beach goers harrassed

Well put!
I agree with you 100% (that's what I meant by "the bite in the a$$".) ;-)

we don't really agree. my point is that if we're marketing this area as the "the beaches of south walton" tourists should be free to come and go around our beaches. not have tons of signs and ropes and barriers making them feel unwelcome and uncomfortable. otherwise, just change the branding "the beach of south walton" to "the condos and strip malls of south walton".

I don't see this situation changing for the better anytime soon--nay, anytime at all. Realtors and vacation condo owners lure people to our area with promises of long expanses of beach. As our area continues to build out, back and up; and beach property owners have the police at their beck-and-call to hustle people off "their" sand; and 'said sand' is eaten away by erosion, this problem is going to compound.

I seen this happen before: A long time ago in a town called Destin, I was able to park my car pretty much anywhere along the road and trudge right on to the beach....try that now. We'll be that way before long; what's happening here now is the same song, just a slightly different melody.


.

My almost 90 year inlaws could say the same thing for anywhere in the United States for goodness sakes Shelly.

Your obvious distaste for realtors and vacation property owners is shining through once again like a lighthouse. Nobody has to "lure" anyone like a dang snapper to come to our beaches.
The TDC promotes our beaches nationally through marketing and people from all over are finding out about our so called "secret". Not to mention that tourism fuels the local economy creating at least 50% of the jobs.

As far as Destin is concerned, some people like the hub bub there, others prefer our area, which as you already know could never look like Destin, with it's high rise condos due to our 50 ft building maximum and dune lake conservation. 40% of Sowal is State Forest Preserve.

Give me a dang break. I truly dislike seeing people jump on the bandwagon to further another agenda about a few isolated incidents, and including incidents from Destin which is another County for God's sake. The incidents occuring in a particular area are due to some owners making a statement right now about density. Isolated incidents, however this is not reflective of what's occuring up and down 30A.

As far as Destin is concerned, some people like the hub bub there, others prefer our area, which as you already know could never look like Destin, with it's high rise condos due to our 50 ft building maximum and dune lake conservation. 40% of Sowal is State Forest Preserve.

Please never use the word, "never" when it involves pol-i-tricks, especially in Walton County. That 50ft height limit could change in the blink of an eye.

Please never use the word, "never" when it involves pol-i-tricks, especially in Walton County. That 50ft height limit could change in the blink of an eye.

Ok, how bout nevah?

What ticked my ire was the luring bit of vacation owners and realtors.

I agree that once density increases, this could become a much larger issue, just don't put blame on any group. IMO.

Maybe there will be a prayer meeting about density and I'll come and get Shelly in her fake nose, sunglass and sombrero get up.

This entire continuance of the BCC approving density increases will kill the part of what makes our area so attractive. Right now, in Miramar Beach, I can show you place on the beach where you can see umbrellas and chairs, three rows deep. Even if the BCC stops increasing the density today, when all of the existing lots are built out, we, too, will be seeing three rows deep of umbrellas and chairs on the beach. I think the BCC is too focused on the short-term and generating tax revenues.

This entire continuance of the BCC approving density increases will kill the part of what makes our area so attractive. Right now, in Miramar Beach, I can show you place on the beach where you can see umbrellas and chairs, three rows deep. Even if the BCC stops increasing the density today, when all of the existing lots are built out, we, too, will be seeing three rows deep of umbrellas and chairs on the beach. I think the BCC is too focused on the short-term and generating tax revenues.

I expect more of the same now that "Sorry Charlie" has decreed that counties must cut taxes. One way to "bump up" the tax would be to re-zone existing property to higher density in order to increase the tax revenue.


Mango: No prayer meetings for density....Density if the devil's work


.

yeah, it's as though the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan do not exist for Walton County.

Can anyone say developers with deep pockets?

What this is really about is the need for law reform. "The law is not an enemy of common sense." Therefore, no one should have the ability to "own" the beach! It doesn't make any sense. Of course tourists (or even locals for that matter) don't know what beach is considered private and what is public. Personally, I know I look for a vacant spot of beach when I go, which is more likely to be "private." How sad that our tourists are being inconvenienced by property owners. To those owners--shame on you. Your conscience should tell you better.

However, there's no point in getting down on property owners, sheriffs, or tourists. This is a legislative issue, unfortunately. All I can hope for is that it can be voted upon or perhaps a lawsuit will arise that will call for law reform. Until then, I have no problem beaching wherever I please until asked to move. That won't be pretty...

summertime, that sounds nice and pretty, but the truth is that the legislature will not give a rat's @ss about the situation, and they will let the Courts decide. So, the only way to make the Courts decide is to sit on the beach and let them arrest you.

an idle thought: if there's going to be any arresting to be done, does it make more sense to one or two arrested individually or 50 arrested on a saturday??

i have no idea why i'm posting at such an hour... oh yeah, neighbor's dog

I hope y'all get it figured out.
Who owns the shoreline (and what is to be done with it) is probably an issue of one sort or another all over the world.
There was a big stink over here (actually, St Augustine) a couple weeks ago about beach weddings; beachfront property owners were complaining about the traffic.

Monday the judge dismised our case in Okaloosa county. He took the low road and side stepped the property rights issue that he had asked to hear and dismiseded it as being without merit. So I will be back to fishing for the fall season.

I believe the judge finding it 'without merit' is a very good thing, aint it?

Good for me but it does nothing to give clarity to the whole beach ownership issue.

This issue will be revisited as development continues, and I believe the Supreme Court may eventually hear it given the attitude and resources of oceanfront homeowners.

So it would have been ideal for him to hear the case and make a ruling, then that case would have set a precedence for all cases because of the one judge's ruling, is that correct? Wonder why he was motivated to say it was without merit? Doesn't that help the case a little? Do you think he is pressured by developers?

Did the judge have a comment on how you were characterized by the homeowner/media? At one point I thought you were considering slander/libel.

Anglers Prevail in Beach Issue

http://www.thedestinlog.com/articles/headline_articledisplay.php?a=3548

Attorney Gene Swiatek?s brief for the two men said there was no concrete evidence of harassment and that Kathy Wright?s claims in her deposition were based on subjective feelings such as ?I felt like you were turning around, looking at the house.?
Stone?s ruling said a finding of repeated violence required two incidents of violence or stalking; a harassment charge involved a course of conduct that causes ?substantial emotional distress ... and serves no legitimate purpose.? He said neither standard had been met.

"No part of Florida is more exclusively hers, nor more properly utilized by her people than her beaches." City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc., Florida Supreme Court, 1974.
"Florida is advertised as a playground, a retreat from the hurryscurry of the modern world and from the rigors of northern climes. Fishing and swimming are prominent if not principal items of the entertainment the stranger expects to find here." Duval v. Thomas, Florida Supreme Court 1959.
"With Florida's population burgeoning and its recreational needs multiplying by leaps and bounds, the State's courts can ill afford any longer to be profligate with its public areas and allow them to be frittered away upon outmoded pretexts for commercial exploitation." City of Daytona v. Tona-Rama, Florida Supreme Court, 1974 (dissenting opinion)

These statements by Florida's Highest Court were made over 30 years ago! Is it time for Florida's citizens to take the "initiative" on their own???

litiGator

By initiative do you mean beach sit ins on this supposed ;-) , uhhh private property?

2008 30A Beach Issue: Tourists stop showing up

because Walton County doesn't acknowledge its own responsiblity to ensure that tourism continues to be #1 economic engine of the country. Like a spoiled child they think they are entitled and can continue to abuse their good fortune instead of valuing it, by nickel and diming and disrespecting and not providing the kind of care for it's most important resource- the beach, DUH- and infrastructure and service to the people who appreciate it.

2001 (when we bought our property) - people on 30-A were ticked off about the existence of SIGNS! No joke.

an idle thought: if there's going to be any arresting to be done, does it make more sense to one or two arrested individually or 50 arrested on a saturday??]

i have no idea why i'm posting at such an hour... oh yeah, neighbor's dog

Sign me up!

I was down for the wonderful Seaside wine festival last week and stayed in a house on Redfish Circle by the Inn at BMB. There is a public beach walkover to the west of the Inn that apparently leads to nowhere. When you step off the boardwalk onto the sand there is a sign to your right directly in the center of the beach stating Retreat only and one 3 feet to the left of that stating Inn at BMB only and another about 100 feet farther to the left stating White Cliffs only. I specifically remember a publicly funded renourishment of the area a few years back. This boardwalk must serve at least 30-40 homes on the south side of 30-a and 100's on the other side. How is anyone visiting supposed to get a positive feeling about the area with idiots putting up such a fuss about a beach? Even if you visited the Inn or White Cliffs or the Retreat it seems one would come away feeling strange about this. I own property on and off the beach and just feel lucky to be there no matter where I stay. Does anyone have an update on this issue?

I don't have an update but I think it's a giant crock o' crap! WTF do these folks think they are? Grayt point about all our taxes renourishing their supposed private beach, why?! Hey, did you see the thread stating Rosemary was bragging about having security guards on their beach access turning away Seacrest neighbors from using 'their' private beach.

Alys Bach is claiming they are a 'town' with 1500 feet of emerald coast beaches. Another thread on here said they've only sold 6 homes. How does that warrant being called a 'town'? Why did they build their supposed 'town' in the middle of another already established town of Seacrest Beach? They have neighborhood parties everytime you turn around but nobody seems to question if they are attempting to privatize a portion of what is actually Seacrest Beach. :scratch: Just wondering did anyone else complain when they screwed up the scenic route of the public's bicycle path down there? Why not? Is anyone else asking them about the beach and township claims? Is it the nice parties that make people not ask or are other people asking too? When they post invitations on this board you can ask them their beach plans, I have anyhow, if they plan on privatizing that is, and they totally ignore you with no response. That to me is a pretty clear answer in itself. Why wouldn't you respond with a resounding, 'NO"? if you weren't attempting such? Please set me straight, Alys. I will add I have never been harassed on the beach there and I have not seen signs on the beach yet. Wouldn't it be something if they were the first of these 30-A ritzy developments to publically announce no plans of privatizing their beach? Now that would be original! Heck why not a big beach party? I haven't visited in a while and am scared to come find signs all over the beach.That is just sad period that anyone is allowed to A) Claim the beach private just because they had the money to build gulf front. B) Place signs on the beach other than the county. C) Pollute like that.

Dern, why did I have to read this first thing? I let myself get so worked up about people trying to take beaches from the public who pay taxes to care for and enjoy all the beaches. I don't live there yet but own and pay plenty of taxes. I stand guilty of never attending a county commissioner's meeting. I would probably get kicked out anyhow because of running my mouth too much. Would it really make any difference?
I have e-mailed each of them with concerns in the past. So sorry to talk too much again. Just worried about the beaches and realtors and some private homeowners claiming them as theirs alone.

I was down for the wonderful Seaside wine festival last week and stayed in a house on Redfish Circle by the Inn at BMB. There is a public beach walkover to the west of the Inn that apparently leads to nowhere. When you step off the boardwalk onto the sand there is a sign to your right directly in the center of the beach stating Retreat only and one 3 feet to the left of that stating Inn at BMB only and another about 100 feet farther to the left stating White Cliffs only. I specifically remember a publicly funded renourishment of the area a few years back. This boardwalk must serve at least 30-40 homes on the south side of 30-a and 100's on the other side. How is anyone visiting supposed to get a positive feeling about the area with idiots putting up such a fuss about a beach? Even if you visited the Inn or White Cliffs or the Retreat it seems one would come away feeling strange about this. I own property on and off the beach and just feel lucky to be there no matter where I stay. Does anyone have an update on this issue?

The walkover beside the Inn at BM is not publically-OWNED, it is owned by the Village of Blue Mountain HOA (or something like that) and they let the public use it. The closest publically-owned accesses are Gulfview Heights behind Goatfeathers to the west and the one at the end of CR 83 to the east. I think they are currently building the restrooms and parking at the one at the end of CR 83 so I would go to Gulfview Heights.

As far as a County beach nourishment project there, it is still in the planning phases as part of the 30-A project. Here is a link to the update.

http://www.protectwaltoncountybeaches.com/Future_Initiatives.asp