property owners are trampled upon, YET AGAIN, by trying to force a public easement when the property owner doesn't want (or need) beach nourishment.

It is sad that there seems to be no limit to what the government will try to do seize control of desirable private property that the public "feels" entitled to.

 

[Jenksy]

I saw a ton of illegal seawalls and geotubes on the beaches in 2005-2006. They were made legal after the fact. It doesn't change that it was wrong and one day they will get hit by a storm and cost millions to cleanup by the public. Even after nourishment dredge and fill which the public will also pay for. Beachfront owners should be grateful for what they have and enjoy instead of wanting more more more.

 

[mputnal]

Nothing's changed as a result of the bill being passed (here in Walton County) sans the threat of beach nourishment.

Then there's the question, as I have brought up on this thread, are the beaches truly critically eroded and better yet, what is critically eroded? Some Fort Meyers beachfront owners got Florida DEP to back down from the critically eroded designation on their beach:

Watch on YouTube

And since the 2004/2005 hurricanes, I can testify that Blue Mountain Beach has accreted, not eroded, ever since.

And can the state truly "eliminate the need of public easements by private landowners" for nourishment? That is the next legal battle, IMHO.

Obviously most of the readers of this thread want public beach at ANY COST even if the rights of property owners are trampled upon, YET AGAIN, by trying to force a public easement when the property owner doesn't want (or need) beach nourishment.

It is sad that there seems to be no limit to what the government will try to do seize control of desirable private property that the public "feels" entitled to.

Somehow your emotions have created a blind spot in reality. You can't own mother nature. You can't prevent beach erosion. Homes built on the Sand Dunes have made it worse. Somehow you need to fear that people (government and families) are to blame for taking away your private beach. You did that. You trampled over the sand dunes. You seized control of the beach ecosystem. You are not able to see that you have been a beneficiary of something that can't be owned or controlled. You are not a victim. The fact that you think you are is very sad. Because Government represents all the people not just a few makes you angry. You feel "entitled". The public just want a few hours on the beach with their families. MH messed with your sense of entitlement. Let it go. I promise you will be made whole by just watching those families laugh and play for a few hours and then they go back to their homes while you get to see the glow of the moon, the beautiful sunrises and sunsets and all the beauty of mother nature. Enjoy your life and let others do the same...

 

[JuridicBeach]

Nothing's changed as a result of the bil

Are you just reiterating what @SUP shared in his post? That "The developers and county administrators have been successful in convincing most people that the problem with beach access is the "greedy beach front owners". ?

If a person didn't want everyone in their neighborhood to come into their your backyard, no rational person would consider that property owner "greedy" (now need to include "tyrant"). Why is the private beach any different besides the obvious? I know I can't make you understand the position of the vast majority of ordinary citizens (thousands, by the way, as evidenced by the CU litigation) who own beach front. You and many others only look at this situation from an emotional standpoint. Why not spend time maybe commenting on the beach nourishment agenda instead? That's something that could perhaps change the tide of things. I've seeded this forum with a few things to discuss, however you (and others) simply continue to desperately hold on to the "greed" aspect. And that honestly doesn't get anybody anywhere other than possibly some personal satisfaction in calling people you disagree with, names.

Luke 12:16-21
Luke 16:19-31

Read those. They talk about you.

Repent from your sins of pride and greed. You are extremely prideful and entitled. Were you raised in the jungle or living in a hut all your life? What kind of parents create such an entitled, foolish and blind person? Monkey behavior & classless. I have so many questions. The psychologists should study your kind. Don’t you have any concept of coexistence with others or your parents never educated you that a world exists outside of your narrow perspective? I think you have a control issue. Something must have went wrong in your childhood definitely. Freud would have a field day with you. That desperate need to control everything? Classic sign of anal-retentive personality. What kind of loser spends their time defending such an invalid take?

It’s really bizarre this redneck behavior of yours. It’s not giving freedom or liberty, it’s giving hoarding and mental health issues.

I guess every bum can buy a beachfront, but class and not being raised in the jungle is more difficult to come by.

Hoarding your patch of sand doesn’t make you powerful or a freedom-fighter, you just look psychotic and a total narcissist to normal people.

 

[Jenksy]

Luke 12:16-21
Luke 16:19-31

Read those. They talk about you.

Repent from your sins of pride and greed. You are extremely prideful and entitled. Were you raised in the jungle or living in a hut all your life? What kind of parents create such an entitled, foolish and blind person? Monkey behavior & classless. I have so many questions. The psychologists should study your kind. Don’t you have any concept of coexistence with others or your parents never educated you that a world exists outside of your narrow perspective? I think you have a control issue. Something must have went wrong in your childhood definitely. Freud would have a field day with you. That desperate need to control everything? Classic sign of anal-retentive personality. What kind of loser spends their time defending such an invalid take?

It’s really bizarre this redneck behavior of yours. It’s not giving freedom or liberty, it’s giving hoarding and mental health issues.

I guess every bum can buy a beachfront, but class and not being raised in the jungle is more difficult to come by.

Hoarding your patch of sand doesn’t make you powerful or a freedom-fighter, you just look psychotic and a total narcissist to normal people.

Awesome 1st post man.

 

[miznotebook]

The "public easement" requirement removed by the repeal bill does not appear to be the same as the construction easement requirement. Also the removal of the public easement requirement does not seem to affect public recreational use being allowed seaward of the ECL in beach renourishment project areas.

Here is where the public easement is discussed in Florida Statutes Section 161.141:

"However, prior to construction of such a beach restoration project, the board of trustees must establish the line of mean high water for the area to be restored; and any additions to the upland property landward of the established line of mean high water which result from the restoration project remain the property of the upland owner subject to all governmental regulations and are not to be used to justify increased density or the relocation of the coastal construction control line as may be in effect for such upland property. The resulting additions to upland property are also subject to a public easement for traditional uses of the sandy beach consistent with uses that would have been allowed prior to the need for the restoration project."

Chapter 161 Section 141 - 2024 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

www.flsenate.gov

 

[UofL]

We stay at Seaside and notice that the times we are there, the private homes to the east, seldom have any activity on their many decks/porches or on the beach. (One house might be as old as Seaside, but the other 3 - McMansions - are fairly recent additions. This is the same area, where during school breaks, too often a lot of young people gather from the public beach access next to them. Such a mess. Two extremes. No one wants hundreds of kids but also, if the owners/renters are seldom there, why can't people use one row parallel to the beach. That would be a good compromise. These McMansions are a different 'animal' than the condos, etc that have many people staying in them most of the time and would be using the beach. Of course, if the owners run off visitors, they will go to other beaches, and it's possible the restaurants they love will have to close. Of course, retail wouldn't do well either. Ellen (We do have a long history with 30A. Visiting since 1989, and staying since 1998.)

 

[SUP View]

We stay at Seaside and notice that the times we are there, the private homes to the east, seldom have any activity on their many decks/porches or on the beach. (One house might be as old as Seaside, but the other 3 - McMansions - are fairly recent additions. This is the same area, where during school breaks, too often a lot of young people gather from the public beach access next to them. Such a mess. Two extremes. No one wants hundreds of kids but also, if the owners/renters are seldom there, why can't people use one row parallel to the beach. That would be a good compromise. These McMansions are a different 'animal' than the condos, etc that have many people staying in them most of the time and would be using the beach. Of course, if the owners run off visitors, they will go to other beaches, and it's possible the restaurants they love will have to close. Of course, retail wouldn't do well either. Ellen (We do have a long history with 30A. Visiting since 1989, and staying since 1998.)

