I agree with Jim Tucker that the horse is out of the barn. IMO that’s what’s caused so much of the current overcrowding. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to prevent future unbridled growth. If CU wins then all of the developers can rightfully tell buyers, and buyers can tell renters, that they have the legal right to use all of the beach areas, not just those that are public. The County, realtors, and other local businesses can advertise the same. We’ll be further encouraging even more overcrowding. Maybe we don’t have to control beach density with physical barriers. Controlling capacity would be a step in the right direction. I agree with bob1 that if the County and the developers have their way, the last 20 years are going to look like nothing compared to the next 20 years. We can’t do anything about the last 20 years, but we should try to do something about the next 20 years. The more tourists, the more local businesses. The more local businesses, the greater the need for housing and infrastructure (schools, fire, police, etc.) for locals who work in those businesses. It’s a vicious cycle and I think CU will make it worse.
Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
- Thread starter Reggie Gaskins
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Ok mputnal lets use some linear thinking. #2197 ‘I think the word is "limit".’ What happens after the State Park limit is exceeded? The Parks have the right to exclude the public!? Why does the State of Florida have the right to exclude and private individuals who had title to the same beach front previously did not? What is different about the beachfront title and bundle of rights? What facts or law do you have to offer? I do not need to bail you out (sarcasm). We have heard the class warfare conspiracies and beliefs before.
“The only thing different [before FS163.035] is the designation of who is the defendant and who is the plant(i)ff.” That’s an important distinction! The Plaintiff has the Burden of proof to show ancient English common law CU is superior to American Constitutional individual property rights. The Defendant (BPOs) do not have to prove private property is private with all Constitutional bundle of rights. That is the status quo today. The Walton BCC are suing 4,671 BPOs to EXCLUDE their CHOICE to have Constitutional quiet, uninterrupted, enjoyment of their private property and are having to spend tens of thousands of their own money to Defend their rights to CHOOSE.
Jim Tucker if the State of Florida can “limit” public access by charging fees, density, vehicle access, and pets; why can’t individual BPOs choose to have quiet, uninterrupted, use and enjoyment of the property they pay taxes on (not the public)?
I’m guessing bob1 is not moving from the area and neither are 1,193 BPO parcel owners; with the lawful BPO bundle of rights they have had since 1776 and today as recognized by the 2015 Sherriff’s trespass enforcement SOP.
“The only thing different [before FS163.035] is the designation of who is the defendant and who is the plant(i)ff.” That’s an important distinction! The Plaintiff has the Burden of proof to show ancient English common law CU is superior to American Constitutional individual property rights. The Defendant (BPOs) do not have to prove private property is private with all Constitutional bundle of rights. That is the status quo today. The Walton BCC are suing 4,671 BPOs to EXCLUDE their CHOICE to have Constitutional quiet, uninterrupted, enjoyment of their private property and are having to spend tens of thousands of their own money to Defend their rights to CHOOSE.
Jim Tucker if the State of Florida can “limit” public access by charging fees, density, vehicle access, and pets; why can’t individual BPOs choose to have quiet, uninterrupted, use and enjoyment of the property they pay taxes on (not the public)?
I’m guessing bob1 is not moving from the area and neither are 1,193 BPO parcel owners; with the lawful BPO bundle of rights they have had since 1776 and today as recognized by the 2015 Sherriff’s trespass enforcement SOP.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fbb, I love the entertainment value you bring to this forum. I am surprised I have to explain the difference in LIMIT and EXCLUDE. Guess which one of those words allow you to enjoy a desert or to not enjoy a desert? I would rather eat a small piece of pecan pie than none at all at Thanksgiving but at least my doctor agrees with you and says to exclude the pies 
. If the park has a limit on how many people can enjoy the park then I trust them with that power. You however I do not because you are mad as a hatter at having to share the beach enjoyment. I know for a fact that you are not very "agreeable". Just kidding you. You could be a very happy person but I have not seen that side yet...
I have read many of the documents of evidence that the BCC has included in the affirmation process. Neither you or I know what the good Judge will do but if he throws out all those documents I think he would have to answer to a higher court. The BCC does not have to prove which laws are superior only the evidence to support the declaration of public customary recreational use is ancient, uninterrupted, reasonable and without dispute. Easy peasy. Just kidding you again. Nothing is cheap or easy in a court of law.
Jim I would like to answer that question. State Parks cost money to maintain so Fbb please share (I know that is a bad word for you) with us how you maintain the beach sand. Also, Remember that one of your associates stated that the beach sand is not Realestate. Do you agree or disagree?
If you believe that something happened in 1776 that gave you exclusive enjoyment of beach sand then I have some land down in Mexico that I would like to sell you. If you were living in 1776 and were female or black or Native American where were was that bundle of rights?!? Or maybe I have an infected blanket that I will sell you...no I will give you the blanket. You sound like an adult white male that has enjoyed way more entitlement than you deserve. I know that because I am one also. I will not assume that you have not worked hard in your life for the things you want but there are many people who have worked hard and are not rewarded equally with the same effort. It is a fact...
. If the park has a limit on how many people can enjoy the park then I trust them with that power. You however I do not because you are mad as a hatter at having to share the beach enjoyment. I know for a fact that you are not very "agreeable". Just kidding you. You could be a very happy person but I have not seen that side yet...I have read many of the documents of evidence that the BCC has included in the affirmation process. Neither you or I know what the good Judge will do but if he throws out all those documents I think he would have to answer to a higher court. The BCC does not have to prove which laws are superior only the evidence to support the declaration of public customary recreational use is ancient, uninterrupted, reasonable and without dispute. Easy peasy. Just kidding you again. Nothing is cheap or easy in a court of law.
Jim I would like to answer that question. State Parks cost money to maintain so Fbb please share (I know that is a bad word for you) with us how you maintain the beach sand. Also, Remember that one of your associates stated that the beach sand is not Realestate. Do you agree or disagree?
If you believe that something happened in 1776 that gave you exclusive enjoyment of beach sand then I have some land down in Mexico that I would like to sell you. If you were living in 1776 and were female or black or Native American where were was that bundle of rights?!? Or maybe I have an infected blanket that I will sell you...no I will give you the blanket
. You sound like an adult white male that has enjoyed way more entitlement than you deserve. I know that because I am one also. I will not assume that you have not worked hard in your life for the things you want but there are many people who have worked hard and are not rewarded equally with the same effort. It is a fact...Well you got to control the planning commission and the BCC - the business and development people own it. And then you control the TDC and can sepnd money on something other than advertising. There are state laws that specify how you spend tourist tax dollars but you can bend funds how you want if you have the power.
DanaMarie, I agree with you completely about over-development and the problems it is causing. It is a reasonable cause for beach over crowding but I would not agree with customary use as being a contributory factor. If you follow the money it will take you straight toward the influences that big developers have over the system. I will stand with you on this issue. However I do not see in any possible way that customary use is a factor. People have always loved and enjoy the beach and always will. I owe it to future generations of my family and friends to stand up for public recreational use of these beaches. I can disagree with you on private exclusive enjoyment of the beach and agree with you on over development, vending and beach behavior. Is this a breakthrough moment
mputnal,
I purposely did not respond to your last few replies to me because they were rude and I was tired of listening to your monologues, since the intention of my posts has been dialogue. I am tired of your lectures and condescension, as if you are morally superior and more intelligent. I am tired of you using a post of mine to reply to and then launching into the same old political diatribe. Most of all, I am tired of you putting words in my mouth just so you can disagree with a statement I did not actually make. I did NOT say CU contributed to the current overcrowding. When the Ordinance was in effect and before it was repealed, CU might have been a contributing factor, but I didn’t say that, because I don’t know if it is true or not.
If you actually read what I wrote you will see that I was talking about future capacity and future development. If developers can advertise free use of private beaches to the owners and renters of large non-beach developments, they’ll get higher sales prices and higher rental rates. That’s a fact. Higher sales prices and higher rental rates means more developments will be financially feasible and more will be built. That’s a fact.
So, please don’t put words in my mouth or take them out of context just so you can agree or disagree with me. And, BTW, none of my posts have been directed at you or even mentioned your name except those where you replied to a post of mine. So please go argue with someone else.
I purposely did not respond to your last few replies to me because they were rude and I was tired of listening to your monologues, since the intention of my posts has been dialogue. I am tired of your lectures and condescension, as if you are morally superior and more intelligent. I am tired of you using a post of mine to reply to and then launching into the same old political diatribe. Most of all, I am tired of you putting words in my mouth just so you can disagree with a statement I did not actually make. I did NOT say CU contributed to the current overcrowding. When the Ordinance was in effect and before it was repealed, CU might have been a contributing factor, but I didn’t say that, because I don’t know if it is true or not.
If you actually read what I wrote you will see that I was talking about future capacity and future development. If developers can advertise free use of private beaches to the owners and renters of large non-beach developments, they’ll get higher sales prices and higher rental rates. That’s a fact. Higher sales prices and higher rental rates means more developments will be financially feasible and more will be built. That’s a fact.
So, please don’t put words in my mouth or take them out of context just so you can agree or disagree with me. And, BTW, none of my posts have been directed at you or even mentioned your name except those where you replied to a post of mine. So please go argue with someone else.
DanaMarie, I guess that means there was no breakthrough moment . Because I respect you and your opinions I will not respond to what I consider a bit of hypocrisy on your part and an inability to recognize your own rudeness. I am not offended by your words because I believe you are entitled to your opinions and I have learned to have thick skin. I tend to agree with you on my tiresome lectures and monologues. There is no new information coming from any of us. Why we keep posting the same stuff over and over again is a mystery. I generally respond to those who reference something I said or use my name especially when they twist my words. I much rather enjoy trying to find common ground with people and that is why I responded to your post at all. BTW I am not superior in any category of life. That is a fact
. Because I respect you and your opinions I will not respond to what I consider a bit of hypocrisy on your part and an inability to recognize your own rudeness. I am not offended by your words because I believe you are entitled to your opinions and I have learned to have thick skin. I tend to agree with you on my tiresome lectures and monologues. There is no new information coming from any of us. Why we keep posting the same stuff over and over again is a mystery. I generally respond to those who reference something I said or use my name especially when they twist my words. I much rather enjoy trying to find common ground with people and that is why I responded to your post at all. BTW I am not superior in any category of life. That is a fact Mputnal,
There it is with the name calling again. First you accused me of being disrespectful and now you accuse me of hypocrisy. Really? Yes, my last post was rude. I never said it wasn’t. It was in response to the last several rude posts of yours that I did not respond to, hoping you’d back off your high horse and leave me alone, but you didn’t so guess what, I finally responded. Nothing hypocritical about it. I can define Hypocrite for you, but I am sure you can look it up yourself. If you want to have a breakthrough and work with others who may agree on some issues (but not on others) then stop the personal attacks and name calling.
There it is with the name calling again. First you accused me of being disrespectful and now you accuse me of hypocrisy. Really? Yes, my last post was rude. I never said it wasn’t. It was in response to the last several rude posts of yours that I did not respond to, hoping you’d back off your high horse and leave me alone, but you didn’t so guess what, I finally responded. Nothing hypocritical about it. I can define Hypocrite for you, but I am sure you can look it up yourself. If you want to have a breakthrough and work with others who may agree on some issues (but not on others) then stop the personal attacks and name calling.
DanaMarie, If you do not see the hypocrisy in what you are posting then I am not going to argue with you. Thank you for admitting to your rudeness. No apology necessary. BTW being rude is not exactly what I would call respectful behavior but maybe I am just riding along on my high horse I absolutely agree with you on personal attacks and name calling. There is no good reason why that is appropriate behavior no matter what side you are on. This thread is full of bad behavior on both sides and I think we probably agree on that as well. My grandmother taught me to not say anything if I can't say something good about someone. I can hear her tell me that now is a good time to practice that wisdom. So, here it is: Thank you for speaking up on what you believe to be fair and reasonable on the issue of public recreational beach enjoyment versus private exclusive beach enjoyment. Your voice is important! I have actually learned a lot and I respect every bfo and the problems we are having with crowding, vending and behavior on the beach. I sincerely hope and wish that we all come together and find solutions and compromises so that we all can enjoy the beaches forever. The End (of another monologue)
I absolutely agree with you on personal attacks and name calling. There is no good reason why that is appropriate behavior no matter what side you are on. This thread is full of bad behavior on both sides and I think we probably agree on that as well. My grandmother taught me to not say anything if I can't say something good about someone. I can hear her tell me that now is a good time to practice that wisdom. So, here it is: Thank you for speaking up on what you believe to be fair and reasonable on the issue of public recreational beach enjoyment versus private exclusive beach enjoyment. Your voice is important! I have actually learned a lot and I respect every bfo and the problems we are having with crowding, vending and behavior on the beach. I sincerely hope and wish that we all come together and find solutions and compromises so that we all can enjoy the beaches forever. The End (of another monologue) 
If you think that "free use of private beach" is what drove prices to what they are and that is what is keeping non-beach development prices so high you need to go read sales ads from about 25 years ago to present. You will see that when realtors started advertising "private beach" and "private beach access" is when the development of this area got out of hand. But as JimmyT said that horse is out of the barn and now we have a bunch of newcomers that should be taking that up with the realtor that sold them on that so they could drive the prices through the roof. Back in "the boom" more people in Florida had real estate licenses than had drivers licenses and not all of them were/are fine upstanding people. Most people move to a beach thinking they will be able to actually go to the beach without having to navigate a sea of "no trespassing" signs.