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

Dave Rauschkolb

Beach Fanatic
Jul 13, 2005
1,006
790
Santa Rosa Beach
Since you do not own private beachfront property, the hundreds of “interior” private properties 500 to 800 feet from county owned beach accesses are not yours; I can understand why you and CU believers “believe” that is “fair”. It is not your real property. Is occupying the “interior” miles of private properties without the owner’s consent Constitutional? Please answer this one and why. Goes to your credibility and relevance. I don’t expect you to because your Constitutional justification is - you just “believe” public access of private property beachfront is just and partisan CU polls say so.

So which is it 500 feet or 800 feet on either side of public beach access? Does that include beach accesses that are public right of way to the foreshore only? Like at Vizcaya? Most BFO parcels are 50 feet wide. That 300 foot makes a difference of about 12 private property parcels at each County beach access that get “special” protections from uninvited and disrespectful people for the private property owner’s enjoyment, who paid a premium and they, not the public, pay taxes on to the MHWL in their deed. With all due respect the sand behind you home is not taxed and saying is is does not make it so. Also, there are laws that govern trespassing on upland property and legal recourse when they do. How many County beach access are there? About 56 as of today? Beach and Bay Access Locations That’s about 56 x 12 = 624 parcels that get “special” private property protections. Let’s not get sidetracked about the lack of political will and law enforcement of private property rights.

I assure you as FACT, if people are not willing to walk more than 500 to 800 feet as you state, they WILL “cut” through and across upland private property from 30A and public roads (clearly trespass) that they think is not occupied to get to private beaches. By the time they trespass and get to the private beach the Sheriff won’t do anything about north-south private property trespass. Even with security video evidence. Also, there are laws that govern trespassing on upland property and legal recourse when they do. Just because you have not gotten satisfaction in the past there are plenty of ways to keep people from traipsing over or on your private access to the beach;.
#581 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

You have no real property skin in the game, have no facts, and no ideal what you are talking about, and not credible. Just a belief you are “right” and BFO are wrong which has no relevance in Walton BCC litigation against 4,761 private Walton property owners. CUnCourt.

Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
Customary Use of SoWal Beaches: Contact Governor Scott



I suspect you are in the category of beachfront owners who live near a beach access or are a strong private property right proponent or both. I respect and understand your opinion to the extent that you probably wish you had not purchased near a beach access and you are upset when the public entertains themselves on the sand behind your house (sometimes behaving badly, but mostly not.)

When I build a home in Rosemaary beach in 2000 I had a beautiful home overlooking quiet, pastoral tennis courts. The only noise was people having fun, the whack of the tennis balls and the occasional expletive when a shot went awry. I built my home right on the eastern border of Rosemary; it's the one with the solar panels. The lots just off Rosemary remained unbuilt for 9 out of the 14 years I lived there. Then, one by one a rental home went up, each with a courtyard with a pool. They were attractive enough as the first developers was wise to imitate the archetecture of Rosemary. A few were built then the real estate crash idled them and were eventually all were completed. I sold in 2013. Why? Because of the noise and increased traffic on Winston Lane. Every home with a pool rented out? "Marco, Polo" times 10 and parties resounded across the tennis courts daily and nightly. So my point is I enjoyed peace and quiet for many years then it all went South. I could have fought that land being developed tooth and nail to protect my sanctuary and keep people off it or accepted the noise and remained living there or went on to a quieter neighborhood. I chose the latter.

I have spoken to several beachfront owners who don't live near a beach access and they don't take as extreme a portion as those who live near a beach access. My suggestions for a compromise attempts to address that and are a stab at trying to find and offer a solution that would be helpful in stopping all this nonsense. I believe that if a plan something like what I suggested had been implemented none of this would have happened and we would not be spending valuable life time banging away on our keyboards on SoWal. You can't exclude people from the beaches. You just can't. Just my view but I assure you that notion is not the minority opinion.

Finally, your's and other's out of hand dismissal of my suggestions say a few things.
1. Nothing will change your mind.
2. You are so embittered at me for having the audacity to challenge excluding people from our beaches that anything I say you will challenge and you would never support suggestions I make.
3. Your strong, combative position places you in the extreme minority opinion even among beachfront owners. I believe you will be alienated or perhaps already are by the myriad of opinions beachfront owners have on the issue. I have spoken to many and I have to enlighten you that many beachfront owners don't agree with your position.

So, unless a compromise is reached nothing you or I say here is relevant and it will be decided in court. My personal opinion is that Eminent Domain is not a compromise. I think that has been the end game of the small group of beachfront owners who are driving this. Just my opinion but I too might be in the minority opinion on that one.
 
Last edited:

FactorFiction

Beach Fanatic
Feb 18, 2016
494
409
Re-posting with a few modifications. I’ve shown this to a handful of beachfront owners and they are liking it.

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. They can order rental chairs but they have to be delivered and set up wherever there’s a spot; no designated real estate for vendors.

Then, work with the BCC and Beachfront owners to set tighter restrictions on the dry sand within 500 to 800 feet of those county owned beach accesses on either side. No tents, no large gatherings, no night parties...only ghost crab chasing with the kids at night. But the dry sand in those areas with restrictions are open to the public to use within the law with strict enforcement and a hot line for beachfront owners to get quick results if anyone gets out of line.

Beyond 500 to 800 feet, fewer restrictions because no one walks with all their stuff that far. The "interior" beachfront owners complain the least because people just don't walk long distances dragging their stuff. I truly believe this could set the clock back. Restore the garbage pickup AND "leave no trace" and eliminate the private property, no trespassing signs. Signage would be needed to set the rules plainly and clearly. I truly believe the lawsuits could go away with something like this that addresses the behavior with rules and enforcement where the biggest complaints come from Beach front owners, near Public Beach accesses. Behind beachfront owners homes the beach front owners could get priority placement and register their beach chairs with the county so they will always have a place to set up behind their homes and close to the water; front tier. But, they would not be able to exclude anyone from the sand behind their homes unless they’re breaking rules.

Do a pilot program and try it.

I've seen some places on the beach that don't seem to have many issues even with substantial stretches of private beach. What I have noticed is that more of the people on those beaches seem to be minimalists, similar to "old time" beach use. Most seem to:

Use towels or chairs and an umbrella or two, but don't use tents
Are actually AT the beach rather than setting up early, but coming and going during the day, effectively reserving the beach rather than using it.
Don't smoke
If they are drinking, it isn't obvious by their behavior or by leaving trash
May dig small holes or build sandcastles, but flatten them before leaving the beach
Engage in water activities like using boogie boards, paddle boards, etc.
Leave nothing but footprints when they leave

While these areas don't have 100% minimalist use, they probably have 80+%. They also seem to have at least occasional beach ambassadors who help educate on turtles, holes, etc. With some actual enforcement, I'd expect that percentage to increase.

Funny how it sounds like it used to be before we got so many vendors and people setting up the "daycamps" that some have referred to in this thread. Just my opinion, but I think that it will be a tough sale to get beach owners to give up the RIGHT to exclude even if they never use it a single time. While there have been well meaning county employees and Commissioners throughout Walton County's history, I don't know a single person who would want local government to give free reign to the general public to be on their property. I think it is also clear that Walton County has yet to make the kind of investment in enforcement and demonstrate the will to enforce that would give confidence that restrictions would be enforced. On the other hand, thank goodness, there are seemingly quite a few beach owners who have no issue with people respectfully enjoying the beach seaward of their homes even with the conflict and animosity that exists in some circles today.

I know I sound like a broken record, but focusing on behavior and education may be a more effective path right now given that CU is in court. Even if a compromise is possible, I expect it will take substantial time, effort and good will on both sides.
 

Dave Rauschkolb

Beach Fanatic
Jul 13, 2005
1,006
790
Santa Rosa Beach
I've seen some places on the beach that don't seem to have many issues even with substantial stretches of private beach. What I have noticed is that more of the people on those beaches seem to be minimalists, similar to "old time" beach use. Most seem to:

Use towels or chairs and an umbrella or two, but don't use tents
Are actually AT the beach rather than setting up early, but coming and going during the day, effectively reserving the beach rather than using it.
Don't smoke
If they are drinking, it isn't obvious by their behavior or by leaving trash
May dig small holes or build sandcastles, but flatten them before leaving the beach
Engage in water activities like using boogie boards, paddle boards, etc.
Leave nothing but footprints when they leave

While these areas don't have 100% minimalist use, they probably have 80+%. They also seem to have at least occasional beach ambassadors who help educate on turtles, holes, etc. With some actual enforcement, I'd expect that percentage to increase.

Funny how it sounds like it used to be before we got so many vendors and people setting up the "daycamps" that some have referred to in this thread. Just my opinion, but I think that it will be a tough sale to get beach owners to give up the RIGHT to exclude even if they never use it a single time. While there have been well meaning county employees and Commissioners throughout Walton County's history, I don't know a single person who would want local government to give free reign to the general public to be on their property. I think it is also clear that Walton County has yet to make the kind of investment in enforcement and demonstrate the will to enforce that would give confidence that restrictions would be enforced. On the other hand, thank goodness, there are seemingly quite a few beach owners who have no issue with people respectfully enjoying the beach seaward of their homes even with the conflict and animosity that exists in some circles today.

I know I sound like a broken record, but focusing on behavior and education may be a more effective path right now given that CU is in court. Even if a compromise is possible, I expect it will take substantial time, effort and good will on both sides.

"Focusing on behavior and education" and Enforcement truly is the key FF. Agree on all points except I think many beachfront owners would give up the right to exclude provided there is a workable, fair framework to solve this.
 

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,306
387
"Focusing on behavior and education" and Enforcement truly is the key FF. Agree on all points except I think many beachfront owners would give up the right to exclude provided there is a workable, fair framework to solve this.
Disingenuous.
If so, why are BFOs forced to court with FBFA as co-plaintiff against all BFOs with you as chairman of FBFA?
Stickem’ up!
 

Dave Rauschkolb

Beach Fanatic
Jul 13, 2005
1,006
790
Santa Rosa Beach
"The thoughtful and collaborative approach overcame some initial skepticism among the property owners. Ultimately, all of them agreed to transfer their waterfront rights to the city. “I think local government might take a lesson from this,” Euclid Councilmember Daryl Langman told me last year. “Treat your residents as equals and offer them a fair deal. Things get done much more quickly that way.”"

This Lake Belongs to Everyone


A city on Lake Erie convinced its waterfront property owners to give the public their waterfronts for free. It’s a case that could transform the Great Lakes forever.

By: Daniel McGraw
Civic Engagement
The site of Euclid’s future waterfront trail. Credit: City of Euclid
the public has access to most beaches. In the Great Lakes states, however—where powerful industrialists snapped up waterfront properties long ago—beach ownership is, for the most part, in the hands of the owner of the property abutting it.

“Having four miles of shoreline in a city with more than 50,000 people, and those people having little access to the lake never made much sense to me,” says Euclid Mayor Kirsten Holzheimer Gail.

1440px-Pannage_in_the_New_Forest-1024x768.jpeg

These pigs have been put out for pannage, the practice of releasing livestock into the forest so they can feed on nuts and berries. It’s a ritual dating back to common lands. Credit: Jim Champion/Wikipedia
Lots of laws around public access to land and water make little sense. We live in a world where private ownership is the default and public access a novelty. It wasn’t always this way. In England, much land was once categorized as “common”—owned by a lord but used by neighboring residents and landless peasants alike. The U.S., too, was once a rambling-friendly country. When slavery ended, however, Southern landowners restricted newly freed blacks from utilizing once-common land. And the rise of new agricultural techniques led to more enclosed farms. Little by little, America became a place where private interests walled off water and land that had once been for everyone.

These shifts in how we think about public access have resulted in places like Euclid, where bountiful landscapes and resources lay just out of reach. But that may now be changing. “What the residents of Euclid are seeing now is that we have an asset in our city and it is Lake Erie,” says Mayor Gail. “It is an amenity that for years we took for granted, and quite frankly didn’t use much. But now we see it as an asset that draws people here. Euclid is coming back, and we know that the lakefront is a big part of that now, and will be a big part of that in the future.”

IMG_9275-1024x768.jpg

Earthmovers stabilize the cliffs and clear space for the trail, which will prevent further erosion. Credit: City of Euclid
The cliffs start crumbling

The story of how Euclid got its lakefront private property owners to give the city their shorelines for free begins several decades ago. In the late 1990s, some of Euclid’s city council members dreamed of a city-owned marina, but the Cleveland suburb had little funding for such a venture. While looking into it, they discovered that the state and federal Environmental Protection Agencies had funding set aside for cleaning up the shores of Lake Erie, which for years was a dumping ground for waste. Although the EPA had prioritized the cleanup, there was one big problem: the landowners who owned the properties along the waterfront fiercely guarded their right to control what happened to it.

Except something was happening to it that they couldn’t control: the shoreline cliffs were eroding, and the waterfront property owners were spending a growing amount of their own money to keep them from collapsing.

As the erosion problems worsened, the city commissioned studies to make the case that letting Euclid acquire and stabilize the waterfronts could save the owners a boatload of cash. Time was of the essence—the Federal Emergency Management Agency found that the property owners along the water where the trail is being built would lose about 25 feet of coastline over the next decade.

Euclid-Waterfront-Improvements-Phase-II-1024x635.jpg

A rendering of the project. Credit: City of Euclid
“With a documented loss of solid ground each year due to erosion, shoreline structures are positioned increasingly closer to the edge of the bluff, compromising their integrity and increasing the likelihood of damage and loss,” the FEMA studyfound.

Saving the properties from falling into the sea united the city and owners in common cause, allowing them to work together as a group—no eminent domain or contentious lawsuits. Handing over waterfront ownership would save the owners money on erosion control, the new trail would increase their property values, and the public would enjoy access to Lake Erie. It was win-win-win.

All together, now

The thoughtful and collaborative approach overcame some initial skepticism among the property owners. Ultimately, all of them agreed to transfer their waterfront rights to the city. “I think local government might take a lesson from this,” Euclid Councilmember Daryl Langman told me last year. “Treat your residents as equals and offer them a fair deal. Things get done much more quickly that way.”

50116_N116_lrg-1024x576.jpg

The completed trail is expected to raise the value of properties along the waterfront. Rendering credit: SmithGroup
For its part, the city worked hard to scrounge up the $13 million needed for the trail and cliff stabilization, cobbling together the money from federal funds, city bonds, assorted government and private foundation grants, even $4 million from the county casino revenues—all in a city that has had cash flow problems in recent years.

Matt Doss, policy director for the Great Lakes Commission, the binational public agency that handles Great Lakes issues of all kinds, said many in the Great Lakes—politicians, academics, environmentalists and planners—are watching the little Euclid project closely.

“What is happening with this is a change of attitude from the public on the value of public access and the appreciation of amenities on the lakefront,” Doss told me in 2018. “It is an example of landowners working with government, which has always been something hard to overcome.”

euclid-09_lrg-1024x576.jpg

Rendering credit: SmithGroup
Other Midwestern cities have taken notice, too. “This is a game changer for lakefront properties,” Bob Fiala, mayor of Willoughby, Ohio, a suburb just east of Euclid with about a mile of Lake Erie shoreline, has told the media. “Euclid is suffering and enduring the same challenges that we in Willoughby, Eastlake and Willowick are enduring. We have high water levels … massive erosion, concerned property owners, and we own a significant park on the lakefront. We’re trying to find solutions to all those problems just like Euclid looked at the solutions some 10 years ago.”

SmithGroup, the Detroit-based planning company that designed the trail, has worked on numerous Great Lakes waterfront projects, including big ones in the Chicago, Detroit and Milwaukee areas. But they see the Euclid project as special.

“This is more about shoreline management, not just a park thrown up,” says Jason Stangland, the firm’s principal landscape architect. “But more importantly, it is planning that has creative partnerships, and the partnership with the property owners in this project is different than most everything we’ve worked on in our history.”



About Us
Latest Stories

SFB_ECPS227.jpg

Free the Paramedics!
BSF-Graffiti-e1569849173166.png

Let Them Eat Larvae
Screen-Shot-2019-09-26-at-7.46.22-AM.png

A Republican Suburb Designed for Cyclists
Featured Collections
Changing Behavior
Doing Good is Good Business
Daniel-McGraw.png

Daniel McGraw
 

Dawn

Beach Fanatic
Oct 16, 2008
1,206
527
The 2 swift and disrespectful responses to Dave's proposal speak volumes.

Mean people suck.
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
I suspect you are in the category of beachfront owners who live near a beach access ... [Does not matter, the Constitution property rights are the same for ALL Walton private properties.]

When I build a home in Rosemaary beach in 2000 ... parties resounded across the tennis courts daily and nightly. So my point is I enjoyed peace and quiet for many years then it all went South. [People were not on your deeded property. If the people were playing and yelling on your property without your consent would have asked the people to leave so you could have quiet exclusive use of your property if you choose to? You can not own the air but you can own deeded beachfront property.] I could have fought that land being developed tooth and nail [how, CU?] to protect my sanctuary and keep people off it or accepted the noise and remained living there or went on to a quieter neighborhood. I chose the latter [What other Walton beachfront would you suggest 4,670 BFOs move to for the same beach waterfront rights BFOs have today, they desire, paid a premium for, and pay taxes on to the MHWL?].

