Scj, your recent posts admits that you are not a BPO in Walton County which begs the questions who are you representing and why? Your credibility is now zero unless you can answer those questions.
My name, age, location, party affiliation, religious believes, occupation, and gender, have zero impact on the validity of the following top 10 statements with references:
1. A US Citizen cannot have property taken by a State (or Walton County) without due compensation nor without due process of law
Reference: 5th Amendment US Bill of Rights.
“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. 14th Amendment US Bill of Rights.
“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
2. An owner of Private Property in the State of Florida may not be forced to accept unlimited people with unlimited beach equipment against the will of the property owner.
Reference: State of Florida Property Bill of Rights posted on the Walton County Web Site (in particular #3):
“1. The right to acquire, possess, and protect your property”
“2. The right to use and enjoy your property”
“3. The right to exclude others from your property”
“4. The right to dispose of your property”
“5. The right to due process”
“6. The right to just compensation for property taken for a public purpose”
“7. The right to relief, or payment of compensation, when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of the state or a political entity unfairly affects your property”
3. The Walton County BCC attempted to remove Property Rights (right of Exclusion) without due process and without compensation for the first time in a 2016 Beach Ordinance. HB 631 documented a procedure which the must prove that the recreational use has been
“ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute”.
Reference: Walton County BCC minutes and HB 631
4. Walton County filed a lawsuit against owners of 1194 parcels (thousands of people) to remove property rights (right of exclusion) that would allow unlimited people with unlimited beach equipment to use private property against the will of the property owner.
Reference:
Formal Notice of Intent to affirm the existence of recreational customary uses on private property passed and adopted by the BCC Nov 3, 2018. “
A customary use affirmation is sought only on the portion of the properties referenced in Exhibit “A” that consists of the dry sand area of the beach”. “The dry sand area of the beach is defined as the zone of unconsolidated material that extends landward from the mean high water line to the place where there is marked change in material or physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation, usually the effect limit of storms waves, whichever is more seaward”.
5. The sources of evidence the BBC lawsuit used to show recreational customary rights were ancient, reasonable, without interruption,
and without dispute were allegedly been provided in Exhibit B, but
NO EVIDENCE was provided that supports those claims..
Reference:
Motion to Dismiss,
Court Document #996 in case 2018CA547, filed by George Mead on August 16, 2019
6. Walton County acknowledged in a 2009 settlement that Edgewater beachfront property has been historically at all time for the exclusive, private use of Edgewater’s owners and guests. Edgewater has filed Motions to Dismiss and recover Attorney Fees.
Reference:
Motion to Dismiss,
Court Document #881 in case 2018CA547, filed by Kay Simpson on June 19, 2019
and Motion to Recover Attn Fees, Court Document #932 in case 2018CA547, filed by Kay Simpson on July 12, 2019.
7. No Public Beach property has ever been made Private Beach under Quiet Title as rumored by CU Advocates and FBFA. Vizcaya Beach was Private Property prior to the 2016 Beach Ordinance and HB 631 and did not change the status of the deeds or property boundaries as rumored by the graphics used at the FBFA meetings and FB.
Reference: Social Media Posts on Visioning FB Page, FBFA FB Page, and review of Walton County Property Records
8. Beach property is taxed as opposed to a contrary rumor by CU advocates and FBFA supporters which was proved to be false.
Reference: Social Media Posts on Visioning FB Page, FBFA FB Page, and review of Walton County Property Records
9. FBFA leaders and CU advocates used rally cry used to sue BPO to remove property rights “at all costs” and “no compromise”. FBFA lawyer indicated that the lawsuit could take 10 years and cost $50,000,000 or more.
Reference: Social Media Posts on Visioning FB Page, FBFA FB Page
10. BPO’s have doxed on Social Media, including threats of destruction of private property, violence and death, and had numerous Social Media posts deleted. Many BPO’s have banned from social media sites, some of who never made posts, but were deleted because who there were and not what they said.
Reference: Social Media Posts on Visioning FB Page, FBFA FB Page and other Social Media Sites