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

SUP View

Beach Lover
Jul 22, 2019
51
43
Above Water
Interesting release from Congressional Research Service. Crash course on Federal Law regarding Constitutional protections for private property owners in context of COVID-19 taking. I am not going to even pretend to act like I am an authority on legal matters, but, it sounds to me that this lawsuit's outcome hinges on whether or not the local government has recognized police power to temporarily close the beach, some of which is private dry sand. Good reading regardless.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10434


Thank you for posting this and the link. Beyond the "legal" position or interpretation, it would be a nice change to have the county officials use some common sense. As stated, you can go in your backyard, i.e. on your "grassy" area, but can't walk 10 feet to the sand that is part of your property.

Talk about the proverbial "line in the sand".

But you can go on the sand that is associated with the bay. You can't surf or paddle in the GOM, but you can in the bay. ?????

I could understand closing the GOM to water enthusiasts if the reason was no lifeguards are allowed to be on the sand and offer their assistance. I may have missed this part if that is the position of the county.

It is also somewhat laughable that there are those "piling on" Mike Huckabee because of his legal action to access his own property. An easy path taken by the party of hate and hypocrisy these days. These same folks seem to have NO PROBLEM with the WCC group spending MILLIONS of OUR MONEY on legal action that really was not necessary. As a point of reference, Mr. Huckabee was the reasonable voice in the room during a "town hall" meeting on Customary Use when he suggested working toward a compromise and resolution. He had NO takers from the CU side.

I join ALL property owners that stand firm to control and use their respective land in a manner that is respectful of the law and their fellow neighbors.
 

bob1

Beach Fanatic
Jun 26, 2010
530
523
Thank you for posting this and the link. Beyond the "legal" position or interpretation, it would be a nice change to have the county officials use some common sense. As stated, you can go in your backyard, i.e. on your "grassy" area, but can't walk 10 feet to the sand that is part of your property.

Talk about the proverbial "line in the sand".

But you can go on the sand that is associated with the bay. You can't surf or paddle in the GOM, but you can in the bay. ?????

I could understand closing the GOM to water enthusiasts if the reason was no lifeguards are allowed to be on the sand and offer their assistance. I may have missed this part if that is the position of the county.

It is also somewhat laughable that there are those "piling on" Mike Huckabee because of his legal action to access his own property. An easy path taken by the party of hate and hypocrisy these days. These same folks seem to have NO PROBLEM with the WCC group spending MILLIONS of OUR MONEY on legal action that really was not necessary. As a point of reference, Mr. Huckabee was the reasonable voice in the room during a "town hall" meeting on Customary Use when he suggested working toward a compromise and resolution. He had NO takers from the CU side.

I join ALL property owners that stand firm to control and use their respective land in a manner that is respectful of the law and their fellow neighbors.
When beaches are open, tourists flock here. Simple concept. Too complex for you and the Huckster.
 

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,305
386
Back to the subject at hand, Sheriff Adkinson at the very end of today's Q&A session regarding the closure of the beaches and the short term rental ban, stated the following:

"I don't see them holding it past May 1st."

I'm pretty sure the sheriff initially recommended the closure of private beach to EACH commissioner on an individual basis.

So, why on G-d's green earth, would the sheriff and the BCC implement such an order that they knew would be HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL when there would be a high possibility that the beaches could open in a matter of a very few weeks anyway?

And PLEASE keep in mind, ALL the beaches were practically empty because of the short term rental ban BEFORE they closed the private beach as I personally observed East and West for a mile. This overreaction (IMHO) was highly influenced by those who complained that they could not be on the beach, so the private beach front owner should suffer as well trying to use their own private property.

That's exactly how I see it and believe many others see it as well, i.e. resulting in the filing of the lawsuit.

Now, I saw where a sheriff in Michigan had the guts to state that he would NOT enforce some of the governor's orders where he was convinced were outside the oath he took to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution - a little Mutiny on the Bounty. That genuinely brightened my day. And yes he's also elected.

I don't envy Sheriff Adkinson's duties in these trying times and believe he is genuinely trying to do the right thing. But when he keeps reiterating that he and his deputies will be reasonable for the main purpose to keep us safe, but then threatens "me" with arrest because 5 commissioners deemed it so (if I desire to sit on my own private property all by my lonesome), well there appears to be a lot if inconsistency.

Yep, one can drive through the liquor store, congregate at church, go to "free standing" gyms, go to Home Depot and purchase BBQ grills, go to Walmart and buy whatever, have up to 10 friends go to your bay front lot and swim / paddle board / fish, even congregate 10 people in a single boat, build homes, remodel decks, paint, etc.

If I wasn't so paranoid, I'd think they were singling out beach front owners. Can't imagine why.

Stay safe.
 
