• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,305
386
It truly is a sad state of affairs when the "majority" feel entitled to be able to deprive private property owners from their property for ANY justification (other than true imminent domain situations). The beach is not a road or a school ground or a powerline path or a sewage treatment plant location.

The problem is not the occasional trespassing skirmish hyperbolized by the local news. The real problems are the "promises" of "beach access" made by developers of huge projects when there is none.

Who REALLY stands to lose out here? Follow the money, as they say, and you'll have your answer.

It's NOT the vacationing family who is building a sand castle along with memories. It is the ($100,000,000+) Redfish Village developments. It is the County and commisioners who "think" they will benefit from the increased tax base at the expense of overcrowding on the beach. These people are the ones fighting for de-privatization of private property. They have solicited your help without your really knowing the true sides of the issue.

If Walton County is allowed to continue to approve non-appropriate developments, we're only a step away from becoming a Destin or Panama City. "I love your area because it is not crowded like Destin and Panama City" is something I've heard over and over. I and many others feel the same.

With undeveloped beachfront property practically extinct, how else will developers command the prices they seek in our area? The developer's solution?...simply build off the beach where the land is cheaper and "truck-em" in. Ooops, they can't do that just anywhere since there are stretches of private beach (unless they get the county and state to throw away private property rights).

60 years or so ago, you would be hard pressed to find a soul on the beach in our area. Yet private property lines extended to the water even back then. The true beach pioneers were the ones who came when everyone else thought this area was a wasteland. They PURCHASED beachfront property, built their block homes and enjoyed the area for what it WAS: quiet and private. Others of us who felt the same purchased the property from them...and so on.

Today everybody wants to be on the beach. We have grocery stores, air conditioning, running water, sewage, roads and more than enough restaurants.

And of course we have a beautiful beach which is why people bought private property in this "wasteland" long ago in the first place. Now EVERYBODY wants to be in this area...most of all, the developers. Somehow, many people have translated this into a personal entitlement.


As a kid, I remember playing at the creek in our neighborhood. I was never run off the many years that I did play there. Yet I can not imagine ever going to the owner of the adjacent private property today and saying the public is entitled to their private property simply because I and many other kids before me and after me played at that creek and we were never run off.

Not much of a real difference here except for the following: money.

Counter-intuitively speaking, the de-privatization of the beach will benefit the developers more than the "public". The charm and serenity of our area will be greatly compromised (even more so) if this is allowed to happen.
 

John R

needs to get out more
Dec 31, 2005
6,777
819
Conflictinator
Re: Private Property Owner's Rights Being Attacked

On the other hand, if the entire length of the beach was accessible by the everyone, then we (users and purported owners) could get back to the status quo, before all the nastiness began. And, the off-beach developers would have nothing to sell with regards to the sand.
 

Pirate

Beach Fanatic
Jan 2, 2006
331
29
Re: Private Property Owner's Rights Being Attacked

It truly is a sad state of affairs when the "majority" feel entitled to be able to deprive private property owners from their property for ANY justification (other than true imminent domain situations). The beach is not a road or a school ground or a powerline path or a sewage treatment plant location.

The problem is not the occasional trespassing skirmish hyperbolized by the local news. The real problems are the "promises" of "beach access" made by developers of huge projects when there is none.

Who REALLY stands to lose out here? Follow the money, as they say, and you'll have your answer.

It's NOT the vacationing family who is building a sand castle along with memories. It is the ($100,000,000+) Redfish Village developments. It is the County and commisioners who "think" they will benefit from the increased tax base at the expense of overcrowding on the beach. These people are the ones fighting for de-privatization of private property. They have solicited your help without your really knowing the true sides of the issue.

If Walton County is allowed to continue to approve non-appropriate developments, we're only a step away from becoming a Destin or Panama City. "I love your area because it is not crowded like Destin and Panama City" is something I've heard over and over. I and many others feel the same.

With undeveloped beachfront property practically extinct, how else will developers command the prices they seek in our area? The developer's solution?...simply build off the beach where the land is cheaper and "truck-em" in. Ooops, they can't do that just anywhere since there are stretches of private beach (unless they get the county and state to throw away private property rights).

60 years or so ago, you would be hard pressed to find a soul on the beach in our area. Yet private property lines extended to the water even back then. The true beach pioneers were the ones who came when everyone else thought this area was a wasteland. They PURCHASED beachfront property, built their block homes and enjoyed the area for what it WAS: quiet and private. Others of us who felt the same purchased the property from them...and so on.

Today everybody wants to be on the beach. We have grocery stores, air conditioning, running water, sewage, roads and more than enough restaurants.

And of course we have a beautiful beach which is why people bought private property in this "wasteland" long ago in the first place. Now EVERYBODY wants to be in this area...most of all, the developers. Somehow, many people have translated this into a personal entitlement.


As a kid, I remember playing at the creek in our neighborhood. I was never run off the many years that I did play there. Yet I can not imagine ever going to the owner of the adjacent private property today and saying the public is entitled to their private property simply because I and many other kids before me and after me played at that creek and we were never run off.

Not much of a real difference here except for the following: money.

Counter-intuitively speaking, the de-privatization of the beach will benefit the developers more than the "public". The charm and serenity of our area will be greatly compromised (even more so) if this is allowed to happen.


I think you may need to drop your lawyer for a cardiologist in the near future. Try to enjoy it, even if people block your view.
 
Last edited:

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
Re: Private Property Owner's Rights Being Attacked

I acknowledge the huge parking, transportation and beach access problems being created by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners approving developments without forethought of addressing these problems.

However, regarding private property rights, the State Supreme Court believes that property rights of sandy beach is limited, compared to other property.
 

seacrestkristi

Beach Fanatic
Nov 27, 2005
3,539
36
Re: Private Property Owner's Rights Being Attacked

The difference is the man was NICE enough to let you children play. He knew how to share. He didn't run call the police and have you all arrested. He didn't harass your family in the creek like the lady did who didn't want the fishermen even looking at her house. :nono1: To me there is also a big difference in a creek and the Gulf of Mexico. The pioneers purchased Gulf front not the Gulf itself. I bet they never kicked anyone off the beach either. They had greater respect for God's gift to EVERYONE. They sure didn't put up ugly, polluting, private property signs all over the beach.

What are you so afraid of? Someone sitting on the beach behind your place? If the beaches are public but there's no public access at every beach then WTH are you so worried about, BMBV? Population is increasing in the world. Sowal is not immune to that. There's goning to be more people on the beach whether you call it private or public, period. We're going to have to educate tourists and new homeowners about keeping the beaches clean and pristine and free of obstructions for the nesting turtles.
 
Last edited:

JustaLocal

Beach Fanatic
Jul 11, 2007
447
49
SRB
Re: Public's beach rights being attacked

I will be there.
 

Bear

Beach Comber
Jun 5, 2006
43
0
45
Santa Rosa Beach
Re: Private Property Owner's Rights Being Attacked

Ok I may have read this wrong,but are you saying that you don't want people on the beach behind your property.That there are trespassing on your property by hanging out on the beach. Like I said I may have understood your post,if so disregard my rant. So I am to believe that you think that only the very wealthy have the right to enjoy the beach:bang: If don't want people in your back yard dont live on the beach. You are one of the successfully few that has the means to live in a lifestyle like this, and Im sure you worked hard for all you have and that it is well deserved.That being said.You are wrong here I dont care what the law is the beach is not yours to own. The beaches and the ocean are for all to enjoy.Your just like the huge cattle tycoons of the old west that fenced off all the free range and shut out the small ranchers .If I was 10years younger I would start using your front yard for my beach parking:lolabove: .
 

John R

needs to get out more
Dec 31, 2005
6,777
819
Conflictinator
Re: Private Property Owner's Rights Being Attacked

...If I was 10years younger I would start using your front yard for my beach parking.

LMFAO. where's the ::sticking it to the man:: smilie when you need one?

What's 10 years got to do with it? PM me when you're headed over to park and I'll bring my camera and join you.

BMBV, you know I enjoy your threads.
 

rapunzel

Beach Fanatic
Nov 30, 2005
2,514
980
Point Washington
Re: Private Property Owner's Rights Being Attacked

The problem is not the occasional trespassing skirmish hyperbolized by the local news. The real problems are the "promises" of "beach access" made by developers of huge projects when there is none.

Who REALLY stands to lose out here? Follow the money, as they say, and you'll have your answer.

It's NOT the vacationing family who is building a sand castle along with memories. It is the ($100,000,000+) Redfish Village developments. It is the County and commisioners who "think" they will benefit from the increased tax base at the expense of overcrowding on the beach. These people are the ones fighting for de-privatization of private property. They have solicited your help without your really knowing the true sides of the issue.


So, let me see if I have this straight, BMBV -- what I understand you to say is that you are asserting your property rights in order to fight overdevelopment. Doesn't protecting your unfettered property rights in fact just reinforce the developers' argument that they should be allowed to develop as many units per acre as they want because of their property rights?

Do you feel that the the only way to stop the raping and pillaging of SoWal by developers is to make the beaches inaccessible to any but the first tier owners and therefore make the area unattractive to tourists and those who might want to build a second home?

Asserting property rights to prevent others from asserting property rights -- that's an interesting approach to fighting the man, BMBV. Do you not fear that when enjoyable beach access is only available to the elite few that could buy from the first wave of gulf front pioneers, perhaps the people who supported restricting the building heights in SoWal in order to preserve the beach community, old Panhandle feel in this one place may decide that it didn't work? If there's no popular support for the restrictions, and the developers and people who work in construction are starving in the streets, maybe the big 20+ story casino style condos won't be so repugnant to the rest of us second and third tier people. A crowded beach is better than no beach at all.

If the spirit of New Urbanism dies out in SoWal, if all anyone is concerned about is their own property rights, and fighting back the marauding hordes with security patrols and tacky signs, then this little experiment in a livable beach community will have failed. We may as well be like Destin and Panama City.

If you want an uncrowded beach, I think becoming politically active and fighting the unfettered development, holding county commissioners like Scott Brannon accountable for their bad decisions, and perhaps even attempting to divert funds from tourist development might work better for you in the long run.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter