Private Beaches in South Walton - Customary Use Updates & SB1622

[leeboy]

1. Value Beach by the value of mining and selling the sand.
2. Messy
3. I wish government was that flexible.
4. Don't we already have areas that are critical?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

1. Value Beach by the value of mining and selling the sand.
2. Messy
3. I wish government was that flexible.
4. Don't we already have areas that are critical?

1. Cute, but value beach based on court outcome when the county executes eminent domain.
2. Not disagreeing with "Messy" but it is a possibility.
3. Me too. They are, however, flexible enough to buy property at a premium and sell it on the cheap to insiders (ring a bell?).
4. Bingo! What is the definition of critically eroded anyway? The beaches have significantly built back up naturally since the 2004-2005 hurricanes. Sorry, but I have a tough time buying into the DEP definition of critical erosion now that legislation is apparently focusing on forced nourishment of beaches, again, based on DEP's definition. It doesn't smell right.

 

[mputnal]

To reaffirm my previous comment:

CU is dead.

However there are other ways the county could have addressed the lack of public beach:

1. PAY for it, as previously mentioned, via eminent domain but only on strategically located properties. The biggest question would be how much $$$. How does one value the sandy part of the beach that is connected to upland private property? The county could try a pilot case in court to see how it works out.

2. On appropriate parcels, the county could work out a compromise with willing beach front owners where the public could use private beach in exchange for lower taxes or some other annual compensation. BTW, I mentioned this years and years ago that the back half of the beach was lightly used and that maybe in exchange for compensation, private property owners would let the public use this part of the beach. Mike Huckabee even suggested a similar measure when he was part of a committee to try to come to some compromise. Dave Rauschkolb would have none of it - "ALL OR NONE" and "NO COMPROMISE". He said it reminded him of "go to the back of the bus" days. So right now, the public has none.

3. The county could buy beach front properties and retitle the sandy beach part as public. Then they could resell the beach front property for close to what they paid for it.

4. Or they can just wait. A large enough hurricane will eventually come through that will REDEFINE the DEP's slanted definition of "Critically Eroded". At that point, I'm guessing beach front owners will throw in the towel and settle for beach nourishment and the demise of squeaky white sugar beaches.

I do not think you would like the results from Eminent Domain. The lawsuits would not be fun for anyone involved. Trust me. I like No. 2. Unfortunately No. 4 is a real possiblity. Please do not believe anything MH suggested in this forum or in the news or anywhere else. He wanted no part of any compromise. Trust me.

 

[Truman]

When I see waves licking the dunes in a few places in South Walton after a few hours of 20mph SE wind is that critical?

 

[mputnal]

When I see waves licking the dunes in a few places in South Walton after a few hours of 20mph SE wind is that critical?

Absolutely critical Yes! Climate changes are bringing more tornado's, stronger thunderstorms and intense hurricanes. All these will affect beach erosion. Some people will forever be in denial but climate change is a fact. We will need global cooperation to decrease the affects of climate change. Our leadership at the moment is unconcerned.

 

[Jane]

Absolutely critical Yes! Climate changes are bringing more tornado's, stronger thunderstorms and intense hurricanes. All these will affect beach erosion. Some people will forever be in denial but climate change is a fact. We will need global cooperation to decrease the affects of climate change. Our leadership at the moment is unconcerned.

Erasing science. Unbelievable.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I do not think you would like the results from Eminent Domain. The lawsuits would not be fun for anyone involved. Trust me. I like No. 2. Unfortunately No. 4 is a real possiblity. Please do not believe anything MH suggested in this forum or in the news or anywhere else. He wanted no part of any compromise. Trust me.

"I do not think you would like the results from Eminent Domain."

Are you saying that if my property was acquired by eminent domain that I would not like the result? That would obviously be a personal matter on my part. But looking at the big picture from public beach access and the beach economy standpoints, eminent domain (again selective parcels) makes the most sense.

IMO, the actual legal process of eminent domain would be immensely cheaper than what the county pissed away on customary use. But the actual settled upon price (in court) for a particular eminent domain taking is what needs to be tested to establish viability.

The real issue is that the county, from my understanding, is sitting on tens of millions of dollars earmarked for beach nourishment that cannot be used for any other purpose. Logically, nourishment makes the most sense from the aspect of expanding public access. But as mentioned, I don't know if the county and state can FORCE nourishment without the upland property owner's permission. Again, this is the next legal battlefield, IMO.


"He wanted no part of any compromise. Trust me."

I don't buy that Huckabee wanted no part of any compromise. But for CERTAIN, neither did Dave Rauschkolb and his cohorts (remember the Grim Reaper, Daniel Uhlfelder?).

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

When I see waves licking the dunes in a few places in South Walton after a few hours of 20mph SE wind is that critical?

The state parks in our area also have dunes. Yet they are not considered critically eroded based on the FDEP critical erosion map. Why is that?

 

[James Bentwood]

The state parks in our area also have dunes. Yet they are not considered critically eroded based on the FDEP critical erosion map. Why is that?

Because they don't have seawalls, geotubes, and houses built on their dunes?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Because they don't have seawalls, geotubes, and houses built on their dunes?

That's not the reason they don't consider state parks critically eroded, in my opinion. The county gains NOTHING by nourishing the state park beaches as they already are owned by the State of Florida and available to the public. They could care less if the beach recedes at those locations.

But let's assume that your comment is the case. The "seawalls, geotubes and houses" belong to the beachfront private property owners. Wouldn't it be up to those people to decide if they feel the need for extra protection and then want the government to modify their property via nourishment? Why should the government care if the private property owner does not?

To debate this topic would be ingenuous as we all know the ONLY reason the county wants to nourish the beach is to gain control of the added beach and make it public. And the private property owners do not want to lose their existing control and rights of the beach, ESPECIALLY where it meets the water for obvious reasons. Everyone wants a front row seat at the water when comes to chair placement.

The county DESPERATELY needs more public beach.

Perhaps the legal conditions of beach nourishment could be modified a bit somewhere along the lines that the upland property owner maintain some kind of control / exclusivity near the water's edge, say 25 feet, again for the "front row seat" aspect, similar to the CU settlement on certain parcels. But the public would have access to the rest of the beach, INCLUDING north of the ECL (the existing part of the sandy beach before nourishment). That's quite a bit of beach.

And if the beach were to erode to the ECL, the county would have to re-nourish the beach to maintain the public's access, exactly as it is now with nourished beaches.

I believe that could be a happy median from the public's viewpoint compared to no access at all. And it would be more palatable for the beach front owner.

IMO, because CU left such a bad taste in their mouths, BFOs will fight beach nourishment with everything they've got unless a concession similar to the above is made - OR until we are directly hit with a major hurricane and the beach is truly wiped out, not just deemed "critically eroded".