• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

30A Skunkape

Skunky
Jan 18, 2006
10,286
2,312
53
Backatown Seagrove
I am sharing this important local's letter I just received via email. Please contact Governor Rick Scott to have your voice heard on this critical issue in Walton County...

Dear Walton County Citizens,

I am sending out this information as a public service announcement to those who live in our county and enjoy the use of the dry sand along our portion of the Gulf of Mexico.

As you are aware, the Walton County Board of County Commissioners passed and codified Customary Use in March of 2017. It is a short document and attached here for your pleasure reading:
Municode Library

Over the past few weeks, the Florida House and Senate have considered and passed legislation which will nullify Customary Use in Walton County. That legislation has now been sent to the governor's office for consideration and a signature making it law.

Many Walton Citizens will be pleased with the nullification of Customary Use. Other citizens may desire to call Governor Scott's office (850) 488-7146 or email at Email the Governor and voice their discontent and actively request that he veto the bill and allow Customary Use to continue in Walton County in order for all Citizens to have free use of the white sand as have the first people to inhabit this region of Florida, USA.

I thought you might want to know the current status of Customary Use in Walton County.

Regards,
Laurie Reichenbach

I have sent email to hizzoner requesting veto
 
Jul 10, 2017
98
14
DeFuniak Springs
This article is completely misleading and ignorant of the facts. Walton county made a sweeping land grab by issuing a county wide ordinance giving rights to the entire US population to private property owned by individuals without any due process to the property owner. Customary use has been ruled by the FLA SC and it has to be determined on a case by case basis for a specific parcel of land, and proven in court. That's all the bill is trying to do - keep local county boards from simply voting in an ordinance without giving the property owner due process. To say "everyone knows they can dispute in court" is ignoring reality. I think most of us who own private property would be pretty upset if the county came along and voted in an ordinance that turned our property into de facto unlimited public use without offering any proof or getting a court order.

BTW - the FLA SC case that everyone cites as proving customary use across the board granted access to 225 sq feet of beach - that SINGLE parcel, and it has to be proven on a case by case, individual parcel basis.

This is not about PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS. Public beaches have NOTHING to do with this bill - it's about private property rights. FYI for those who aren't familiar with Walton county, there are 8 miles of public beach with many access points. In fact there is so much public beach space that the county allows private beach vendors to reserve 50% of the public beach space for themselves. So no one has ever suggested that the public's access to enjoy the beach be limited in anyway. Not this bill, and not the property owners of Walton county. Very misleading opinion article.


I love how you say "8 miles of public beach." Thats less than 1/3 of Walton County beaches. 50K+ County residence and the multi-million visitors need to share less than 1/3 while 900 beach front homeowners get more than 2/3 of the beach? That is as bass ackwards as it gets.
 

gailforce

Beach Lover
Aug 29, 2015
122
102
57
Seacrest
I love how you say "8 miles of public beach." Thats less than 1/3 of Walton County beaches. 50K+ County residence and the multi-million visitors need to share less than 1/3 while 900 beach front homeowners get more than 2/3 of the beach? That is as bass ackwards as it gets.
Actually, what is bass ackward is that the County put an ordinance in place without going through the proper protocol. They over stepped the laws in place and whether you are a beachfront owner or not, be glad that they are being reeled in because soon they may want your titled property.
 
Jul 10, 2017
98
14
DeFuniak Springs
Actually, what is bass ackward is that the County put an ordinance in place without going through the proper protocol. They over stepped the laws in place and whether you are a beachfront owner or not, be glad that they are being reeled in because soon they may want your titled property.

Making an ordinance to allow public use of the beach is far from taking titled property. Beach front owners still own the same amount of land as they did before the ordinance. The county stepped in because after decades of open beaches property owners (mostly new residence) started putting up ugly fences and trashy no trespassing signs.
 

gailforce

Beach Lover
Aug 29, 2015
122
102
57
Seacrest
When the County steps in, there are legal steps for them to follow. And with signs, there is even a rule about the dimensions of signs and color. Why didn’t they enforce their sign rule, if they did all of this because of aesthetics? Yes, beachfront owners still own the same amount of sand and they are still the only ones paying property tax on it as well. Why is that? I would like to know
 

formosa64

Beach Lover
Apr 18, 2017
62
88
Seacrest Beach
I love how you say "8 miles of public beach." Thats less than 1/3 of Walton County beaches. 50K+ County residence and the multi-million visitors need to share less than 1/3 while 900 beach front homeowners get more than 2/3 of the beach? That is as bass ackwards as it gets.

Love it all you want, your position is not really accurate. A number of the private beaches are for entire communities. For example there is a private beach for all of Seaside which has 300+ homes. Rosemary Beach supports well over 2,000 homes, etc. So you painting this like there are 900 folks telling everyone else to eat cake is far from reality.

Obviously that's enough beach for the visitors, in that the county can give away 50% of it to beach vendors to reserve it for their own businesses. Until the time that the county says they are so overcrowded that they can no longer give away 50% of the public beach land to beach vendors --- I'm not really sympathetic to your "easement by necessity" argument.

So explain to me how you want 100% of a private beach front property owners sand, but are "ok" with giving away 50% of the public beach sand real estate. You want ass backwards? There it is.
 

jkmason

Beach Lover
Mar 10, 2014
152
122
Writing a bill and passing a bill are two completely different animals. Writing the bill placates one side. Not passing the bill placates the other side. The bill will go nowhere. The courts will decide.
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
Sun Sentinel editorial highlights what's at stake for many beach towns in Florida... Glad this is getting the attention it deserves in news outlets
Rep. Katie Edwards puts public beach access at risk | Editorial
Now she wants to prohibit local governments from protecting your access to the beach.
That’s right. Edwards’ House Bill 631 would ban local ordinances that ensure long-standing public access to stretches of beach that overlap private property. She’d rather the courts decide where someone’s property rights begin and your beach access ends.
This unwarranted proposal would make it easier for beachfront property owners to put up fences, post “No Trespassing” signs and sue to keep more of Florida’s coastline off limits to you and your family.
Do the people of Plantation — the people Edwards was elected to serve — really want a harder time finding a spot on the sand?
Beachgoers may be surprised to learn that someone’s property line can extend all the way to the mean high tide line — the point the water reaches at high tide.
With beach erosion, that line becomes a moving target, but it’s typically identified as the “wet” sand area, or the sea side of the line of seaweed that washes ashore.
However, the courts recognize that the public’s long-standing use of beaches can be protected, even when the land has technically become private property.
Maintaining that “customary use” standard is important for beachside communities, which is why Volusia, St. Johns and Walton counties have passed local ordinances that make clear that beaches should remain public.
Edwards says her bill is misunderstood, that she’s only trying to clarify how property rights disputes should be resolved, not favor oceanfront landowners.
In reality, Edwards’ bill is about eliminating the ability of cities and counties to protect beach access for residents and visitors.
More emotional opinion and video fake news. Geez, does anyone try to read and understand the facts. Sorry for the long post but there is so much FICTION to dispel.
1. The bill does NOT prohibit local governments from claiming custom as a Plaintiff on private property. Local governments can't usurp due process to do it and has to prove it in court first.
2. Edwards bill would not ban local ordinances; but would ensure local governments do not circumvent due process and rule of law before the ordinance becomes law.
3. Bill will NOT make it easier for beachfront property owners to put up fences, post “No Trespassing” signs. Custom has NOTHING to do with signs and fences. That is a local government police power. As long as ordinances does NOT infringe on the first amendment - like Walton BCC ordinance did and was struck down in court.
4. Beachgoers may be surprised to learn that MOST of FLORIDA private property lines extend all the way to the mean high tide line; which is how littoral property boundaries were defined by the State.
5. That line [MHWL] becomes a moving target, but it’s typically identified as the “wet” sand area, or the sea side of the line of seaweed that washes ashore. Total FICTION. MHLW is well defined and it is NOT the wet sand.
6. “customary use” standard is important for beachside communities. Customary use elements are ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute. Private property rights were so important they are included in the USA Constitution. Local economics is NOT an element of custom. Nor are popularity votes.
7. Edwards’ bill is about eliminating the ability of cities and counties to protect beach access. FICTION local governments can still claim customary use as a plaintiff just like Teresa can. Except Teresa can not declare private property subject to public use like Walton county did or use million$ of other tax payer's money to litigate.
8. Where does the bill say local governments will have to litigate parcel by parcel as reported in the video? It does NOT. Fake news.
--------------------------------------------------
https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sect...ocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0631&Session=2018
Starting at line 362