I have spoken to several beachfront owners who don't live near a beach access and they don't take as extreme a portion as those who live near a beach access [Good for them. That is any private property owner’s CHOICE; as it is for 4,670 other BFOs! Walton BCC million dollar tax payer paid CU litigation have the burden of proof that BFOs do NOT legally have that CHOICE]. My suggestions for a [BFO] compromise attempts to address that and are a stab at trying to find and offer a solution that would be helpful in stopping all this [public use of private property CU] nonsense. ...You can't exclude people from the beaches. You just can't. [Who said anything about excluding people from all Walton beaches? Another emotional misdirection. What about the about 13 miles of publicly available beaches and 825 miles of Florida foreshore? To day the law says I can exclude people from my property IF I choose too. I haven’t yet but if I have to spend my own money in court and BFO property rights prevail, Walton Commissioners, You, mputnal, ECAR Realtors leadership, and “anonymous” CU believers with pseudonyms (James Bentwood reside in Walton?) have made me rethink that.] Just my view but I assure you that notion is not the minority opinion [I’m not concerned about your other’s opinion. Just the facts, Law, and Constitution].
#832 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Finally, your's and other's out of hand dismissal of my suggestions say a few things.
1. Nothing [that is NOT based in facts, the law, or, Constitution] will change your mind.
2. You are so embittered at me [Dave, you individually are not relevant to me and I have no bitterness towards you; the intentional misinformation and antisocial medial you encourage, I have an issue with, and will expose to BFOs so they know the facts and are informed] for having the audacity to challenge excluding people [with intentional misinformation] from our [private property] beaches [That you have no ownership skin in the game and that BFOs own and pay taxes on] that anything I say you will challenge and you would never support suggestions I make [Then make suggestions based with facts (not beliefs) and law.].
3. Your strong, combative position [you do not have strong, combative positions? I can post some. #421 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy] places you in the extreme minority opinion even among beachfront owners [Wrong. Good thing the Constitution protects minority property rights and opinions too]. I believe you will be alienated or perhaps already are by the myriad of opinions beachfront owners have on the issue [Wrong again]. I have spoken to many and I have to enlighten you that many beachfront owners don't agree with your position [To enlighten you - over 50% of the 1,193 beachfront parcel (about 2,400) BFO owners do agree and are doing so with their on money as defendants. Want to put $15,000 of your own money in escrow to help pay BFO legal fees should BFO prevail?]. Won’t go into why 83% of the hundreds of 2016 Florida legislators and Governor agreed 5 political Walton Commissioners did not provide Constitutional private property rights CU due process and passed FS 163.035 to prevent other FL county politicians from doing the same thing.

So, unless a compromise is reached nothing you or I say here is relevant and it will be decided in court [CUnCourt that ALL Walton tax payers are paying for]. My personal opinion is that Eminent Domain is not a compromise. I think that has been the end game of the small group of beachfront owners who are driving this [WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!]. Just my opinion but I too might be in the minority opinion on that one.

I do not put too much stock in your and CU believers baseless opinions. Nor should other defendant BFOs. Your opinion was, and you politically backed, incumbent Cindy Meadows, Walton Dist 5 Commissioner, to win in Commissioner 2016. You, and you encouraged others, to switched from the Democratic party to the Republican in the primaries to vote for Cindy then switched back. Cindy lost by a 2 to 1 margin to a retired postman with no government or political experience. You spent years, and as you have stated, spent $40,000 of your own money, to incorporate a South Walton city to add another layer of taxes, and was rejected. You stated Walton would become a Ghost Town if CU is not legally enforced against BFO property rights and the Walton TDC bed tax collections and real state values have significantly increased since 2016. Visit South Walton, FL

You have not answered one question about what you base your CU belief, much less with any factual information. Not an attack on you personally but your not credible beliefs. To the contrary you promote misinformation even when facts dispute the opinion. IMO your opinions are just not credible, except on antisocial media that vilifies BFOs. CUnCourt.
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
Wonder why the Michigan, Erie Lake, suburb of Cleveland, City of Euclid did not first [unilaterally pass an CU ordnance (in violation of the lakefront property owner's due process rights) or] litigate against all the private lakefront owners like Walton commissioners did?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter