Private Beaches in South Walton - Customary Use Updates & SB1622

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I am not sure what your true purpose is on this subject.

Pretty obvious, based on your rambling posts.

 

[mputnal]

Pretty obvious, based on your rambling posts.

What is your true purpose on this subject? Not trying to ramble. Just want an honest answer. I really want to understand what motivates you to continue down this path of resistance to public beaches for all people to enjoy. For example is it people you fear? Is it government you fear? Just what is it that causes you to spend so much time on this. You try so hard to keep BFO's angry. Is that your purpose?

 

[JuridicBeach]

Here's a link I saw on FB (click here).

Below is an excerpt that sticks out in my mind:

The Corps, the government agency in charge of playing in such big sandboxes, always claims they’re “saving” the beach from disappearing. They aren’t, says Orrin Pilkey, a Duke University geology professor who’s an expert on beaches and barrier islands.

“We’re just saving a lot of people’s investments,” he told me.


A big issue is that between the county with about 60 million dollars and the state/federal willing to match that, the government has a pile of money burning holes in their pockets that, supposedly, can't be used for anything else. And, of course, you have the "majority mentality" as well as developers, who want to develop tons of off beach property with beach access guarantees, exerting influence on the commissioners. Heck, if I was a commissioner, I'd probably push for nourishment as well, only to make my core constituency happy. But trying to make the majority happy doesn't necessarily translate to the best decision - remember CU litigation?

In my previous posts I have made at least two absolute claims regarding Blue Mountain Beach and Walton County beaches in general:
1. The beach has naturally accreted, not eroded, since the back to back hurricanes of 2004 and 2005;
2. Most beach front owners, the ones nourishment is supposed to benefit, do not want beach nourishment, i.e. they do not feel "their investments need saving" at the moment via nourishment.

So the reality comes down to this: beach nourishment is only a guise to create more public beach (only the added part). And based on the article, and as I have mentioned in a previous post, if the added beach eroded away by a hurricane, the public would then be legally LOCKED OUT from going to the beach (where ECLs were established) until another beach nourishment is performed. That scenario would be a disaster, especially from a public relations / law enforcement points of view. "What do you mean we can't go to the beach?? The nourishment project made all the beach public!!" Again, if the nourished beach south of the ECL washes away, it's all private again. And then the county would have to come up with "60" MORE MILLION DOLLARS for a follow up nourishment project. How long do you think that would take?

Nobody touting nourishment wants to admit to the above, but the situation could very realistically happen. That's why I mentioned in a previous post that the county should acquire beach property next and near to public accesses via eminent domain. There would still be public access in that scenario.

I know the county will push for beach nourishment. So we'll just have to wait to see how it all plays out, especially after a major hurricane hits, post nourishment.

You’re dumb. It wouldn’t make public beaches disappear. The mean high tide water line would still exist… it would just be further away. Anything under that line is public whether you like it or not. Public beaches and sea access have a strong historical precedent in common law. It’s not gonna change now after thousands of years just because of you and your dumb ass friends’s entitlement and greed.

May Jesus protect us from greedy prideful people. Jesus is coming back soon. Stop wasting your time on useless debate about God’s green Earth or white sand shall I say. Repent and read your Bible. You’re acting super unbiblical it’s embarrassing.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Hey @mputnal ,

Why don't you give your twin brother, @JuridicBeach , a lesson on humanity and all?

Oh, sorry. I guess you'd self destruct, truth be known.

Gosh, I've had posts deleted by SoWal for 0.1% of the vitriol contained in the previous post.

It's obviously a new day.

 

[bob1]

Hey @mputnal ,

Why don't you give your twin brother, @JuridicBeach , a lesson on humanity and all?

Oh, sorry. I guess you'd self destruct, truth be known.

Gosh, I've had posts deleted by SoWal for 0.1% of the vitriol contained in the previous post.

It's obviously a new day.

You are super duper unbiblical.

 

[mputnal]

Hey @mputnal ,

Why don't you give your twin brother, @JuridicBeach , a lesson on humanity and all?

Oh, sorry. I guess you'd self destruct, truth be known.

Gosh, I've had posts deleted by SoWal for 0.1% of the vitriol contained in the previous post.

It's obviously a new day.

Goodness you are so paranoid about people. If this other poster was my twin brother I would be proud but I would tell them to tone it down just a bit even though I agree. It is not very hard to get frustrated at your incessant complaining about being a victim of people and government trying to take something away from you. Cry me a river! I have actually tried to understand you, tried to communicate respectfully and tried to reason with you. I am also dumb. You have disconnected from humanity and I am just wasting my time. You have so much fear and for some reason consider yourself as a victim. You are no victim my friend. Your time and my time is limited on this good earth. We both have won the lottery by having life on this beautiful planet with amazing resources like our beach. You are not going to be able to take it with you when you leave this good planet so what is your problem really? Why not enjoy your time here instead of being fearful and angry at so many good people just trying to enjoy a few hours at the beach when you have it all day and every day.

I may even disagree with my twin brother a bit. I prefer Jesus to help the starving children instead of you or me. I think my twin brother has found it difficult to turn the other cheek and I do relate

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

You have so much fear and for some reason consider yourself as a victim.

Boy, that's rich.

Do you have ANY constructive comments regarding beach nourishment vs. eminent domain?

Both achieve public beach.

I've simply expressed my opinion ON THE SUBJECT AT HAND.

Why do you continually and personally attack me instead of the issue at hand? But I guess this question just adds fuel to your personal bonfire.

 

[SUP View]

Boy, that's rich.

Do you have ANY constructive comments regarding beach nourishment vs. eminent domain?

Both achieve public beach.

I've simply expressed my opinion ON THE SUBJECT AT HAND.

Why do you continually and personally attack me instead of the issue at hand? But I guess this question just adds fuel to your personal bonfire.

Since there are so many that struggle understanding, or accepting, the facts of beach front property owner's rights, maybe a basic example will help.

Let's say that currently the beaches are wide open to everyone in Walton County. No private beach property. But Walton County has a shortfall in funds to properly operate and support the needs of citizens in the county. So they decide that starting Jan 1, 2026, any Walton County beachfront property purchased will include the beach area to the MHWL as the private property of that buyer - now owner.

Where would the displeasure and anger be directed at that point? The people who purchased any of said properties? Or possibly the county administrators that made this decision? Who would be "blamed" for this happening?

Because that is exactly what happened 60+ years ago in Walton County.

And what kind of person do you have to be to blame and vilify those that purchased these properties?

I have found it interesting that so many have blamed the "rich beach front owners" which is actually a VERY small percentage of the BFO's. I don't read many comments about the Sandestin Hilton, Adagio, or the Watercolor Inn as being "greedy" BFO's. Why is that?

Maybe the people who refuse to accept facts like these would be happier in Seattle or possibly NYC when they both come under local government rule.

 

[Jenksy]

Maybe the people who refuse to accept facts like these would be happier in Seattle or possibly NYC when they both come under local government rule.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I don't read many comments about the Sandestin Hilton, Adagio, or the Watercolor Inn as being "greedy" BFO's. Why is that?

Inconvenient truths - that's why.

And don't forget Alys Beach, Rosemary Beach, Seaside, Watersound, Bella Vita, White Cliffs, and multitudes of other multi-unit gulf front HOAs.

I'm just an easy target for the wrath of the mob majority as I have been for many, many years, here, on SoWal. Through people like me, people like @mputnal try to impose their personal beliefs WITHOUT any factual or logical debate. It's just a worn out record that's played over and over without any real civil discourse... "greed", "humanity", etc. The real issues are never addressed because they truly don't have any facts supporting their "feelings". So they resort to personal attacks. It's simply juvenile.

I can't wait for @mputnal (or anyone else) to state his opinions on nourishment vs. eminent domain without a personal attack.