For Beach Parking and Public Access--By Dotty Nist
Walton County will have parking for hundreds more beachgoer vehicles and hundreds more feet of beach access property, funded through the bed tax, if efforts now being pursued by the Walton County Tourist Development Council (TDC) and the county come to fruition.
Executive Director Jay Tusa provided a number of updates to county commissioners on Aug. 9, with topics including potential parcels for beach parking and access and options for use of the parcels.
This was at the Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) regular meeting at the Walton County Courthouse.
Two locations were discussed where property is available for purchase that could be utilized for beachgoer parking.
Tusa commented that there would be many opportunities for public/private partnerships in developing the parcels, giving the example of Lee Park in Okaloosa County.
As had been requested, Tusa displayed examples of parking garages in other areas such as Naples and St. Augustine, Fla. where there had been a focus on aesthetics, unobtrusiveness, in short a different appearance from that of the typical parking garage. The garages can be built to look like beach cottages, for example, or anything else, he explained.
If constructed in south Walton County, parking garages would be subject to the 50-foot height limit applying to the area.
The cost for construction of a parking garage would be approximately $19,000 per space, Tusa reported. For retail space constructed as part of parking garage projects, a $4.48 per square foot rental charge or more would be possible, he added.
Tusa discussed the need for a shuttle in connection with at least one of the parcels. A bike sharing program would also be possible, he commented.
Tusa suggested holding workshops to “incorporate the human element” and find out what people would like to see in the way of parking garages.
The “Grayton Grand” parcel
Turning to the two parcels that are available for purchase, Tusa said the one on CR-283 in Grayton Beach is seven-tenths of a mile from the beach and would require a shuttle ride of two to three minutes. This is known as the “Grayton Grand” parcel due to its having been approved for a project by that name in 2003.
Grayton Grand was approved for a 75-room hotel, 78 condominium units, 1,000 square feet of retail space, a 3,600-square-foot exhibition area, a 6,000-square-foot restaurant, and a 160-seat conference facility, all on the 7.35-acre site. The approved construction height is 50 feet.
The structures were never constructed, but there are currently 188 spaces of parking on the site with curbing and limestone base, according to details of a proposed purchase agreement drafted by the property owner that was presented at the BCC meeting. Also in place, according to the document, is a 1,000-foot elevated boardwalk traversing natural areas on the site.
The proposed agreement also states that the project is approved for a total of 309 surface parking spaces, or an additional 121 spaces over those now in place.
The parking area was utilized at one time by Seaside for employee parking.
Tusa observed that, if the property were acquired by the county, while a three-to-five-year plan would likely be required to construct a parking garage, he had discussed the question, “What can we do for the next season,” with Walton County Public Works Engineering.
Tusa estimated that the county could construct the additional approved surface parking for approximately $92,200 through the use of county staff. The cost would be approximately $147,500 if the work were contracted out, he said.
Future uses might include an events plaza and restaurant, Tusa noted.
Appraisals obtained for the property were $7.785 million and $7.5 million. The price negotiated with property owner Jay Odom was $7.632 million.
Story Continued here...
defuniakherald.com/officials-acquire-parcels-public-beach-parking-beach-access/
Replies
39Beach Lover
Your characterization that I am an "opponent against beachfront owners private property rights and supporter of taking of recognized private property rights of exclusive use beachfront MHWL property owners" Is simply not true. Anyone can read the Tona Rama vs Daytona Beach and see that customary use is not a "taking" of private property but rather access and use of beachfront with no liability to the beachfront owners. There is plenty of supporting documentation on this online.
Dave R, please site one reference in Tona-Rama that mentions Constitutional 5th Amendment “taking”. I couldn’t find one. My reference in this and most cases I refer to “taking of recognized private property rights” is not a reference to a formal judicial “taking”. That is a specific process whereby the Government pays fair market value for private property. What I mean is “taking” like a thief takes valuables from a victim. Because if owners didn’t have the right of exclusive enjoyment and use of their private property today what is the litigation all about except to take something valuable without paying for it?
I personally believe that this customary use ordinance will not become the law of the sand based on the number and level of lawsuits that are expected and the complexity of the issue. I would be very surprised if this prevails but it will be decided in the courts in time.
I agree custom cannot be legislated. Dave R. are you volunteering to be in the commissioners custom-committee? Wish I could be there. Regardless, I’m unclear what the point is since commissioners have already passed the ordinance! Commissioner Comander already stated she felt it was her right to walk on private property uninvited and without license now; and “if it took spending 40 MILLION to 50 MILLION in tax payer’s money - if we [commissioners] have to, then we have to!” Heck the whole 2017 budget was $130 MILLION. Fire, Aim, Ready!
https://walton.granicus.com/MediaPl...rttime=3615&stoptime=7297&autostart=0&embed=1
I met with beachfront homeowners to encourage the county to develop a beach ambassador program to improve the behavior on the beaches. After meeting with Governor Mike Huckabee and several beachfront homeowners I found this was the common complaint and I have contacted the Sheriffs department, the TDC, and the Commissioners to encourage this plan. There is a volunteer program that has been quite successful and the TDC has hired additional beach representatives; hopefully they will fully support this plan for our beaches. I have attached below the letter I send on July 24th.
Dave R, July 24, 2016 was a while ago. Did you send this to each of the Walton leadership in July? What was Their response? Nada, I’d guess. What was wrong with Gov Huckabee's Beach Share proposal back in April 2016? When did you meet with beachfront property owners and Gov Huckabee? Recently? Since the commissioners sign and customary-use ordinances? Is enforcement independent of custom claim on private property? Dave R, any answers? Second time asking you to clarify.
Are you suggesting to respect all property owner’s rights, like your property, and beach enforcement too? If so, I and I think many beach owners, can agree - for once. I think Beach Activities would need to be much better defined. Public use of private beach property would be licensed or permitted by the owner for, let’s say 50 sq ft of a 50 foot wide property or 25% of the of the private beach frontage, or some minority area. One towel or chair, 6 foot umbrella, and 4 cu ft storage container per person. No sand pits, only headsets or earphones, no alcohol, no animals, no trash, no vehicles except in an emergency. Between one hour after sun rise and one hour before sunset. If Walton enforcement does not meet certain metrics or standards of enforcement, then the owner can revoke their public use license.
If you are suggesting increased enforcement if owners permanently give away their rights or commissioners take the Constitutional property rights owners have today; that’s an issue. That’s THE issue. Given the Sheriff’s and commissioners lack of leadership and enforcement; what have commissioners suggested other than legislation and litigation(?), very few property owners would trust them not to selectively or effectively enforce any public beach rules, like today, and it will take extraordinary effort over years to prove to owners that commissioners will represent all citizens and do the job needed to gain owner’s trust. Until then very few property owners would risk their losing the property rights they have today. Hope is not a plan - or leadership.
Here’s an idea I heard from a military guy I think is brilliant. Military concept of “constant stare”. Like the casinos have but on a larger scale. Have 360 deg day/night IR cameras every half mile (52 locations) or whatever it takes to cover the 26 miles on 50 foot or however high towers on the right of way or public accesses that fed video back to a command post monitored and recorded 24/7/365 by one or two people with software to ID dogs, people too far out in the water, sand pits, fireworks, turtles, outline public and private property boundaries, etc. A faction of the employees needed to do the same job, keeps Walton vehicles and tire tracks off private property, and on the road for quicker response. Provide public wifi service for a fee to help pay for it. Put the video on the internet like SoWal Seagrove Cam Live Webcam - Seagrove Beach SkyCam | SoWal.com. For much less than a tax payer paid customary-use lawsuit (Multi-Million$?) or an army of code enforcement (at what $40K with benefits a year each?) you could have “constant stare”.
If you are talking about respecting private property rights, redefining and educating how the public and private owners respect each other, enforce it with measurable standards; and hold commissioner accountable, we may make some progress. Commissioners shouldn't risk tax payers million$ in litigation and maybe get nothing in return except empowered, angry, property owners. I’m glad you didn’t proclaim "This sand is your sand, this sand is my sand" again, because regardless of the outcome legally it is always property owner’s sand/property. I know many property owners would be willing to help commissioners understand the property owners concerns and seek solutions, if commissioners would only ask and listen.
Mr. Alan Ficarra who researched this discovered: On customary use.....As far back as 1995 both the state of Florida and St. Joe Co. understood the concept of customary use. In that settlement with the state of Florida, properties that St Joe kept for development has a restriction in the settlement that stated that all Gulf front property they were to develop would have a permanent public access easement allowing public pedestrian access laterally along the beach that is 75 feet landward of the mean high water line.
Dave R. that’s kind of vague. You have any facts or references that we can see for ourselves too? Seems more like Dave R’s opinion about what St Joe did or did not understand and is meaningless without supporting facts. What settlement? If you want to purchase beachfront at fair market value, you can allow the public 75 ft landward of the MHWL on your beach like St Joe too.
Edited
Beach Lover
Your characterization that I am an "opponent against beachfront owners private property rights and supporter of taking of recognized private property rights of exclusive use beachfront MHWL property owners" Is simply not true. Anyone can read the Tona Rama vs Daytona Beach and see that customary use is not a "taking" of private property but rather access and use of beachfront with no liability to the beachfront owners. There is plenty of supporting documentation on this online.
Dave R, please site one reference in Tona-Rama that mentions Constitutional 5th Amendment “taking”. I couldn’t find it. My reference in this and most cases I refer to “taking of recognized private property rights” is not a reference to a formal judicial “taking”. That is a specific process whereby the Government pays fair market value for private property. What I mean is “taking” like a thief takes valuables from a victim. Because if owners didn’t have the right of exclusive enjoyment and use of their private property today what is the litigation all about except to take something valuable without paying for it?
I personally believe that this customary use ordinance will not become the law of the sand based on the number and level of lawsuits that are expected and the complexity of the issue. I would be very surprised if this prevails but it will be decided in the courts in time.
I agree custom cannot be legislated. Dave R. are you volunteering to be in the commissioners custom-committee? Wish I could be there. Regardless, I’m unclear what the point is since commissioners have already passed the ordinance! Commissioner Comander already stated she felt it was her right to walk on private property uninvited and without license now; and “if it took spending 40 MILLION to 50 MILLION in tax payer’s money - if we [commissioners] have to, then we have to!” Heck the whole 2017 budget was $130 MILLION. Fire, Aim, Ready!
https://walton.granicus.com/MediaPl...rttime=3615&stoptime=7297&autostart=0&embed=1
I met with beachfront homeowners to encourage the county to develop a beach ambassador program to improve the behavior on the beaches. After meeting with Governor Mike Huckabee and several beachfront homeowners I found this was the common complaint and I have contacted the Sheriffs department, the TDC, and the Commissioners to encourage this plan. There is a volunteer program that has been quite successful and the TDC has hired additional beach representatives; hopefully they will fully support this plan for our beaches. I have attached below the letter I send on July 24th.
Dave R, July 24, 2016 was a while ago. Did you send this to each of the Walton leadership in July? What was Their response? Nada, I’d guess. What was wrong with Gov Huckabee's Beach Share proposal back in April 2016? When did you meet with beachfront property owners and Gov Huckabee? Recently? Since the commissioners sign and customary-use ordinances? Is enforcement independent of custom claim on private property? Dave R, any answers? Second time asking you to clarify.
Are you suggesting to respect all property owner’s rights, like your property, and beach enforcement too? If so, I and I think many beach owners, can agree - for once. I think Beach Activities would need to be much better defined. Public use of private beach property would be licensed or permitted by the owner for, let’s say 50 sq ft of a 50 foot wide property or 25% of the of the private beach frontage, or some minority area. One towel or chair, 6 foot umbrella, and 4 cu ft storage container per person. No sand pits, only headsets or earphones, no alcohol, no animals, no trash, no vehicles except in an emergency. Between one hour after sun rise and one hour before sunset. If Walton enforcement does not meet certain metrics or standards of enforcement, then the owner can revoke their public use license.
If you are suggesting increased enforcement if owners permanently give away their rights or commissioners take the Constitutional property rights owners have today; that’s an issue. That’s THE issue. Given the Sheriff’s and commissioners lack of leadership and enforcement; what have commissioners suggested other than legislation and litigation(?), very few property owners would trust them not to selectively or effectively enforce any public beach rules, like today, and it will take extraordinary effort over years to prove to owners that commissioners will represent all citizens and do the job needed to gain owner’s trust. Until then very few property owners would risk their losing the property rights they have today. Hope is not a plan - or leadership.
Here’s an idea I heard from a military guy I think is brilliant. Military concept of “constant stare”. Like the casinos have but on a larger scale. Have 360 deg day/night IR cameras every half mile (52 locations) or whatever it takes to cover the 26 miles on 50 foot or however high towers on the right of way or public accesses that fed video back to a command post monitored and recorded 24/7/365 by one or two people with software to ID dogs, people too far out in the water, sand pits, fireworks, turtles, outline public and private property boundaries, etc. A faction of the employees needed to do the same job, keeps Walton vehicles and tire tracks off private property, and on the road for quicker response. Provide public wifi service for a fee to help pay for it. Put the video on the internet like SoWal Seagrove Cam Live Webcam - Seagrove Beach SkyCam | SoWal.com. For much less than a tax payer paid customary-use lawsuit (Multi-Million$?) or an army of code enforcement (at what $40K with benefits a year each?) you could have “constant stare”.
If you are talking about respecting private property rights, redefining and educating how the public and private owners respect each other, enforce it with measurable standards; and hold commissioner accountable, we may make some progress. Commissioners shouldn't risk tax payers million$ in litigation and maybe get nothing in return except empowered, angry, property owners. I’m glad you didn’t proclaim "This sand is your sand, this sand is my sand" again, because regardless of the outcome legally it is always property owner’s sand/property. I know many property owners would be willing to help commissioners understand the property owners concerns and seek solutions, if commissioners would only ask and listen.
Mr. Alan Ficarra who researched this discovered: On customary use.....As far back as 1995 both the state of Florida and St. Joe Co. understood the concept of customary use. In that settlement with the state of Florida, properties that St Joe kept for development has a restriction in the settlement that stated that all Gulf front property they were to develop would have a permanent public access easement allowing public pedestrian access laterally along the beach that is 75 feet landward of the mean high water line.
Dave R. that’s kind of vague. Do you have any facts or references that we can see for ourselves too? Seems more like Dave R’s opinion about what St Joe did or did not understand and is meaningless without supporting facts. What settlement? If you want to purchase beachfront at fair market value, you can allow the public 75 ft landward of the MHWL on your beach like St Joe too.
Beach Fanatic
That video surveillance idea is horrible and I assume sarcastic?
Beach Fanatic
The 1995 consent final judgment with the St. Joe Company (St. Joe Paper Company at that time) is found on the Walton County website. It is attached.
Beach Fanatic
#311
From the previously referenced PDF document regarding Watersound's beach access and as Mr. Dave R. quotes:
So,,,,,,
If I grant my neighbors a permanent public easement to use my privately owned driveway for public pedestrian access, does that mean they have the right to set up chairs, umbrellas, tents, coolers, play volleyball, etc, on my driveway? I'll take a giant leap of faith and say the answer is no. I don't see too much difference here.
In my opinion item (8) above is a far cry from Watersound recognizing customary use as D.R. suggests unless there is other verbiage in the document that suggest otherwise.
Interestingly in the same thought as above, Sara Comander alludes that private property owners in Walton County are preventing the public from traversing across their private beach like she "used to do in Daytona when her mother would let her". Nothing could be further from the truth....at least on our beach and other owners that I know. We don't need a #8 to be civil to those who simply walk through our private sandy beach property.
So,,,,,,
If I grant my neighbors a permanent public easement to use my privately owned driveway for public pedestrian access, does that mean they have the right to set up chairs, umbrellas, tents, coolers, play volleyball, etc, on my driveway? I'll take a giant leap of faith and say the answer is no. I don't see too much difference here.
On customary use.....As far back as 1995 both the state of Florida and St. Joe Co. understood the concept of customary use.
In my opinion item (8) above is a far cry from Watersound recognizing customary use as D.R. suggests unless there is other verbiage in the document that suggest otherwise.
Interestingly in the same thought as above, Sara Comander alludes that private property owners in Walton County are preventing the public from traversing across their private beach like she "used to do in Daytona when her mother would let her". Nothing could be further from the truth....at least on our beach and other owners that I know. We don't need a #8 to be civil to those who simply walk through our private sandy beach property.
Beach Lover
That video surveillance idea is horrible and I assume sarcastic?
What are you afraid of? That you won't be able to bring your unpermitted and unleashed dog on the beach? Dig your 3 ft deep sand pit without filling it back up? Won't be able to leave your trash without picking up? Won't be able to surf when double red flags are out? Customarily set up 10 unoccupied chairs and 10 ft canopies on private property all day long? Won't be able to leave your small children unsupervised all day along. Won't be able to park illegally? Won't be able to nude sunbath? There is no expectation of privacy on the beach just like on the 30A bike path. What are you afraid of again?
Beach Lover
From the previously referenced PDF document regarding Watersound's beach access and as Mr. Dave R. quotes:
View attachment 62973
So,,,,,,
If I grant my neighbors a permanent public easement to use my privately owned driveway for public pedestrian access, does that mean they have the right to set up chairs, umbrellas, tents, coolers, play volleyball, etc, on my driveway? I'll take a giant leap of faith and say the answer is no. I don't see too much difference here.
In my opinion item (8) above is a far cry from Watersound recognizing customary use as D.R. suggests unless there is other verbiage in the document that suggest otherwise.
Interestingly in the same thought as above, Sara Comander alludes that private property owners in Walton County are preventing the public from traversing across their private beach like she "used to do in Daytona when her mother would let her". Nothing could be further from the truth....at least on our beach and other owners that I know. We don't need a #8 to be civil to those who simply walk through our private sandy beach property.
Spot on Vagrant. Didn't spend too much time on Dave R.'s source doc after the settlement was a FL DEP eminent domain that St Joe "... is defending against the taking and claims full compensation under the Constitution and laws of Florida for the taking of such portion of its property ..." Sounds more like a shake down than settlement.
Beach Fanatic
The 1995 consent final judgment with the St. Joe Company (St. Joe Paper Company at that time) is found on the Walton County website. It is attached.
Thanks for finding this. The link that Alan Ficarra originally supplied stopped working.
Beach Fanatic
You're welcome. I was glad to hear in some of the comments that most beachfront owners are not opposed to people walking on the beach, since I enjoy doing that. However I did see a sign that said "no walking." Not sure if it is still up or not.
Beach Fanatic
You're welcome. I was glad to hear in some of the comments that most beachfront owners are not opposed to people walking on the beach, since I enjoy doing that. However I did see a sign that said "no walking." Not sure if it is still up or not.I don't think most of the beachfront owners ever did have a problem with walking, jogging, swimming, a beach towel to stop and rest or sunbathe. Those things are a far cry from tents, chairs and umbrella setups, huge coolers and myriad other "conveniences" from sun up to sun down.
Beach Lover
I recently heard about and saw video of Dave Rauschkolb’s support of Walton Commissioner’s rush to purchase beachfront in Dune Allen in opposition to local homeowners and their attorney objections at the August 23, 2016 BCC meeting. Mr. Rauschkolb is a leading outspoken opponent against beachfront owners private property rights and supporter of taking of recognized private property rights of exclusive use beachfront MHWL property owners have today through customary-use. Mr. Rauschkolb lives in Watersound, developed by St. Joe, and is on the Association’s board. Watersound has private beach and beach access. Across the street from Dave on Bridge Ln. D.R. Horton is developing 31 acres of housing.First, Dave is not, nor has he ever been on the Watersound Master Board of Directors, and I would know that, because I live there full time. Secondly, St. Joe owns the beach, not the Watersound HOA and we have absolutely no control of what transpires on the beach. Any questions about access to St. Joe's beach should be directed to Patrick Murphy at St Joe, 850-231-6408.
Many would like to know why Dave is opposed to the D.R. Horton homeowners using the Watersound/St. Joe beach access and beach? If Dave is against others from using Watersound beach access and beach. Seems Dave is all for beach access and parking if it's in someone else and not his neighborhood.
Beach Fanatic
First, Dave is not, nor has he ever been on the Watersound Master Board of Directors, and I would know that, because I live there full time. Secondly, St. Joe owns the beach, not the Watersound HOA and we have absolutely no control of what transpires on the beach. Any questions about access to St. Joe's beach should be directed to Patrick Murphy at St Joe, 850-231-6408.
Thank you for providing that info Coondog. I had already informed them of those facts. Anyone may access the beaches from east or west but it is a very long walk. They may not go through private accesses as is the case in Watersound, Rosemary Beach and pretty much all developments that have private access.
Beach Fanatic
Thank you for providing that info Coondog. I had already informed them of those facts. Anyone may access the beaches from east or west but it is a very long walk. They may not go through private accesses as is the case in Watersound, Rosemary Beach and pretty much all developments that have private access.Aren't you and all of the folks in those private areas fortunate? So, even though customary use was supposedly recognized in the settlement that has been posted, all the accesses are conveniently private to public beach? Nice for the folks who benefit from that.
Beach Fanatic
I wonder how it will affect beachfront property taxes if the BCC is the one paying over market value?It's recorded as an unqualified sale. And I believe will not be included in the value assessment of neighboring properties.
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.