Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[kayti elliott]

...and also, my children asked me not to post while they have been working in Seaside, high school/ college breaks because of the obvious ram rod of one sidedness. So anyone all horny for the truth from a BFO who uses her real name, let’s go...and be sweet

Surfer Dude, the award winning champion of "the people" and his disciples don't see it as one sided. They're right and all others are wrong.

 

[mputnal]

Rachael, please don't take my questions as disrespectful because that is not my intent but I am wondering about the "truth" relevant to beach use. On your parcel do you put up fence or other means of delineating a private specific use? If not then how would you expect a beach user to interpret your private specific use? Is so can you provide pictures or would you sign an affidavit? I only ask this question of you because it is not fair to judge those that signed affidavits as to general public recreational use if there were no fence to establish specific private use. It is important to know why you feel that your parcel was used for private use and never had a public recreational use. Tax documents and deeds do not establish use so you will need another way to establish a specific private use. Just my opinion of course and I am not an attorney. I base my opinions on common sense and that is the reason I am being attacked by the power brokers. I have been called all sorts of things only because I disagree or require more information. I can handle the attacks but it is just not civil and I hope we as a community do not stop from trying to be civil. That goes for both sides.

 

[Bob Hudson]

Judges Ordee #3

 

[Stone Cold J]

I am wondering about the "truth" relevant to beach use.

“the truth relevant to beach use” since the Judge’s order is for specific portions of beach, let’s use Edgewater as a reference for this discussion.

Mputnal, the BCC is suing Edgewater to remove private property rights (specifically the right to exclude the general public from their private property). Edgewater does not have a fence on the beach, but contends it is private property, and NOT general public recreational use property.

Do you think the County has provided evidence that proves the BCC assertion in the lawsuit that Edgewater’s property has been recreational used by the public, anciently, reasonably, without interruption, and has been free from dispute?

 

[mputnal]

Scj, the truth is I do not know the answer. But if you are asking my opinion then I do believe that the County has the authority to determine general public recreational use. The agreements with Edgewater could be non-binding but I am not a lawyer. If Edgewater has established a specific private use then the beach ball is in their court so to speak. I just do not see how you can establish a specific private use without some type of physical boundary. For example if a public beach user throws a frisbee over on Edgewater and then is allowed to go retrieve it that would be enough for recreational public use IMO. Of course Judge Green will rule and then we go from there. This will be a long complex ordeal and it would have been much better for both sides to compromise. I understand why you see it differently.

 

[Stone Cold J]

Scj, the truth is I do not know the answer.

mputnal, thank you very much for your reply. I will address 2 of your items now and the others later. First, Walton County BCC has ZERO authority to establish general public customary use. It MUST be done with a judicial process and must be shown that the specific customary use has been used on a specific property anciently, reasonably, without interruption, and without dispute. Second, someone retrieving a frisbee from a yard, even if done numerous times, would not satisfy the judicial process of ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute. It certainly would not permit the Walton County Ultimate Frisbee Team to have a tournament on that private property with unlimited players and unlimited frisbees against the will of the property owner.

 

[mputnal]

Scj, local county government does have authority to establish general public recreational use with due process of the court. That is the purpose of the lawsuit. BFO's have been encouraged by lawyers and those who represent elite individual power to exclude people from the beach and that is the reason for the conflicting declarations of beach use. The court must determine what evidence exists to establish use. You and yours do not have authority to reject said evidence no matter how many bombastic posts you scream at us. I say scream because many of the posts are bold and capitalized. Disagree about the frisbee example. It proves that there are no boundaries so whether a frisbee, a walk, a beach umbrella etc. there is no barriers that would define private use. It is the nature of the beach to not have boundaries. I am surprised that anyone would spend money on a lawsuit to dispute general public recreational use. When families come to the beach to enjoy it's beauty which happens to be available to you every day how will it make you feel good about anything to run out there and scream and holler at them to get off my sand. You are so caught up in the politics that you can't see the humanity of it all.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

You and yours are insinuating that people who believe the beach to be open to the public for recreational use lie on affidavits but you are flat wrong.

Sorry, never said any such thing. What was simply said:
@kayti elliott : "I'm curious about exactly what those affidavits actually say and what all the people who submitted them are swearing to."
@BlueMtnBeachVagrant : "...especially on a parcel by parcel basis."

And in case you missed this point, in the end, in my educated humble opinion, the case if it goes all the way to fruition) will be decided on a parcel by parcel basis. And affidavits that do not factually establish absolute location are meaningless.

You're a little loosey goosey with accusations.

 

[mputnal]

BmbVagrant, apparently you have not read the post coming from your group who are attacking the people who signed affidavits as to the general public recreational beach use that has been part of these beaches forever. There are no "specific" parcels on a beach. If you tried to make a parcel specific to private use mother nature would remove it. There is a reason the way things are general in nature and not specific. There are man made laws which try to be specific but in the case of a natural resource where there are no boundaries natural laws are far superior. I know it is a lot for your group to take in but man does not own everything on this planet like the beach. There is no power greater than mother nature.

All a court can do is apply the laws of man to the laws of this natural resource. There is no such law that states that Walton County does not have authority to apply a general public recreational use. Laws and the intent of laws are sometimes conflicting. That is what we have here and the reason why this lower court will probably not be able to decide this issue. Since there are NO physical barriers on the beach such as a fence the beach resource is more general in nature. The laws says due process must be specific but yet the law does not require Walton County to be specific. Man is conflicting so go figure. Nature is not conflicted so go try to put up that fence to make the beach have specific private use. I would not want to be Judge Green or anyone trying to figure out this mess. Of course you and yours are more than excited (Rachael used the best word) to exert your power over nature and the general public. Even if Judge Green rules that beaches are specific and private it will just be the beginning of a long long climb toward truth and justice. A lot of money spent so that wealth and power can have dominion over yet another resource. Sleep well...

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Judges Order #3

HERE WE GO AGAIN!
Innocent question for those journalists in the know: When Tom McLaughlin writes an article and the Walton Sun publishes it, who has editorial control over the associated "File Photos" that are inserted within the ONLINE article itself? The print version does not have this absurd photo. I just can't believe I'm seeing the same old lie, mistruth, propaganda, misunderstading (call it what you will) about the multiple quiet titles in Old Blue Mountain Beach subdivision in the exact same form in this article as was in the other ONLINE article regarding the "2nd" judge's order YET AGAIN! And the point again being that the reddish shaded area directly behind the home labeled "Public beach" WAS NEVER EVER PUBLIC BEACH. And the proponents of this have been called out and corrected over and over. That's when it becomes an intentional lie, not an honest mistake. The Walton Sun should feel complete and utter shame for this, apologize and issue an immediate retraction. And I won't dignify the "No additional taxes are levied for the additional piece of land...." nonsense.

Could the image below just simply be politically motivated to make Huckabee look bad at all costs including the newspaper's reputation? Regardless, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I'm shining another light on the LIE. And I'll try to expose the LIE each time the Walton Sun publishes such information.

Below is a screen shot of that part of the 2nd online article with the same image: