Sanctuary at Redfish

...... to my knowledge, the County cannot station a lifeguard on property being claimed as private, at least until the courts decide. In Sept 07, the Gulf Front property owners, to the east of 83 public access, recorded deeds stating that they owned the beach. I guess the interior lot owners haven't realized it yet, because they have not filed suit against them yet, claiming their own rights to it, due to abandonment for more than 20 years. If they did so and won, the general public would also stand an excellent chance of winning any trespass charges on that beach as well, because the evidence would show that the public has been using that beach forever.

SJ, more of the "quick and loose" with the keyboard??

You said, "I guess the interior lot owners haven't realized it yet, because they have not filed suit against them yet, claiming their own rights to it, due to abandonment for more than 20 years."

The interior lot owners at Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision have full rights to the wet and dry sandy areas of the beach and therefore have no need to "file suit" as you suggest.

I stand corrected.

From instrument # 1011222 filed in September, 2007: "....will not interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of said beach area by any owner of property in Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision No. 1."






EDIT: "You stand corrected" because you found the snapshot of the above instrument in my photo files and just had to post it before I could finish the above post. Just so everyone understands who is correcting who or whom or whomever or whatever.

"You stand corrected" because you found the snapshot of the above instrument in my photo files and just had to post it before I could finish the above post. Just so everyone understands who is correcting who or whom or whomever or whatever.

oh my!

That is correct. I was just wandering why you would post the comment but not the image showing what you were saying. Since you didn't post it, I thought I would.

Although it is a different subject than Sanctuary at Redfish, that corrective deed is interestingly filed in 2007, when the developer's company dissolved many years ago. It could be argued that that due to the absence of a claim to the property for more than twenty years, it was abandoned.

That is correct. I was just wandering why you would post the comment but not the image showing what you were saying. Since you didn't post it, I thought I would.

Because I was hoping for once (just hoping) that you would believe something I posted without me having to go to the damn official records website each time.

But since you challenged me again, I was forced to get an image of the "proof" you seem always need from me at 9:59am today. Then while I was typing a reply to your post and getting ready to include "my" snapshot, you grab the snapshot without any acknowledgement from where it came from - a typical SJ CYA. Note the times of the two posts are the same.

SJ, you originally generated post #128 at 9:04am where you call me out forceing me to defend my statement with proof in a manner that I have become accustomed to with you.

Then right after I took the "snapshot" at 9:59am, you cleared out your post #128 and inserted my image in your post knowing you screwed up (again). The updated time on your edit was 10:19am.

You really seemed to be in a hurry to beat me to my own point. Probably doesn't look as bad....right?

Next time, why don't you leave the original "meat of the matter" in your post, THEN "...stand corrected"?

If it was just an honest mistake, that's one thing. But the original tone you exhibited (and you know what I'm taliking about), well....

I don't know what's worse...you pissing on me or me pissing back on you.
.
.
.

I don't know what's worse...you pissing on me or me pissing back on you.

Or adults acting like kids who missed their nap time! :roll:

You really seemed to be in a hurry to beat me to my own point. Probably doesn't look as bad....right?

Next time, why don't you leave the original "meat of the matter" in your post, THEN "...stand corrected"?

If it was just an honest mistake, that's one thing. But the original tone you exhibited (and you know what I'm taliking about), well....

I don't know what's worse...you pissing on me or me pissing back on you.
.
.
.

I just happened to notice the pic in the photo albums for the day. I could really care less of when what was posted. The only thing I was quick to do was to post the error which I made after seeing the image you posted. Read into whatever you want. I guess that you don't see my statement, "I stand corrected," as I was incorrect and acknowledge that you are correct. I'm not sure how you want me to better say that.

I'm not sure if I can ask an "innocent and sincere" question on this thread,but here goes...

I heard recently (last week maybe) on the local news "fill-in" portion of the NPR morning news that the US Army Corps of Engineers was working on a feasibility study (with input from Walton Co TDC) for beach re-nourishment for Walton County beaches between Topsail Preserve and Seagrove (I think) due to beach erosion. IF this is true AND they actually spend the $40 to $60 million that they are currently planning what affect does this have on the Public vs. Private dilemma? I know how this was addressed in Okaloosa Co and Walton Co up to Topsail, at least I think I know. Does that represent legal precedence?

As a matter of disclaimer: I live in Blue Mountain Beach and frequented the contested area this past Summer, we moved here June 1, 2007. I didn't hear of the Public vs. Private debate until October, and after hearing of it I was always respectful of the wet sand line as I would jog from the Co Rd 83 access to the East to the Redfish Lake outflow. No one ever seemed overly interested that I was there and I usually said good morning to those that I saw - if I wasn't out of breath.

I have a conflicting opinion on this issue. A) I have strong Libertarian beliefs that lead me to advocate for private property rights and see a very narrow window for eminent domain seizures if any window at all. B) The concept of owning THE (emphasis added in sarcasm) Beach has never occurred to me previous to moving here. I guess (maybe) I can see a difference in owning lake front real estate that has limited movement in the water/land line (discounting the recent drought conditions in many areas) and the Gulf/Ocean front real estate that is in a constant state of movement. For example, in my beach jogging excursions this Summer and Fall I noticed that the "white sand" area of the beach moved more than 25 feet inland in some areas due to erosion. I can also find many examples of the courts finding "abandonment" with similar scenarios of long term usage by the public. How many times has the property owner added sand? How many times has the government? Whose sand is there now? It's all too ambiguous.

All that said I truly am an "innocent" bystander... at least I was.

And I really want the thoughts of others on what happens if the COE and TDC re-nourish THE Beach.

Bob, if I remember correctly and can add confusion, Walton County was waiting on 30A due to all of the issues around renourishment. Permitting, legal challenges for "private beaches", turtles, etc.

As for jogging, that has never been the issue. Anyone is free to walk down the beach. Provided they keep moving. Stop and try to set up camp and the men in green come down to get you.

Because I was hoping for once (just hoping) that you would believe something I posted without me having to go to the damn official records website each time.

But since you challenged me again, I was forced to get an image of the "proof" you seem always need from me at 9:59am today. Then while I was typing a reply to your post and getting ready to include "my" snapshot, you grab the snapshot without any acknowledgement from where it came from - a typical SJ CYA. Note the times of the two posts are the same.

SJ, you originally generated post #128 at 9:04am where you call me out forceing me to defend my statement with proof in a manner that I have become accustomed to with you.

Then right after I took the "snapshot" at 9:59am, you cleared out your post #128 and inserted my image in your post knowing you screwed up (again). The updated time on your edit was 10:19am.

You really seemed to be in a hurry to beat me to my own point. Probably doesn't look as bad....right?

Next time, why don't you leave the original "meat of the matter" in your post, THEN "...stand corrected"?

If it was just an honest mistake, that's one thing. But the original tone you exhibited (and you know what I'm taliking about), well....

I don't know what's worse...you pissing on me or me pissing back on you.
.
.
.

I believe all of this was ruled on in Hillary Supporters vs. Obama Supporters in the 1st circuit court of the politics forum.

I heard recently (last week maybe) on the local news "fill-in" portion of the NPR morning news that the US Army Corps of Engineers was working on a feasibility study (with input from Walton Co TDC) for beach re-nourishment for Walton County beaches between Topsail Preserve and Seagrove (I think) due to beach erosion. IF this is true AND they actually spend the $40 to $60 million...

Not to even get into the privatization issue-

Hasn't the beach pretty much renourished itself by now? Sure looks that way down here by Eastern Lake. Why waste the $60M on dredging?

Why not spend the bucks on 4-laning the 331 bridge? Or some other large-scale project that's truly in the public interest.

Yeah, I know, different programs, different agencies, different funding.

But still...

Bob, very good insight and questions. There may be some spirited discussion from both sides, but ultimately as BMBV has indicated previously(I think), it will be up to the courts.

IF this is true AND they actually spend the $40 to $60 million that they are currently planning what affect does this have on the Public vs. Private dilemma? I know how this was addressed in Okaloosa Co and Walton Co up to Topsail, at least I think I know. Does that represent legal precedence?

This has been pretty extensively covered in the papers. The Beach Breeze has had the most comprehensive coverage, but many here do not read it. To make a long story short, the state draws a line in the sand, called the Erosion Control Line or ECL. After renourishment the "new" beach seaward of the ECL becomes public. I would not call it a precedence - it is a statutory requirement. In addition to bed tax money, other public funds are spent on renourishment and so the state has decided it must be public, otherwise it becomes a case of spending huge amounts of tax dollars on private property. Unfortunately in the Miramar Beach area this is being ignored, specifically by Surfside, which has placed two great big signs on the beach, identifying it as private and citing a bogus Florida statute. I spoke to the DEP about this and they agreed there is no question the renourished beach at Surfside is public, but they have no enforcement mechanism to get the signs removed. They have been there since last summer. And I doubt that most people understand the legalities of renourishment, they are probably just intimidated. Also you cannot tell exactly where the ECL is, it is not marked or anything like that.
Furthermore, there is a case before the courts right now in which a few property owners are challenging the whole deal because they do not want a new public beach in front of their private beach. Whatever ruling comes out of that could change the whole ball game.
Which areas exactly would be renourished is pretty much up to the DEP - they have to deem it "critically eroded" and there is criteria for that, hence all the studies and such. It's a long permitting process.
Hope this helps.

One further thought - I think the TDC and the county have been hoping renourishment would solve the public vs private dilemma, it the court case doesn't derail the whole thing or produce some new rules. But IMHO they have dropped the ball by allowing those Surfside signs to remain there.

It is an important subject, so please post private beach posts in the private beaches threads, otherwise, much useful discussion and info goes unseen by people looking for info on it.

It is an important subject, so please post private beach posts in the private beaches threads, otherwise, much useful discussion and info goes unseen by people looking for info on it.

SJ, don't worry too much about it. I believe EVERYTHING that is going to be said here has been said elsewhere in one flavor or another.

I believe all of this was ruled on in Hillary Supporters vs. Obama Supporters in the 1st circuit court of the politics forum.

Yea I know...did you see John McCain's face while Romney was endorsing him?

Not to even get into the privatization issue-

Hasn't the beach pretty much renourished itself by now? Sure looks that way down here by Eastern Lake. Why waste the $60M on dredging?

Why not spend the bucks on 4-laning the 331 bridge? Or some other large-scale project that's truly in the public interest.

Yeah, I know, different programs, different agencies, different funding.

But still...

POW!!

That's the sound of your hammer hitting the nail on the head.

Your question, "Why not spend the bucks on 4-laning the 331 bridge?" is a great one. The answer is that our bridges don't attract touristas.

How else is one going to "grow" the tourist industry in SoWal if a sginificant amount of the beaches are private?

Hey I know...throw some grains of sand out there and confiscate it.

"But Mr.and Ms. County Comissioner, we've got a beach out here. They seem to be recovering" says the beach front owner. "Can't we wait to do all this renourishment when we REALLY need it?".

Commissioner: "Nope, we need the beach to be public now. Trespassing arrests are bad for business, don't ya know. How else are we going to get away with approving the future Redfish Villages and Nature Walks and other large developments that need your private beach?"

"But Commissioner, I bought into the peace, tranquility and beauty of the area which I thought were protected by my private property rights."

"We don't care. Business is business. How are we going to increase passenger flow to justify a 330 million dollar airport to the federal and state authorities? ......and BTW my biggest "campaign contributor" is a developer who needs work."

Ok...so I have read all of these arguments and just have one question....if I vacation at the Sanctuary at Redfish, use the boat to cross the lake to get to the beach as suggested by owners/mgmt. co. am I going to be trespassing? Apparently in the past "touristas" have contacted the umbrella people and paid for set ups each day and were just fine. I just really need to know and somehow I get the feeling I'll get more honest answers here even though I want to believe what I'm being told by the Sanctuary people. At the very least, could someone make a suggestion as to who I might call...the county, the sheriff's office??

Thanks for the responses!

It's hard to see a "win - win" solution to this problem... I guess it's a good thing the government is involved. They know how to fix everything.;-)

kimbug, the Sheriff cannot make that ruling, and it is up to the person claiming the property to call the cops and press charges. The plat of that s/d between the 83 access and the outflow of Big Redfish Lake shows the eastern property boundary being the Lake. So, technically, many people have set up their towels on that beach which is deeded. However, I have yet to see anyone run people off from the beach in that subdivision, and the public has been using it for a long time. I will remind you that every day is a new day, and you cannot base tomorrow's decisions based solely on history. I haven't looked at the deeds for the properties to the east of the Lake, but I would guess that the beach in deeded in those cases, too. I guess you could legally set up in the outflow, if it is open, but if you want to play by the rule as written, rather than that which is common, I don't think you could set up on the dry sandy beach at near the outflow.

Your question, "Why not spend the bucks on 4-laning the 331 bridge?" is a great one. The answer is that our bridges don't attract touristas.

How else is one going to "grow" the tourist industry in SoWal if a sginificant amount of the beaches are private?

Hey I know...throw some grains of sand out there and confiscate it. How else are we going to get away with approving the future Redfish Villages and Nature Walks and other large developments that need your private beach?"

Duh. Silly me.

As you can see by my straightforward question and my simple, commonsense alternate for spending the money, I'm clearly not devious enough to be a politician.

OK, looking at it differently then...

You'd think that it would cost a lot less than $50M to see the issue through the courts, instead of the wasteful, inconclusive, and (eventually) temporary expedient of pumping sand up on the beach. There will eventually be another storm, and we'll have to spend another $50M.

Or am I still being sensible?