Public's beach rights being attacked
Bulletin from South Walton Community Council
www.southwaltoncc.org
Dear SWCC Member,
I apologize for this late notice. I received the agenda for the county commission meeting via email on Friday. It is a packed agenda which I will send by separate email. The meeting is Tuesday, November 13 at the courthouse in south Walton starting at 4 PM.
There is an item that will potentially impact the publics use of the beach and I want to make you aware of it. The SWCC position is at the end of this email.
As you may recall from my past emails, the county attorney made a presentation to the commissioners in which he offered four options for the county to consider regarding the issue of gulf front property owners excluding the public from using the beach in front of their structure. The county commissioners directed the county attorney to research two of the options. They were (1) preparing an ordinance that recognized the ancient and historical right of the public to use all or a portion (e.g., the first 20 feet) of the beaches under the Tona-Rama Florida Supreme Court case known as the customary use doctrine and (2) consider an easement from private beach front property owners for public access and use of the beach. The county attorney was to make a subsequent presentation on these options. As of this date he has not made a follow-up report to the commissioners.
The issue has now been placed on the agenda by a private attorney representing certain gulf front property owners. The agenda item is identified as:
4:40 PM Matthew W. Burns, Attorney representing Gulf front property owners
1. Request the Commission adopt resolutions or ordinances reconfirming Walton Countys commitment to preserving private property rights and recognizing the private property rights which exist with regard to Gulf front properties in the county
2. Request the Commission reconsider instruction to the County Attorney to draft a proposed county-wide customary use ordinance
Anyone who is concerned about public use of the beach should try to attend this meeting. More information will undoubtedly be presented by the gulf front property owners at the meeting. If you cannot attend you can direct your comments or questions to the commissioners. Their email address are provided below.
SWCC Position
SWCC would like the county commissioners to make a determination of the historic and ancient use of the dry sand beach by the public. We were concerned about one suggested proposal to limit the publics use to a specified distance, e.g., 20 feet, from the high water mark. The following is a letter sent by SWCC to the commissioners some time ago on this issue:
Dear Commissioners,
We want to express our concern with the two proposals currently being reviewed by the county attorney as a resolution of the issue of establishing public access over private beach.
With regard to the proposal to define the publics right of access and use to a specified footage from the high water mark (e.g. 20) we feel the adoption of such a limited public area in fact diminishes the publics rights of access and use under both the Tona-Rama Florida Supreme court case and the Stevens U.S. Supreme Court case.
As indicated in the county attorneys memorandum, the Tona Rama case recognized a right of customary use. The court stated: The interest and rights of the public to the full use of the beaches should be protected. The court concluded (t)he general public may continue to use the dry sand area for their usual recreational activities... (emphasis added)
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the holding of the Oregon Court in the Stevens case which concluded when plaintiffs took title to their land they were on notice that exclusive use of the dry sand areas was not part of the bundle of rights that they acquired. (emphasis added)
Both cases, and others, recognize the ancient and historical right of the public to access and use the dry sand beach area. The courts did not limit the publics customary use to a small strip of land measured from the high water mark. Why would the county want to narrow the area of the beach which has always been customarily used by the public?
There are logistical problems with trying to squeeze the public onto a strip of beach that is measured from the high water mark. First of all, the high water mark changes daily and in response to any storm. Who will measure the distance and how often? How will the public know where their strip is located? Typically, particularly in the large condos, the rows of private beach chairs and umbrellas are set up as the first tier from the high water mark for view. How much room will be left for the public?
Is this the best solution in light of the projected future population boom and the focus of the TDC to attract more tourists to the area?
The second proposal being considered is to get the beach front property owners to grant an easement to the public to allow the public to use all or a specified part of the beach. If the courts have so strongly upheld a right of customary use, why would the public need an easement? The easement would be granting a right that the public already has. It may also be construed as a rejection by the county of the publics right of customary use. Would the easement be perpetual or would it be revocable by the property owner? Would the public have to pay for the easement right?
An approach that was not discussed is to get the state legislature involved. In 2005 State Senator Carey Baker proposed a bill that would recognize the right of customary use of Florida beaches. His office indicated it did not get out of committee as it was blocked by the committee chairman. While such a bill may run afoul of the Tona-Rama approach which requires a case-by-case determination, it would seem worthwhile to explore this avenue through the countys state representative in Tallahassee. The Texas Open Beach Act has been in effect for years.
In the absence of a state legislative action, we would like to see the county follow the directive in the Tona-Rama case and initiate the case-by-case analysis required to establish the publics right of customary use for each particular beach area within its jurisdiction. The beach area would be a recognition of the dry sand beach historically and currently used by the public.
The proliferation of private beach signs on the beach has increased substantially, even in the current beach nourishment area. The overwhelming users of the beaches are tourist and locals. (Undoubtedly, at one time, many, if not all of those who have objected to people on their private beach were also visitors to the area and enjoyed the rights that they are now wanting to prohibit to others.) This issue must be resolved not only for the economic health of tourism but also for the people who live here and have always used the beach for recreation and spiritual renewal. We do recognize and appreciate that the overwhelming majority of beach front property owners whose deeds go to the high water mark have not in any way attempted to exclude the public from using the beach in front of their structures. Unfortunately, though, the few who have asserted exclusive rights of use have necessitated that this issue must now be addressed.
We believe the U.S. Supreme Court got it right. A beachfront property owner did not acquire the exclusive right to use the beach as a property right. The right of use is a shared right.
We appreciate the commitment of the Board to address this issue and hope that your decision will maintain the current use by the public and not diminish it.
Respectfully submitted,
The Board of Directors of the South Walton Community Council
Alan Newsome-President
Commissioner Contacts
Commissioner Ken Pridgen Commissioner Larry Jones
prikenneth@co.walton.fl.us jonlarry@co.walton.fl.us
Commissioner Cindy Meadows Commissioner Scott Brannon
meacindy@co.walton.fl.us brascott@co.walton.fl.us
Commissioner Sara Comander
comsara@co.walton.fl.us
Replies
244
SoWal Expert
And your point?My point is that FL law allows for the taking of property by prescriptive use, if it isn't hostilely defended by the owner of record. If people are coming into your yard to use the grill, chase them out. If people have been using the beach for years, without the deeded owners "hostilely defending" it, the beach goers may have a legal right to use the property, even if you hold the deed. Look up the property laws in FL. As I mentioned before, holding a deed to a property does not give the deed holder exclusive, unlimited rights. Ownership comes with restrictions of many types.
SoWal Expert
InLetBchDweller you have asked some great questions.
Along time ago before any of us were at the beach, before walkovers, before the Red Bar, before Seaside-Walton County sold beach front property to individuals. The deeds state that ownership includes "to the mean high water line (MHWL) of the Gulf of Mexico." Yes, Walton County sold the beach to individuals. They built houses, condos, townhomes, etc. on their property. They have since sold them to others, as real estate goes.
...
The trash pick-up is not for free-beach front owners pay very high taxes-we understand that, it is part of owning beach front property. Trash pick-up is the only service beach front owners receive different from non-beach front owners.
...
I bet the good ole boys elected themselves as County Commissioners then sold the beach to themselves back then. If the use of those beaches was by the public prior to the sale, that is a great case of prescriptive use by the public. Again, a deed doesn't come without limitations.
Regarding your high tax dollars of beach front property paying for trash pick-up, you are incorrect. Your property tax dollars do not pay for trash pick up on the beach. The bed tax revenues collected by the TDC pay for that service, and those taxes are paid by the people renting for periods of six months or less. Your beach front tax millage rate is the same as my interior property tax rates, and if your beach home is your primary residence and you have owned it for more than seven years, it is highly likely that your property taxes are not much different than my property purchase just a few years ago. Don't feed us that crap about your high property taxes. Our millage rate in SoWal is around 8.25 mills, and that is a third of what I've paid in other towns.
SoWal Expert
Nor is "the approx. MHWL." Most of the legal descriptions I've read for these gulf front properties have terminology such as "meandering along the approximate Mean High Water Line." The word, "approximate" is a very vague word regarding a precise piece of land. I would like to see that hold up in a Court of Law for a trespass trial.The MHWL is not the edge of the water!
Check this page out ..http://www.floridageomatics.com/publications/legal/mhwl.htm
SoWal Expert
BlueMtnBeachVagrant[/B]]
.
That concept is where I have a real problem.
If "someone" uses your property over and over, they feel entitled to it. There is some law here in Georgia that if you've driven a path over private property everyday for x number of years unimpeded, you basically get an easement. I can see that. It is one individual usually trying to get to their property that may be landlocked (public road wise), etc.
But the difference between the above and the beach situation, in my opinion only, is that we're NOT talking about an individual. We're talking about the public. I'm no lawyer, but I believe the legal rights afforded to the "public" are not the same as the rights afforded to an individual or other LEGAL entity. I believe this is the only reason why Walton County, a legal entity, can drive on the beach through our property. They have done it for x number of years without oppsosition.
So what defines the public as using the beach for X years? Joe Blow showed up in 1987 and Jane Doe showed up in 1994? I hope you see my point. I believe this is exactly why the attorney general said it would have to be decided on a case by case basis.
What is your opinion on the definition of "the public has used the beach for years"?
You seem to make some inaccurate assumptions in your case. I can think of several properties around here which would prove your basis inaccurate. One is a property which I own, where I have a deed for the property. There was a jeep trail going across the depth of my property for years, even though the road is platted to go on the property adjacent to me on the opposite side which remains wooded. The County expanded their right of way from a jeep trail to 60ft and then paved the road. I own the property without a question, according to the deed, but there is a 60ft right of way, utilities, drainage ditches, a two lane paved road and a driveway feeding off of my property to a neighbor's, all except for the driveway, is available for use by the public.
On another point of interest, did you know that if you hold the deed for the property including the sandy beach, you may be liable? If someone steps into a hole in the sand on "your beach," and they break their leg, die from infection, you may have to pay up. Tis true. It seems to me that every Gulffront property owner would reduce their liability greatly by quitclaiming that sandy lower elevation of the property, giving it back to the State. You would also see a reduction in your assessed value and your taxes if you are reducing the area of your property. To me, it seems like a no-brainer, but what do I know? I don't own GulfFront.
SoWal Insider
I dont believe that the County will allow mega story buildings in the area. Keep it at the issue at hand and dont try to steer the sheeple in your corral by scaring them.
What are you basing your assumption on that the county won't allow mega story buildings?
First I am/was speaking of the scenic corridor, I dont want you to think that when I said area I meant all of SoWal...
Here ya go, NO MEGA STORY BUILDINGS straight from the county website.
5.00.06. Height Limitation, Exceptions and Measurement Methodology.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Code, no man-made improvements
higher than four stories of habitable space or 50 feet in height, whichever is less, shall
be permitted south of the Choctawhatchee Bay and the Intracoastal Waterway in Walton
County, except as noted herein.
a.​
higher than four stories of habitable space or 50 feet in height, whichever is less, shall
be permitted south of the Choctawhatchee Bay and the Intracoastal Waterway in Walton
County, except as noted herein.
a.​
​
Building height means the vertical distance between (1) the average elevation of the
existing natural ground beneath the footprint of the building and (2) either the highest
point of the coping of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof, or the mean height level
between eaves and ridge for gable, hip, and gambrel roofs.
b. Height exceptions. The height limitations stipulated may not apply to the following,
contingent on conceptual review/approval on a case by case basis by the Board of
County Commissioners:
Church Steeples and spires;
Chimneys;
Aircraft radio towers and navigational aids;
Solar energy collectors or Windmills;
Utility transmission towers;
Civic structures relating to public welfare;
Safety and Health related facilities, public or private;
(Ord. No. 01-12, ? 2, 7-3-01)​
existing natural ground beneath the footprint of the building and (2) either the highest
point of the coping of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof, or the mean height level
between eaves and ridge for gable, hip, and gambrel roofs.
b. Height exceptions. The height limitations stipulated may not apply to the following,
contingent on conceptual review/approval on a case by case basis by the Board of
County Commissioners:
Church Steeples and spires;
Chimneys;
Aircraft radio towers and navigational aids;
Solar energy collectors or Windmills;
Utility transmission towers;
Civic structures relating to public welfare;
Safety and Health related facilities, public or private;
(Ord. No. 01-12, ? 2, 7-3-01)​
Beach Fanatic
First I am/was speaking of the scenic corridor, I dont want you to think that when I said area I meant all of SoWal...
Here ya go, NO MEGA STORY BUILDINGS straight from the county website.
5.00.06. Height Limitation, Exceptions and Measurement Methodology.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Code, no man-made improvements
higher than four stories of habitable space or 50 feet in height, whichever is less, shall
be permitted south of the Choctawhatchee Bay and the Intracoastal Waterway in Walton
County, except as noted herein.
a. Building height means the vertical distance between (1) the average elevation of the
existing natural ground beneath the footprint of the building and (2) either the highest
point of the coping of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof, or the mean height level
between eaves and ridge for gable, hip, and gambrel roofs.
b. Height exceptions. The height limitations stipulated may not apply to the following,
contingent on conceptual review/approval on a case by case basis by the Board of
County Commissioners:
Church Steeples and spires;
Chimneys;
Aircraft radio towers and navigational aids;
Solar energy collectors or Windmills;
Utility transmission towers;
Civic structures relating to public welfare;
Safety and Health related facilities, public or private;
(Ord. No. 01-12, ? 2, 7-3-01)​
I understand the current height restrictions. My question was regarding furure changes in the building code. While I am all for public beach access and usage, I think some on this post are naively dismissing the claim that developers will attempt to exploit any issue to increase their profits . I would be at least as fearful of developers as some here are of beach front property owners.
SoWal Expert
Also, the new hight restrictions as I understand them will apply to the entire county, not just south of the Bay, which is the case for the current code.
Beach Fanatic
Ok, I am going to open my big mouth here.
I don't (currently) own an SoWal property but I own
some "lake front" land in another state.
I could have gone to a privately-owned (i.e. electric utility) lake
where I could have actually owned the water frontage.
Or I could have gone to a Corp of Engineers lake where all the
lakefront is government (i.e. public) property.
I chose the latter.
When you own your little 50 feet or what-ever of frontage, then that
is the ONLY frontage that you have the legal right to use.
The rest of the shore is off-limits
No long walks along the shoreline.
No landing your boat anywhere but on your own frontage.
Did not make any sense to me. Give up my access to ALL of
the shore just in order to deny others the right to use that tiny
piece of frontage in front of my property? Ya gotta be kidding me.
I have about 400 feet of frontage on the government property line. About
100 to 150 feet from the water's edge.
I can access that Gov. property (following the rules, of course, just as the beach has rules) and so can anyone else as long as they don't cross the
line onto my land. And I can walk on the shore for miles without
be accused of trespassing. I can land my boat anywhere if, for
example, I need to "find a tree."
It sure made no sense to me to give up my rights to the whole shoreline
just to make one tiny little portion of that shoreline exclusively mine.
I don't (currently) own an SoWal property but I own
some "lake front" land in another state.
I could have gone to a privately-owned (i.e. electric utility) lake
where I could have actually owned the water frontage.
Or I could have gone to a Corp of Engineers lake where all the
lakefront is government (i.e. public) property.
I chose the latter.
When you own your little 50 feet or what-ever of frontage, then that
is the ONLY frontage that you have the legal right to use.
The rest of the shore is off-limits
No long walks along the shoreline.
No landing your boat anywhere but on your own frontage.
Did not make any sense to me. Give up my access to ALL of
the shore just in order to deny others the right to use that tiny
piece of frontage in front of my property? Ya gotta be kidding me.
I have about 400 feet of frontage on the government property line. About
100 to 150 feet from the water's edge.
I can access that Gov. property (following the rules, of course, just as the beach has rules) and so can anyone else as long as they don't cross the
line onto my land. And I can walk on the shore for miles without
be accused of trespassing. I can land my boat anywhere if, for
example, I need to "find a tree."
It sure made no sense to me to give up my rights to the whole shoreline
just to make one tiny little portion of that shoreline exclusively mine.
Beach Fanatic
Ok, I am going to open my big mouth here.
I don't (currently) own an SoWal property but I own
some "lake front" land in another state.
I could have gone to a privately-owned (i.e. electric utility) lake
where I could have actually owned the water frontage.
Or I could have gone to a Corp of Engineers lake where all the
lakefront is government (i.e. public) property.
I chose the latter.
When you own your little 50 feet or what-ever of frontage, then that
is the ONLY frontage that you have the legal right to use.
The rest of the shore is off-limits
No long walks along the shoreline.
No landing your boat anywhere but on your own frontage.
Did not make any sense to me. Give up my access to ALL of
the shore just in order to deny others the right to use that tiny
piece of frontage in front of my property? Ya gotta be kidding me.
I have about 400 feet of frontage on the government property line. About
100 to 150 feet from the water's edge.
I can access that Gov. property (following the rules, of course, just as the beach has rules) and so can anyone else as long as they don't cross the
line onto my land. And I can walk on the shore for miles without
be accused of trespassing. I can land my boat anywhere if, for
example, I need to "find a tree."
It sure made no sense to me to give up my rights to the whole shoreline
just to make one tiny little portion of that shoreline exclusively mine.
You need to hush with all of that talk Capricious, you're making too much sense for some of these people.
Beach Fanatic
Ok, here's a scenario:
You want to have your seawall repaired/built/whatever.
Or maybe a walk-over built
Can the heavy equipment access the beach from your own
little bit of beach frontage?
No?
House in the way?
How does the equipment get to the beach?
Public access? Opps, no public access!
So you have to find someone who will allow the equipment
to access the beach by crossing THEIR property.
And then you have to get the permission of EVERYONE between
here and there to allow the equipment to cross "their" beach.
Yeah, right.
On a nice calm lake the equipment arrives by water:
http://www.ripraplakeozark.com/gallery_12.html
How is that going to work on the Gulf?
Be careful what you wish for
You want to have your seawall repaired/built/whatever.
Or maybe a walk-over built
Can the heavy equipment access the beach from your own
little bit of beach frontage?
No?
House in the way?
How does the equipment get to the beach?
Public access? Opps, no public access!
So you have to find someone who will allow the equipment
to access the beach by crossing THEIR property.
And then you have to get the permission of EVERYONE between
here and there to allow the equipment to cross "their" beach.
Yeah, right.
On a nice calm lake the equipment arrives by water:
http://www.ripraplakeozark.com/gallery_12.html
How is that going to work on the Gulf?
Be careful what you wish for
SoWal Expert
I am really liking that twist!
Amazing the complications that can ensue when you want your own little fiefdom! :angry:
The whole thing is just so ridiculous! Think when I'm home for Thanksgiving I'll take a stroll down the lakeshore - since it is most definitely PUBLIC I won't have to miss out on a turkey dinner 'cuz I'm in handcuffs!
Amazing the complications that can ensue when you want your own little fiefdom! :angry:
The whole thing is just so ridiculous! Think when I'm home for Thanksgiving I'll take a stroll down the lakeshore - since it is most definitely PUBLIC I won't have to miss out on a turkey dinner 'cuz I'm in handcuffs!
Edited
Beach Fanatic
Re:
Taxpayer-subsidized flood insurance
Taxpayer-subsidized property insurance (i.e Citizens)
If the "rewards" of the beach are to be all yours, then
the "risks" of the beach should be all yours as well.
Taxpayer-subsidized flood insurance
Taxpayer-subsidized property insurance (i.e Citizens)
If the "rewards" of the beach are to be all yours, then
the "risks" of the beach should be all yours as well.
SoWal Expert
Vagrant brings up a great point about the Bay and Lakes. I can tell you from looking at the plat of Grayton Bayou, the Bayfront properties extend to the Mean High Water Mark (MHWM), but they recently built a bulkhead (aka - seawall) well out into the water on what I think is gov't land. It used to be that one could walk on the beach at those properties, but now the water hits the wooden wall. It is my belief that where they have filled in that area which used to be water, it is actually State property, and the public should have every right to enjoy that portion of land, which the Bayfront owners will claim as their own. It seems no different to me than the Gulf front owners who built their seawalls on Gov't beach -- part of those new backyards are now public property, and in that one area along Montgomery St, between each of those Gulf Front properties, is a 20ft (if I correctly recall) platted access which extends to the beach (ie- a public access to the public bluffs (in the backyards) overlooking the Gulf. Can anyone say, "Martini Time?"
Edited
SoWal Insider
I understand the current height restrictions. My question was regarding furure changes in the building code. While I am all for public beach access and usage, I think some on this post are naively dismissing the claim that developers will attempt to exploit any issue to increase their profits . I would be at least as fearful of developers as some here are of beach front property owners.
Rancid, It seems that we are agreeing on this subject...
Now I have no inside information on developers wanting to push the height restriction over what it is already zoned. I know many delevlopers - and all are not evil. Why dont we all bond together and fight this battle... then, when someone tries to push the height restriction then we can all fight for our right (to parrrrrrrrty sorry had to do it.
) on that subject matter. I honestly believe that if just sowal.com bonds and shows the commisioners that we do care, we will prevail. Strength in numbers.....
So when is the next meeting and who is bringing dinner????
Beach Fanatic
Re: Private Property Owner's Rights Being Attacked
It now makes sense that you said the above and then tried to "sexualize" it, based on your [ame="http://www.sowal.com/bb/showpost.php?p=194951&postcount=410"]post[/ame] from last January regarding Redfish:
Re: Redfish Village Beach Access
I don't live in BMB or own property there but I know the developers personally and consider them friends. So for that reason, I hope their request is approved. Surely friendship is as important a reason as not wanting someone walking by your property is for opposing it.
Who's sleeping with whom?
.
.
You guys listening?
.
.
It's nice to see you still have a hard on for Redfish Village. Get a life.
It now makes sense that you said the above and then tried to "sexualize" it, based on your [ame="http://www.sowal.com/bb/showpost.php?p=194951&postcount=410"]post[/ame] from last January regarding Redfish:
Re: Redfish Village Beach Access
I don't live in BMB or own property there but I know the developers personally and consider them friends. So for that reason, I hope their request is approved. Surely friendship is as important a reason as not wanting someone walking by your property is for opposing it.
Who's sleeping with whom?
.
.
You guys listening?
.
.
SoWal Expert
Rancid, It seems that we are agreeing on this subject...
I honestly believe that if just sowal.com bonds and shows the commisioners that we do care, we will prevail. Strength in numbers.....
But what happens north of the bay- since the height restriction in place only reads south? The proposed change in the height restriction is supposed to encompass the whole county, not change the actual height, is it not? Currently, their is not a height restriction, and a developer has proposed a ridiculously high condo on the bay. There aren't any height restrictions on that side, just the beach.
SoWal Insider
But what happens north of the bay- since the height restriction in place only reads south? The proposed change in the height restriction is supposed to encompass the whole county, not change the actual height, is it not? Currently, their is not a height restriction, and a developer has proposed a ridiculously high condo on the bay. There aren't any height restrictions on that side, just the beach.
I dont know what the proposed change is for North of the Bay. I think in the SUN there was an article about a large high rise close to Jolly Bay. Is there enough information on this subject to start its own thread???
Looks like we may have another battle ahead of us, I need to go and find my full suit of armour...SoWal Expert
Jdarg, you correctly understand it.
IBD, I started a thread on the issue a while back.
IBD, I started a thread on the issue a while back.
Admin
The Jolly bay project and height restrictions are discussed here:
[ame="http://www.sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?t=15944"]25 Story Condo proposed in Walton County!!! - SoWal Beaches Forum[/ame]
And feel free to start a new thread just about height restrictions. Let's keep this thread on Beach rights - thanks!
[ame="http://www.sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?t=15944"]25 Story Condo proposed in Walton County!!! - SoWal Beaches Forum[/ame]
And feel free to start a new thread just about height restrictions. Let's keep this thread on Beach rights - thanks!
SoWal Expert
The Jolly bay project and height restrictions are discussed here:
http://www.sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?t=15944
And feel free to start a new thread just about height restrictions. Let's keep this thread on Beach rights - thanks!
Thanks- y'all start a new thread. I'm a little tired today.
Beach Fanatic
Rancid, It seems that we are agreeing on this subject...
I honestly believe that if just sowal.com bonds and shows the commisioners that we do care, we will prevail. Strength in numbers.....
Allright I am with you. Public beaches for all and united opposition to increased development that might try to use the public beach designation to their advantage. Perhaps the county could try to limit " private beach clubs " which may be used as beach heads for developments that are not near the beach.
My feeling is that if beaches are public and there is public access then those should be used. I had heard some rumours that the Hyatt development at Grayton was trying to purchase the Red Bar as its beach access. I hope that is not true.
Lastly, I don't think developers are evil but they are businessmen and they are about making money. It is easy for them to rationalize that their mega development is giving access to beautiful beaches that many individuals would not otherwise have. Guilt free development.
Beach Fanatic
Allright I am with you. Public beaches for all and united opposition to increased development that might try to use the public beach designation to their advantage. Perhaps the county could try to limit " private beach clubs " which may be used as beach heads for developments that are not near the beach.
My feeling is that if beaches are public and there is public access then those should be used. I had heard some rumours that the Hyatt development at Grayton was trying to purchase the Red Bar as its beach access. I hope that is not true.
Lastly, I don't think developers are evil but they are businessmen and they are about making money. It is easy for them to rationalize that their mega development is giving access to beautiful beaches that many individuals would not otherwise have. Guilt free development.
I agree totally with what you said. Thank you!
If these "beach heads" were not evolving, then I probably would not be so vocal about the beach situation. A few "offsite" people on the beach never hurt anyone. But when Redfish's beach access was so flagrantly passed against county code AND the fact that our condo association had to spend $50,000 against the county for another unrelated easement issue in which we prevailed, then I knew then we were heading for BIG trouble.
Right or wrong, the county does it their way, especially if there is no opposition.
The height thing is not really an issue as of now and I hope never will be. Look at how much undeveloped land there is north of 30A. Ask yourself what our area would like if 100 Redfish Villages were allowed to be developed with the "promise" of beach access. Without that, the numbers make no sense...the developers would not touch it with a 10 foot pole because they know they could not market it for enough $ without it.
Many here think all beachfront owners are the rich ones. I paid just over $100,000 for a unit in 2001. Today, a unit at Redfish goes for WELL over $1,000,000.
How much are the units at Rosemary and Seaside north of 30A? Point is those guys are trying to "protect" their investment as well, not just us beach front people.
Thank you again for a voice of reasonableness.
SoWal Expert
Don't be surprised to find that many agree with the ideas in post 173. The Planning Commission doesn't look at things like beach access when a project comes before them. They state that they look at only the subject property. Maybe they should think about the big picture, and until they do, the County Commissioners will keep passing every project which the Planning Comm approves. That is just the way our County Gov't works around here. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to drive through old 98 and see that the mega structures houses many people, who sit in chairs, three rows deep, on the beach.
I agree, stop the construction of these VMU "beach heads" which are being built on residentially zoned land, and I think the problems which BMBV will see in the near future, will cease for other people who have yet to be affected.
I agree, stop the construction of these VMU "beach heads" which are being built on residentially zoned land, and I think the problems which BMBV will see in the near future, will cease for other people who have yet to be affected.
Beach Fanatic
Don't be surprised to find that many agree with the ideas in post 173. The Planning Commission doesn't look at things like beach access when a project comes before them. They state that they look at only the subject property. Maybe they should think about the big picture, and until they do, the County Commissioners will keep passing every project which the Planning Comm approves. That is just the way our County Gov't works around here. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to drive through old 98 and see that the mega structures houses many people, who sit in chairs, three rows deep, on the beach.Agreed and thank you.
I agree, stop the construction of these VMU "beach heads" which are being built on residentially zoned land, and I think the problems which BMBV will see in the near future, will cease for other people who have yet to be affected.
SoWal Insider
Allright I am with you. Public beaches for all and united opposition to increased development that might try to use the public beach designation to their advantage. Perhaps the county could try to limit " private beach clubs " which may be used as beach heads for developments that are not near the beach.
My feeling is that if beaches are public and there is public access then those should be used. I had heard some rumours that the Hyatt development at Grayton was trying to purchase the Red Bar as its beach access. I hope that is not true.
Lastly, I don't think developers are evil but they are businessmen and they are about making money. It is easy for them to rationalize that their mega development is giving access to beautiful beaches that many individuals would not otherwise have. Guilt free development.
I agree that the beach clubs should be limited. I dont think the Red Bar is going anywhere.... I agree totally with what you said. Thank you!
If these "beach heads" were not evolving, then I probably would not be so vocal about the beach situation. A few "offsite" people on the beach never hurt anyone. But when Redfish's beach access was so flagrantly passed against county code AND the fact that our condo association had to spend $50,000 against the county for another unrelated easement issue in which we prevailed, then I knew then we were heading for BIG trouble.
Right or wrong, the county does it their way, especially if there is no opposition.
The height thing is not really an issue as of now and I hope never will be. Look at how much undeveloped land there is north of 30A. Ask yourself what our area would like if 100 Redfish Villages were allowed to be developed with the "promise" of beach access. Without that, the numbers make no sense...the developers would not touch it with a 10 foot pole because they know they could not market it for enough $ without it.
Many here think all beachfront owners are the rich ones. I paid just over $100,000 for a unit in 2001. Today, a unit at Redfish goes for WELL over $1,000,000.
How much are the units at Rosemary and Seaside north of 30A? Point is those guys are trying to "protect" their investment as well, not just us beach front people.
Thank you again for a voice of reasonableness.
It seems the we agree also. I am knowledgeable about the Redfish debaucle so I can not comment. As far as the county doing things their way, next election we should all make a stand...
I know that many beachfront owners are not rich ones. I never have thought that.
I dont know about the Rosemary and Seaside situation. I do know that Rosemary does not want people from Seacrest, The Village, etc. using the beach access at the end of West Water Street. If someone could let me know- is the access at the end of West Water a public /county maintained access? I know that the colored flags are flying there so I assumed it was public. However if Rosemarys roads are private then you cant get to the beach access....
Also, this needs to be discussed on another thread....or is there one already??Now when is the next meeting on this???
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.