Sanctuary by the sea trying to stake out a "private beach"

All beaches in Florida are public below the mean high tide line. If folks want to setup their umbrellas right in front of your heavily depreciated condos, they can, and you can do nothing to stop them. Thank goodness for that!

Well, that is not where people are setting up. They are far up the beach. I hear your class warfare comment about "heavily depreciated condos" and I get your envy . . . but the point is??????

If you are not in favor of private property, perhaps Venezuela or Cuba would be a nice fit for you.

Please refresh my memory. I thought the area to the east of Sanctuary by the Sea was private, not state park. The closest State Park in that direction would be Grayton Beach SP, and it is quite a hike away.

No, its about 30 yards. Remember, there are many pieces of "Grayton Beach State Park" along this area.

murray the facts are the state park is around 100 yards east of the board walk when you enter the beach area. the state park stretchs from little redfish dune lake east. and yes its fine if the greedy people of sanctuary want a private beach. BUT I SURE AS HELL WILL SET UP THE BIGGEST TENT IN THE WORLD BELOW THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE. FROM WHAT I COULD SEE TONIGHT THAT WAS A NICE 5-10 YARDS FROM THE WATER. LETS SEE HOW THE PEOPLE IN THE CHAIRS FEEL WHEN THERE VIEW IS LEGALLY OBSTRUCTED. the legal deed from people who live in the preserve and sanctuary at redfish give them unimpeded legal right of way to walk to the mean high tide line. I SPIT ON POLITICIANS WHO EVER ALLOWED PRIVATE PEOPLE TO OWN ANY PART OF A BEACH.

I grew up in California where the beaches are completely public. Always been that way and maybe that's the best approach. But that's not the way Florida has done it and as a result, developers have to pay a lot more for gulf front property. Sanctuary by the Sea was the highest price for a gulf front property purchase on 30A ever. A large part of that cost was ownership of the beach and dunes above the high tide mark. (You can't not buy it . . . its baked into the cost of the land). So calling folks "greedy" may make you seen "cool and hip" but it simply ignores the fact that this is a ownership right and responsibility that goes with the property. Indeed, Sanctuary has done a much better job of preserving the natural landscape and dunes in this area than any of the other developers. In addition, all the taxes and bed taxes paid from Sanctuary fund the 365 day beach cleanup and beach nourishment costs that make our beach earn Blue Wave certification year after year. So chill a bit . . . don't make this into something it isn't.

First of all i have a question for lucky. I see you just joined sowal today so i assume you're somehow affiliated with sanctuary by the sea? It seems you joined to talk about this subject so please state your affiliation. Lucky do you know the definition of "mean high water mark". its the average high tide of the past 18.6 yrs. i looked at all sanctuarys 'legal documents" and there flawed as there not up to date. the documents are from 2004 i believe thus are out of date. lucky the whole pt of this conversation is greed, yes i say greed as the beach in front of sanctuary is massive and is basically very deserted and will always be that way. to stake a claim to an area that has so few people is pure greed. again this creates ill feelings among all who use the beach and can backfire. as i said people can put 100's of tents 10 yards in from the shore and create havoc. or maybe 100's neighbors of the preserve and redfish get together and all have boom boxes rumbling.at my home i have a walkway thats in my yard but i allow my neighbors to use it. do i have to? no but its the neighborly thing to do.i showed my father this today and he immediately called them greedy people. it angers people and belittles them like they're second class citizens. the beach is for all to use and enjoy. but again i blame the county for ever allowing the sale of beach area.the definition of mean high water is below. please tell me how anyone can enforce this without constant surveys.as the months and yrs wear on and thousands of renters blop on the "private" beach the sanctuary will give up. oh by the way if sanctuary is "private" why are the "public" walton county trash cans serviced by my tax dollars locate on your "land". last yr these trash cans were 20 yards further
to the left and right and not on the sanctuarys"private" property.i think the county must be informed of this.

I have been walking different stretches of beaches lately to have a little variety...and these private beach signs are literally littering the beach. I am not used to seeing them on my regular beaten paths, so they really jumped out at me. The stretch between Gulfview Heights and Blue Mt. access is so beautiful- except for all the ugly private beach signs junking up the view. The Sanctuary ones just look silly- the beach is huge there- is it really necessary to use these signs? Is that part of the beach so swamped with people that the sign are needed?

There is a condo in Blue Mountain (Lupine something), and the beach is "fenced" with these signs. Two women had their chairs set up inside the "private area", and they looked a little silly.

Well, that is not where people are setting up. They are far up the beach. I hear your class warfare comment about "heavily depreciated condos" and I get your envy . . . but the point is??????

If you are not in favor of private property, perhaps Venezuela or Cuba would be a nice fit for you.

:funn:You really need to hang out on SoWal more before making statements like that.

a just to remind folks about how they determine where the MHTL is.... a CURRENT (usually good for a year or two) topographical survey done by a registered, licensed Florida surveyor. These surveys are not the common ones done when you buy a piece of property (commonly called a boundary survey), they are alot more detailed and alot more expensive. And according to state statutes, the only thing valid in determining where that line is. So unless you have one of those in hand, you shouldnt be bothering anyone on the beach in front of your condo.

Well, that is not where people are setting up. They are far up the beach. I hear your class warfare comment about "heavily depreciated condos" and I get your envy . . . but the point is??????

If you are not in favor of private property, perhaps Venezuela or Cuba would be a nice fit for you.

WAAAAAAA.......

Would you like to have some Cheese with that whine....


Hey Lucky.....why don't you join us peasants on the shore line to help prevent the oil damage next week.

Or would it damage your nails...

I have been walking different stretches of beaches lately to have a little variety...and these private beach signs are literally littering the beach. I am not used to seeing them on my regular beaten paths, so they really jumped out at me. The stretch between Gulfview Heights and Blue Mt. access is so beautiful- except for all the ugly private beach signs junking up the view. The Sanctuary ones just look silly- the beach is huge there- is it really necessary to use these signs? Is that part of the beach so swamped with people that the sign are needed?

My bet is that the owners are attempting to set in motion a public denial of access. If that is accomplished, a legal argument exists that the public has not had continued access so no easement has been grandfathered.

yes its fine if the greedy people of sanctuary want a private beach. BUT I SURE AS HELL WILL SET UP THE BIGGEST TENT IN THE WORLD BELOW THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE. FROM WHAT I COULD SEE TONIGHT THAT WAS A NICE 5-10 YARDS FROM THE WATER. LETS SEE HOW THE PEOPLE IN THE CHAIRS FEEL WHEN THERE VIEW IS LEGALLY OBSTRUCTED. the legal deed from people who live in the preserve and sanctuary at redfish give them unimpeded legal right of way to walk to the mean high tide line. I SPIT ON POLITICIANS WHO EVER ALLOWED PRIVATE PEOPLE TO OWN ANY PART OF A BEACH.

I would suggest that you are going to find yourself in quite a legal quandary if you deny the right of access to the water which is granted by statute (littoral rights). I would also suggest that you be certain you are truly seaward of the MHWL by the most recent coastline survey.

Lastly, since you cannot leave anything anchored over night on the beach, it will eventually be a futile effort you have proposed unless you intend to make a career of being an assclown.

A much better effect might be had soliciting your Florida state representative to contact the Florida State Supreme Court when, imo, the US Supreme Court kicks this issue back to Florida SC for resolution on this matter of the taking of private property.

mr silverstein looks like another poster who just joined sowal. are you associated with sanctuary?#1 its the job of those who are trying to enforce private property rights that THEY HAVE THE UP TO DATE MHWL SURVEY. second the easement is in sanctuarys official documents and the documents of all homeowners from the preserve to the sanctuary redfish.its a perpetual lifetime easement and i assure you its not going anywere.the sanctuarys documents have the right away to beach in there. and i won't block passage to the beach with my 50 tents. I'LL BE SURE A TO LEAVE A FEW FEET IN BETWEEN SO THE RICH FOLKS CAN GET BY

mr silverstein looks like another poster who just joined sowal. are you associated with sanctuary?[/quote]

No. Are you?

[quote]#1 its the job of those who are trying to enforce private property rights that THEY HAVE THE UP TO DATE MHWL SURVEY.

When FDEP State Lands/Survey and Mapping doesn't? And if they did, unless it agrees with the Sovereign maps, it's simply an opinion of the MHWL

second ...i won't block passage to the beach with my 50 tents. I'LL BE SURE A TO LEAVE A FEW FEET IN BETWEEN SO THE RICH FOLKS CAN GET BY

And I repeat, if you want to waste your time, break the law, and be an assclown, then go right ahead. Nothing will change and nothing will remove the fact, even your squatter's routine or your jumping up and down like on a pogo stick on this forum, that littoral rights exist, you will be encroaching on them and in the end all, it won't matter a hill of beans what you do.

The burden for proving the MHWL falls on the property owner and must be a current and specific survey.

Frankly, I think any beach that gets protected from oil and/or cleaned becomes public and solves this infantile argument once and for all.

The burden for proving the MHWL falls on the property owner and must be a current and specific survey.

Private surveys will have to coincide with FDEP surveys otherwise you have an argument as to metes and bounds and who owns what (clouded or uninsurable title = no debt financing)).

Frankly, I think any beach that gets protected from oil and/or cleaned becomes public and solves this infantile argument once and for all.

The Florida State Supreme Court agrees with you.

Private surveys will have to coincide with FDEP surveys otherwise you have an argument as to metes and bounds and who owns what (clouded or uninsurable title = no debt financing)).

YEp.. and guess what agencies (FDEP maybe??) current surveys are used to determine any PRIVATE current topo surveys? That is why the FLorida statues make it very clear how and who may determine the MHWL.

YEp.. and guess what agencies (FDEP maybe??) current surveys are used to determine any PRIVATE current topo surveys?

I'll tell you as I just received the findings regarding the establishment of the MHWL on several hundred acres of inland, tidal mangrove swamps. The state agency specifically that deals with these findings is the Survey and Mapping of the State Lands, Div of FDEP (Roy Maddox, Lead).

They used a mathematical formula whose inputs are a combination of aerials over 19 years...since there are no current FDEP (initiated and purchased) coastline and sovereign submerged boundaries on these tracts and few historical ones. This is true for the majority of the coast lines, it is impossible and impractical to keep up to date on MHWL/ECL changes. FDEP does respond to inquiry and challenge.

In order to obtain a financable and clear title, FDEP and the Landowner need to agree in writing on the MHWL and/or obtain a deed which delineates the boundaries as issued by the Board of Trustees Internal Improvement (Trust) Fund (aka TIIFT deed).

If this cannot be agreed, then it typically ends up in a Govenors Cabinet meeting or a civil lawsuit for determination. All you have to have is two or more surveyors who do not agree.

The landowner has the onus for setting forth the challenge not determining the MHWL in most practical littoral rights issues.

Considering that the US and especially Florida are coastline dominated (50% live in coastal counites?), this issue is extremely significant.

That is why the FLorida statues make it very clear how and who may determine the MHWL.

The statutes lay out the processes but the end result of the processes requires agreement and coordination between the state and the private property owner. Without that, you may find that you have an uninsurable title, or a qualified title and a potentially serious land use issue ((especailly if you are wanting littoral (water) access or submerged land leases or relief from those leases)).

Hm. Interesting how many posters simply assume that this bruhaha is all because of a bunch of rich, "trust fund" babies greedily depriving innocent folks of their god given beach rights. I guess the facts are not important to some people. The facts are that there is a huge state park and public beaches right next to this development's beaches. All that Sanctuary is asking is that folks go a bit left rather than right when they get to the end of the boardwalk. Yes, property rights are valuable and people pay good money for beach rights. They are entitled to enjoy those rights without trespass. Sanctuary does not bother fishermen or waders but it does ask that folks set up their own umbrellas and chairs on the expansive nearby public beach.

Well, clarity is often clouded by sincere but emotional goobledegob.

Or people who can't see the forest for the trees. :roll:

All I said was that the property owner wanting to evict someone from "their" beach has to have a recent survey to prove where the MHWL is.

I actually own beach front property. I don't live on it. I would much rather keep what's on it. Nothing. Personally and as a Floridian, I would be embarrassed and ashamed to be running people of "my" beach. Absolutely absurd. Customary and reasonable use is fair to me. Clean up, follow the dune walkway, and fill in your holes in the sand. Plenty of room for everybody on our beaches.

I actually own beach front property. I don't live on it. I would much rather keep what's on it. Nothing. Personally and as a Floridian, I would be embarrassed and ashamed to be running people of "my" beach. Absolutely absurd. Customary and reasonable use is fair to me. Clean up, follow the dune walkway, and fill in your holes in the sand. Plenty of room for everybody on our beaches.

Altruistic but potentially very costly.

How will you feel when a person you have never met trips over a beach chair landward of the Mean High Water Line put there by a person who you never met, breaks a leg, and you get sued by an attorney you never met?

If you are a condo association and you fail to meet your responsibility to the condo owners to protect the community from just this kind of legal aggressiveness, then what is it that you are going to tell your Owners at the meeting to discuss this $500,000 liability?

The facts are plain and simple. Private property exists above the MHWL, we bought it and we must take both the pleasure and the responsibility for it.

The rest is all emotion.

All I said was that the property owner wanting to evict someone from "their" beach has to have a recent survey to prove where the MHWL is.

Having a recent survey unverified by FDEP is valueless. Having a recent, verified survey without proper markers to visibly set aside your littoral properties is valueless.

What is valuable is staked, separated private property that a sheriff can easily determine has been trespassed.

Then and only then can you expect and demand an eviction, a prosecution and the appropriate law enforcement actions.

So, we can expect to see a bunch of silversteinlandburgs all roped/fenced/chained off all up amd down the beach? That will attract so many to this area.

So, we can expect to see a bunch of <omit offensive name-calling> all roped/fenced/chained off all up amd down the beach? That will attract so many to this area.

Entirely possible depending on the US Supreme Court rulings upcoming.

One develpement actually stuck an American flag next to private beach sign. As if that is patriotic.It's more like capitalism run amuck.Our beaches and all of our coastal dune lakes are for everyone to share, cherish, and preserve.

Correct.

Just stay seaward of the Mean High Water Line and create no obstruction or hindrances that would violate the private property owners rights. Which are guaranteed by the State Of Florida.

The only issue with the private property sign is he had the wrong flag.

i saw those flags and thought it was so tasteless. trying to attach "patriotism" to their greed. ha!