At the beginning of the Customary Use issue, beachfront and non beachfront owners met with the Walton County commissioners in a “town hall” type of meeting. Some, but not all, beachfront owners wanted a discussion that would involve a “compromise” that would allow access to beachfront owners property during the high season. Basically Memorial weekend thru Labor Day. The commissioners were asked how many people were negatively affected by not having access to the beachfront. They could not or would not answer that question. With the miles of open State park beaches, this was a pertinent question and fact to know. The commissioners and other “local” business owners wanted access to all of the beach all of the time. They did want any compromise.

Pure development greed. No other explanation.

So these commissioners moved forward with a lawsuit they could not win. And spent about $12M of OUR taxpayer money in this pursuit.

And got nothing for the effort.

I’d like to think the compromise might have satisfied all parties.

 

[Jenksy]

At the beginning of the Customary Use issue, beachfront and non beachfront owners met with the Walton County commissioners in a “town hall” type of meeting. Some, but not all, beachfront owners wanted a discussion that would involve a “compromise” that would allow access to beachfront owners property during the high season. Basically Memorial weekend thru Labor Day. The commissioners were asked how many people were negatively affected by not having access to the beachfront. They could not or would not answer that question. With the miles of open State park beaches, this was a pertinent question and fact to know. The commissioners and other “local” business owners wanted access to all of the beach all of the time. They did want any compromise.

Pure development greed. No other explanation.

So these commissioners moved forward with a lawsuit they could not win. And spent about $12M of OUR taxpayer money in this pursuit.

And got nothing for the effort.

I’d like to think the compromise might have satisfied all parties.

News flash! Walton County good Ole boys ain't so smart. I miss the days when we had a few who weren't bought by developers.

Both sides cut off their own noses. Nobody wins.

 

[mputnal]

At the beginning of the Customary Use issue, beachfront and non beachfront owners met with the Walton County commissioners in a “town hall” type of meeting. Some, but not all, beachfront owners wanted a discussion that would involve a “compromise” that would allow access to beachfront owners property during the high season. Basically Memorial weekend thru Labor Day. The commissioners were asked how many people were negatively affected by not having access to the beachfront. They could not or would not answer that question. With the miles of open State park beaches, this was a pertinent question and fact to know. The commissioners and other “local” business owners wanted access to all of the beach all of the time. They did want any compromise.

Pure development greed. No other explanation.

So these commissioners moved forward with a lawsuit they could not win. And spent about $12M of OUR taxpayer money in this pursuit.

And got nothing for the effort.

I’d like to think the compromise might have satisfied all parties.

I think you have doubled down on your position and became uninterested in compromise. Possibly because MH planted the misconception that you own the beach and the constitution will protect your exclusive right to the beach. I believe Walton County sensed that uncompromising attitude and had no choice. More people means more development. We can call that greed or we can call that economics or we can call it human nature. Blaming Walton County is like blaming yourself because we elect people to represent us. This country elected a developer for President so do you want to blame the President or blame the people who elected him? Many have posted on this issue regarding rules and compromises before MH got involved. Beach front owners changed their positions and willingness to compromise. It created negative emotions on both sides of the issue. Once there are two sides of an issue humans tend to become very tribal.

Can't blame it all on MH for this because it is human nature. However I learned a lot about power and wealth on this forum during the exchange with MH. Power is a result of exteme wealth. Extreme wealth is the result of an increasingly flawed economic system which is another issue. My observation from this exchange and many other experiences in life is that power and wealth is never satisfied. Once you have wealth you become entitled to power. Once you have power you dictate and stop listening, again because of entitlement. My experience in 68 years of life (which I am very thankful for) is that the more wealth and power we have the more we seem to want. During those early conversations regarding compromise it soon became very clear to me that beach front property owners wanted to dictate instead of listen. So in my opinion beach front owners caused the lawsuit that we tax payers have to pay for. You can spin it like you want but this is the TRUTH. I have learned a lot from this issue about people. We are so tribal in nature and so willing to blame and hate other people that we are capable of hurting each other. Words hurt more than it should. Signs and chains to keep off my beach go beyond hurt. We all came from the Ocean and it is in our DNA. The Beach is life affirming...