Section 10. Section 163.035, Florida Statutes, is created to read: 163.035
Establishment of recreational customary use. —
(1) DEFINITION. — The term " governmental entity" includes an agency of the state, a regional or a local government created by the State Constitution or by general or special act, any county or municipality, or any other entity that independently exercises governmental authority.
(2) ORDINANCES AND RULES RELATING TO CUSTOMARY USE. — A governmental entity may not adopt or keep in effect an ordinance or rule that finds, determines, relies on, or is based upon customary use of any portion of a beach above the mean high - water line, as defined in s. 177.27, unless such ordinance or rule is based on a judicial declaration affirming recreational customary use on such beach.
(3) NOTICE OF INTENT TO AFFIRM RECREATION PUBLIC USE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY; JUDICIAL DETERMINATION. — A governmental entity that seeks to affirm the existence of a recreational customary use on private property must follow the procedures set forth in this subsection.
(a) Notice. — The governing board of a governmental entity must, at a public hearing, adopt a formal notice of intent to affirm the existence of a recreational customary use on private property. The notice of intent must specifically identify the following:
1. The specific parcels of property, or the specific portions thereof, upon which a customary use affirmation is sought;
2. The detailed, specific, and individual use or uses of the parcels of property to which a customary use affirmation is sought; and
3. Each source of evidence that the governmental entity would rely upon to prove a recreational customary use has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute.
The governmental entity must provide notice of the public hearing to the owner of each parcel of property subject to the notice of intent at the address reflected in the count y property appraiser's records no later than 30 days before the public meeting. Such notice must be provided by certified mail with return receipt requested, publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the parcels of property are located, and posting on the governmental entity's website.
(b) Judicial determination. —
1. Within 60 days after the adoption of the notice of intent at the public hearing, the governmental entity must file a Complaint for Declaration of Recreational Customary Use with the circuit court in the county in which the properties subject to the notice of intent are located. The governmental entity must provide notice of the filing of the complaint to the owner of each parcel of property subject to the complaint in the same manner as is required for the notice of intent in paragraph (a). The notice must allow the owner receiving the notice to intervene in the proceeding within 45 days after receiving the notice. The governmental entity must provide verification of the service of the notice to the property owners required in this paragraph to the court so that the court may establish a schedule for the judicial proceedings.
2. All proceedings under this paragraph shall be de novo. The court must determine whether the evidence presented demonstrates that the recreational customary use for the use or uses identified in the notice of intent have been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute. There is no presumption regarding the existence of a recreational customary use with respect to any parcel of property, and the governmental entity has the burden of proof to show that a recreational customary use exists. An owner of a parcel of property that is subject to the complaint has the right to intervene as a party defendant in such proceeding.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
Writing a bill and passing a bill are two completely different animals. Writing the bill placates one side. Not passing the bill placates the other side. The bill will go nowhere. The courts will decide.
The courts will decide local government claim of custom on private property but not likely this bill.
I predict the Governor will not sign the bill.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter