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
Now when is the next meeting on this???
You can check the TDC site for the map of the public accesses maintained by the TDC. Having flags and TDC trashcans doesn't equate to "public maintained accesses."
I don't think the County has the authority to make such ordinance regarding public/private beaches. Just my opinion. Nor do I think that the County is willing to face a class action lawsuit if they decide to act on creating such an ordinance.
Beach Fanatic
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.
First of all I wanted to re-state my opinion that the Redfish beach club opens the door to some pretty undesirable development possibilities and I think it is ridiculous. I also feel that the beach should be accessible to anyone within a certain disctance from the ocean.
That being said, if the beaches had public use rights of some type it would be much easier to fight something like the Redfish club. I feel that the private beach issue makes it that much easier for an off beach development to do a similar thing. If I was looking to develop there I assure you I would use it as a tool.
BMBV I never realized you were a condo owner. Surely you realize that If single family gulf front owners got their way you wouldn't even own a property where you do. Many gulf front owners think multi family actually started the "beach head" problem.
I am not sure if this is where you own but in the instance of the Inn at Blue Mountain I find it hilarious that so many owners fight so hard to keep people off of their 100 feet of beach when the neighbors at White Cliffs and The Retreat think these very people are the problem. I guess if you are an owner there it's OK the height restriction didn't apply and this development was built, but now thank god there's a height restriction?
I wonder how the interior lot owners and off gulf condo owners in these developments are allowed on the beach? They are after all trespassing on private property. Are they automatically allowed on private property because they are a neighbor? Thats flat out discrimination. Maybe the condo and homeowners associations will have to assign a 2 foot strip of beach to each owner in future developments and this will not be an issue.
Funny quote..
A developer is someone who wants to build a house in the woods. An environmentalist is someone who already has a house in the woods
-Dennis Miller
Beach Fanatic
I wonder how the interior lot owners and off gulf condo owners in these developments are allowed on the beach? They are after all trespassing on private property. Are they automatically allowed on private property because they are a neighbor? Thats flat out discrimination. Maybe the condo and homeowners associations will have to assign a 2 foot strip of beach to each owner in future developments and this will not be an issue.
The Retreat has a 50ft easement all along the oceanfront for all the owners in The Retreat. Plus the pool and clubhouse is beachfront and all the sand there is common area.
Beach Fanatic
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.
No, it is not a public access. It was built, is owned and maintained by the Rosemary homeowners. SJ is correct, the flag locations don't have anything to do with the accesses being public or not. Some are at public accesses and many are not.
Beach Comber
Here This dose not fix our problem but it shows Florida is taking a step in the right direction.
http://www.surfline.com/surfnews/article_bamp.cfm?id=12269
http://www.surfline.com/surfnews/article_bamp.cfm?id=12269
Beach Fanatic
Here This dose not fix our problem but it shows Florida is taking a step in the right direction.
http://www.surfline.com/surfnews/article_bamp.cfm?id=12269
Thanks for the link. From what I see, this does NOTHING to facilitate the transformation of private beach property to public.
Gov. Crist stated in the video link above that he was protecting the access to (existing) PUBLIC beaches. In other words, public beaches should not be landlocked by adjacent development.
We discussed this concept at length in other message threads.
It seems that there are those who would intentionally confuse the two issues in order to further their own personal agenda for confiscating private property.
From Surfrider:
?We are delighted to finally see the full protection of beach access,? said Ericka D?Avanzo, Florida Regional Manager of the Surfrider Foundation. ?Now recreational beach users can be assured that as growth continues along our coastline, we should not see any future loss of ocean access points.? This was accomplished through a clarification of Florida Statue Chapter 161, clarifying that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection protect all legally acquired beach access in their Coastal Construction Control Line permitting process.
SoWal Insider
You can check the TDC site for the map of the public accesses maintained by the TDC. Having flags and TDC trashcans doesn't equate to "public maintained accesses."
I don't think the County has the authority to make such ordinance regarding public/private beaches. Just my opinion. Nor do I think that the County is willing to face a class action lawsuit if they decide to act on creating such an ordinance.
No, it is not a public access. It was built, is owned and maintained by the Rosemary homeowners. SJ is correct, the flag locations don't have anything to do with the accesses being public or not. Some are at public accesses and many are not.
Thanks for the info....
Beach Fanatic
They should also look into the laws regarding piers and the fact that people can tie up a boat to any pier that is in the water. They can even get out of the boat and sit on your pier as long as they dont step foot off the last board onto dry land.
Can you provide cites on these laws?
I am not aware of them.
Moderator
I was in Nashville this weekend on a FAM trip for an upcoming convention. One of the attendees was from Stokholm, Sweeden. I have no idea how private vs. public property came up, but it did. He said something very intersting. In Sweeden there is no such thing as private property regarding coastlines and beaches. Of course this comes with the European / Scandanavian sensibilities and mentalities especially when it comes to us Americans suing the pants off of each other for stupid little trivial stuff. He got a good chuckle out of what is going on in Sowal.
Not making statements as to what is right or wrong...just passing along a story so put your guns back on safety!
Not making statements as to what is right or wrong...just passing along a story so put your guns back on safety!
needs to get out more
From Surfrider:
?We are delighted to finally see the full protection of beach access,? said Ericka D?Avanzo, Florida Regional Manager of the Surfrider Foundation. ?Now recreational beach users can be assured that as growth continues along our coastline, we should not see any future loss of ocean access points.? This was accomplished through a clarification of Florida Statue Chapter 161, clarifying that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection protect all legally acquired beach access in their Coastal Construction Control Line permitting process.
This is great news.
Maybe now is the time for BlueMountainBeachWalker to enlighten us with all the information he's dug up about Surfrider. You know, remember when he was whining so much, requesting their tax #? That stuff was pure gold.
Beach Fanatic
This is great news.Why are you bringing that up again now? And what the hell does that have to do with this?
Maybe now is the time for BlueMountainBeachWalker to enlighten us with all the information he's dug up about Surfrider. You know, remember when he was whining so much, requesting their tax #? That stuff was pure gold.
needs to get out more
Why are you bringing that up again now? And what the hell does that have to do with this?
Well, let's see; private beaches, public beaches, property rights, beach access, security thugs, offsite owner's access, beach access, historical use, Surfrider...things that we've been discussing over the last 6 months, all in one untidy mess.
Then I remembered your friend bmbw and his incessant requests and jabs at Bobby and Surfrider. We never saw any resolution, and the Surfrider access mentions reminded me of it. And since he got on the BMSS bus and reared his little head some posts back, I fancied it would be a good time to hear what he made of all that. And it's thanksgiving, so I'm thankful for comedic relief. And as a bonus, the above.
Can we come over for some turkey? I'm thankful that we don't see any gun turrets over there, yet.
Beach Fanatic
Why are you bringing that up again now? And what the hell does that have to do with this?
The video Bear had was a Surfrider meeting and the bill that passed was from Surfrider. You speak of private beaches, they speak of access. They do tie together but each issue is separate. I see your point. I hope one day we can all come to common ground.
Skunky
I'm just wondering who would have a reasonable expectation that people wouldn't wander onto 'their' land when 'their' land is a beach that is marketed nationally to attract people. If people poking around on the beach gives the landowner an ulcer, either erect a barbed wire fence ala property lines elsewhere and be done with it or sell the property and relocate to an area where the menace of benign trespassing does not exist. An analogy is living on a parade route in New Orleans...you know people are going to be loitering in front of your house at all hours two weeks out of the year, and most homeowners roll with it because Mardi Gras is great for the city. In a similar fashion, if the tourists are recieved with hostility while trying to go to the beach, they will go elsewhere. Bottom line-no tourists, no SOWAL as we know it.
Beach Fanatic
Well, let's see; private beaches, public beaches, property rights, beach access, security thugs, offsite owner's access, beach access, historical use, Surfrider...things that we've been discussing over the last 6 months, all in one untidy mess.Oh I see. Its clear and funny now. In other words, it has nothing to do with this...other than "the Surfrider access mentions reminded you of it" .
Then I remembered your friend bmbw and his incessant requests and jabs at Bobby and Surfrider. We never saw any resolution, and the Surfrider access mentions reminded me of it. And since he got on the BMSS bus and reared his little head some posts back, I fancied it would be a good time to hear what he made of all that. And it's thanksgiving, so I'm thankful for comedic relief. And as a bonus, the above.
Can we come over for some turkey? I'm thankful that we don't see any gun turrets over there, yet.
To Bobby J's credit, I personally didn't know a thing about Surfrider before all the public/private/seawall discussions we've had in the past. Bobby has done Surfrider a service (I think) through exposure on this website. If he could learn to keep the GG's off his team...oh well.
needs to get out more
yeah, about as funny and clear as when I was getting worked by a bunch of chuckleheads after the RFV meeting at Watercolor, my first taste of the tactics of the BMSS.
Have a good Thanksgiving.
Have a good Thanksgiving.
Beach Fanatic
Oh I see. Its clear and funny now. In other words, it has nothing to do with this...other than "the Surfrider access mentions reminded you of it" .
To Bobby J's credit, I personally didn't know a thing about Surfrider before all the public/private/seawall discussions we've had in the past. Bobby has done Surfrider a service (I think) through exposure on this website. If he could learn to keep the GG's off his team...oh well.
Not sure what a GG is but I have no control of who is on the team. I know one thing for sure. We are all going to suffer if we do not come to common ground. I have made many mistakes in past post because of the emotion attached. I imagine yours is probably greater. I am too tired to fight with anyone. I think the help I can give on the issue is to help educate. I really can not do this on a thread or a town hall meeting. If you ever would like to get a cup of coffee and talk we would probably get more done that way then trying to prove each other wrong on a local forum board.
Edited
Beach Fanatic
The video Bear had was a Surfrider meeting and the bill that passed was from Surfrider. You speak of private beaches, they speak of access. They do tie together but each issue is separate. I see your point. I hope one day we can all come to common ground.
"They do tie together but each issue is separate."
Thank you for ackowledging that each issue is separate. As far as how much they tie together is debatable. Governor Crist clearly discussed access to PUBLIC beaches (not private) in the video that Bear posted.
"I hope one day we can all come to common ground."
Bobby, don't faint....I do too.
But it will be by compromise and agreement, not via willful confiscation of private property by our county commissioners which would benefit the developers and associated tourism more than to benefit people like you and your friends (locals) who desire to use the beach without interference.
I know you and your buds have a difference of opinion with mine on some issues. With that said, I am fully aware that I make myself an easy target for you guys. Some try to paint me as the bad guy. And as you know, not too many of "me" (beach property owners) speak up very loud on this board.
But, that doesn't mean I am alone in my beliefs (and legal rights). Now that Seaside, Rosemary Beach and other MAJOR developments take the same position as myself (even more so in terms of enforcement), it seems to me that I'm not the only "bad guy" in town. I fully understand that it does not make the private beach situation any more comforting for you.
I have noticed that a lot of the hostile private vs. public posturing exhibited earlier this year has toned down. I'm not sure if its because its an "old" subject on SoWal or because some people are starting to understand the situation.
Let's try to get along during this "evolutionary" process. I define evolution here as improper development straining the "old" way of life down here. In the past, I believe nobody cared who was on the beach because there were simply very few people on the beach relatively speaking (edit: AND most of the people that were there were most likely from the associated beach front developments and properties). In 5 short years I think we agree that there has been significant growth in our area. And since some of it was very inappropriate, there will of course be negative repercussions.
A Sincere Happy Thanksgiving.
Edited
Beach Comber
If anyone from the SWCC can contact me I'd like to talk to you about an article I'm writing on beach rights for the Daily News.
Please call me at the number below.
Best,
Andy Meinen
Reporter
The Northwest Florida Daily News
850.654.6905
Please call me at the number below.
Best,
Andy Meinen
Reporter
The Northwest Florida Daily News
850.654.6905
SoWal Expert
If anyone from the SWCC can contact me I'd like to talk to you about an article I'm writing on beach rights for the Daily News.I don't know that the leaders of the SWCC regularly read this board. Perhaps you should try contacting Anita Paige. I'd guess her contact info is on SWCC's website.
Please call me at the number below.
Best,
Andy Meinen
Reporter
The Northwest Florida Daily News
850.654.6905
Beach Fanatic
From this weekend's Walton Sun:
"...All board members agreed with the timelimited height regulation with the exception of Cindy Meadows, who felt the limited height would limit growth in the south part of the county. After the year is up, the issue will be readdressed for possible changes."
Hey Uncle Timmy, another scare tactic?
.
.
.
"...All board members agreed with the timelimited height regulation with the exception of Cindy Meadows, who felt the limited height would limit growth in the south part of the county. After the year is up, the issue will be readdressed for possible changes."
Hey Uncle Timmy, another scare tactic?
.
.
.
SoWal Expert
There is already a 50' height limit south of the bay. The "south" they are referring to is in the area NORTH of the bay, but still in the southern portion of the county.
Kudos to the Commissioners for passing the whole county height ordinance, which I hope becomes permanent!
Kudos to the Commissioners for passing the whole county height ordinance, which I hope becomes permanent!
Beach Fanatic
There is already a 50' height limit south of the bay. The "south" they are referring to is in the area NORTH of the bay, but still in the southern portion of the county.Amen to that. Now if we could just get "public" use of the beach from our variou "public" accesses we will be just fine. And by the way for those interested (BMBV) I am not for anyone using private accesses to reach the beach. Once there, though, as long as the public uses the beach responsibly, they should be allowed to do so ANYWHERE below the toe of the dune. I hope this year the Florida Supreme Court decides to do as Hawaii and Oregon have and that is to make the beaches "public".
Kudos to the Commissioners for passing the whole county height ordinance, which I hope becomes permanent!
Beach Fanatic
Amen to that. Now if we could just get "public" use of the beach from our variou "public" accesses we will be just fine. And by the way for those interested (BMBV) I am not for anyone using private accesses to reach the beach. Once there, though, as long as the public uses the beach responsibly, they should be allowed to do so ANYWHERE below the toe of the dune. I hope this year the Florida Supreme Court decides to do as Hawaii and Oregon have and that is to make the beaches "public".
I have suggested to one of the commissioners that they have the GIS department that we fund, create a map of what beac accesses and lands near the gulf are currently public for use and such. So far, not a whole lot of luck, I guess some people really do not want to know.
As for the height limit, what is the difference between 50 feet and 200 feet if you are standing at the base trying to see what is on the other side?
SoWal Expert
Kudos to the Commissioners for passing the whole county height ordinance, which I hope becomes permanent!
Just so that people don't misunderstand the height ordinance for SoWal, it is not permanent, even though it doesn't have a time limit like the ordinance for the remainder of the County. It can be changed overnight, if the BCC votes to remove the ordinance. Don't sit so contently.
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.