Last edited:

Bob Wells

Beach Fanatic
Jul 25, 2008
3,380
2,857
If my backyard or frontyard were to become a hotbed of tourism activity and the county decided to close it for the general welfare of the citizens and to discourage tourism and the spread of this virus, then so be it.
 

bob1

Beach Fanatic
Jun 26, 2010
530
523
Back to the subject at hand, Sheriff Adkinson at the very end of today's Q&A session regarding the closure of the beaches and the short term rental ban, stated the following:

"I don't see them holding it past May 1st."

I'm pretty sure the sheriff initially recommended the closure of private beach to EACH commissioner on an individual basis.

So, why on G-d's green earth, would the sheriff and the BCC implement such an order that they knew would be HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL when there would be a high possibility that the beaches could open in a matter of a very few weeks anyway?

And PLEASE keep in mind, ALL the beaches were practically empty because of the short term rental ban BEFORE they closed the private beach as I personally observed East and West for a mile. This overreaction (IMHO) was highly influenced by those who complained that they could not be on the beach, so the private beach front owner should suffer as well trying to use their own private property.

That's exactly how I see it and believe many others see it as well, i.e. resulting in the filing of the lawsuit.

Now, I saw where a sheriff in Michigan had the guts to state that he would NOT enforce some of the governor's orders where he was convinced were outside the oath he took to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution - a little Mutiny on the Bounty. That genuinely brightened my day. And yes he's also elected.

I don't envy Sheriff Adkinson's duties in these trying times and believe he is genuinely trying to do the right thing. But when he keeps reiterating that he and his deputies will be reasonable for the main purpose to keep us safe, but then threatens "me" with arrest because 5 commissioners deemed it so (if I desire to sit on my own private property all by my lonesome), well there appears to be a lot if inconsistency.

Yep, one can drive through the liquor store, congregate at church, go to "free standing" gyms, go to Home Depot and purchase BBQ grills, go to Walmart and buy whatever, have up to 10 friends go to your bay front lot and swim / paddle board / fish, even congregate 10 people in a single boat, build homes, remodel decks, paint, etc.

If I wasn't so paranoid, I'd think they were singling out beach front owners. Can't imagine why.

Stay safe.
Have you never seen TV or a movie?

The evil landowners must install their own Sheriff in order to subjugate the common man. Until then you can continue the whine and cheese party and enriching your lawyers.
 

SUP View

Beach Lover
Jul 22, 2019
51
43
Above Water
Have you never seen TV or a movie?

The evil landowners must install their own Sheriff in order to subjugate the common man. Until then you can continue the whine and cheese party and enriching your lawyers.

bitter1 oh, bob1

The last few weeks on 30A, the walks and paths are full of people getting exercise and most are adhering to the social distance requirement, but not all. Hard to control all of that from a common sense standpoint.

But if all of the congregating on the 30A paths is acceptable, what is the problem if the "evil beach front owners" walk out their back door, cross the demarcation point, and put their feet in the sand that they own? All the while practicing the social distance guidelines. Maybe that makes too much sense for some to grasp.
 

bob1

Beach Fanatic
Jun 26, 2010
530
523
bitter1 oh, bob1

The last few weeks on 30A, the walks and paths are full of people getting exercise and most are adhering to the social distance requirement, but not all. Hard to control all of that from a common sense standpoint.

But if all of the congregating on the 30A paths is acceptable, what is the problem if the "evil beach front owners" walk out their back door, cross the demarcation point, and put their feet in the sand that they own? All the while practicing the social distance guidelines. Maybe that makes too much sense for some to grasp.
Sorry you can't always get your way. Keep stamping your feet and acting indignant instead of being a good example for public health.

Sorry people aren't who you want them to be. Tourists are barely held in check, ready to invade. Is that what you want? If they see people on the beach (you) at all they will come. We already have tourists and 2nd homeowners traveling here. Apparently there is an entire segment of the population who thinks restrictions are a communist plot. Is that you?
 

SUP View

Beach Lover
Jul 22, 2019
51
43
Above Water
Sorry you can't always get your way. Keep stamping your feet and acting indignant instead of being a good example for public health.

Sorry people aren't who you want them to be. Tourists are barely held in check, ready to invade. Is that what you want? If they see people on the beach (you) at all they will come. We already have tourists and 2nd homeowners traveling here. Apparently there is an entire segment of the population who thinks restrictions are a communist plot. Is that you?

Get my way? Ouch.

My wife and I have had our four family groups cancel their visits for all of April and May and reschedule later this summer. All as a result of not being able to go on our property. In a very small way, this hurts the local restaurants for additional pick-up meals and that would have been made, etc.... gas, groceries, hardware store items, etc....

We will continue to abide by the directive handed down by the county. Never have any intention of doing anything to the contrary.

Regardless of the constitutional violation or lack of clear thought by the county.

And it's "stomping" not "stamping".

Try some decaf - that could be a good start.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter