The Destin Chamber sent this out. I don't like Crist. I am sure this is affecting Walton County as well as you guys are slotted for beach renourishment on parts of 30-A aren't you?
Please take the time to send and e-mail to the people listed below. There is a form type letter available here and you can add your personal comments to it.
http://www.destinchamber.com/docs/BeachRestorationLetter.doc
Also, I would imagine that Board of Realtors are up in arms about this as well.
_______________________________
Beach Restoration Call to Action
Dear Chamber Members:
As you know, beach restoration has been a major initiative of the Destin Area Chamber of Commerce for many years. We?ve worked hard, created beneficial partnerships, and helped implement project plans and funding to ensure that Destin?s and Okaloosa Island?s beaches are restored. It is a major issue in maintaining our economy.
Recently, the Okaloosa County Commissioners gave final approval to the upcoming beach restoration project funding mechanism, passing the Municipal Services Benefit Unit plan. In addition to this funding, a portion of the project would be paid for by the state of Florida.
However, when Governor Charlie Crist submitted his proposed budget for 2008-2009, he eliminated $10 million from the $30 million state-mandated fund for beach restoration projects. There is also a proposal to change State Chapter 201 F.S., which now requires that $30 million be put in the state budget each year for beach restoration. If the proposed change is passed, Chapter 201 F.S. would then be funded with only $20 million each year.
In addition, and because of Governor Crist?s elimination of $10 million from this portion of the budget, the Destin ? Okaloosa Island beach restoration project has now been moved from the approved list of projects and put on the alternate list of projects. This will result in NO BEACH RESTORATION for Destin ? Okaloosa Island. This is unacceptable.
The Destin Area Chamber of Commerce has passed a resolution requesting that no changes be made to the state budget or state mandate of $30 million annually for beach restoration. The resolution also requests that the DEP keep Destin on the approved project list and not place it on the alternate project list.
WE NEED YOU! Please contact Governor Charlie Crist, Speaker Designate Ray Sansom, and Senator Don Gaetz and tell them:
1) You want the Destin ? Okaloosa Island beach restoration project to remain on the approved list.
2) You want the funding mandated in Chapter 201 F.S. to remain at $30 million.
3) You want the $10 million the Governor cut from his proposed budget added back to the beach restoration fund.
The economic stability of our community is dependent on this.
LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD. We have listed their contact information below:
Speaker Designate Ray Sansom
Tallahassee: (850) 488-1170
Local Office: (850) 833-9328
Ray.sansom@myfloridahouse.gov
Senator Don Gaetz
Tallahassee: (850) 487-5009
Local Office: (850) 897-5747
gaetz.don.web@flsenate.gov
Governor Charlie Crist
(850) 488-4441
Charlie.Crist@MyFlorida.com
Replies
52
Beach Fanatic
What alarming rates are we talking about. In the past century, sea level rise in the Panhandle has increased by 1 ft. If you look at the MOST aggressive rates published in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change we would be looking at less than .7 meters per 100 years (or 2 feet). So I don't believe that is going to put any beaches in South Walton underwater for at least for 250 years or so. Not to mention the Bruun Rule and how beaches actually respond to sea level rise.Boy, the scope of knowlege on this board is amazing! Nice post, BeachSiO2.
Beach Comber
all you aplogists drive me crazy! restoration goes much further than just tourism, it directly affects the people and businesses who are here year round. and how can the gov and legislators claim everything is being cut because of the economy when the beaches are the biggest tourist draw in Fl? and now the good gov wants to have another primary election that will cost the state millions?? do we or do we not have the money?
Beach Fanatic
all you aplogists drive me crazy! restoration goes much further than just tourism, it directly affects the people and businesses who are here year round. and how can the gov and legislators claim everything is being cut because of the economy when the beaches are the biggest tourist draw in Fl? and now the good gov wants to have another primary election that will cost the state millions?? do we or do we not have the money?
A good first post. May you make many more
Beach Fanatic
all you aplogists drive me crazy! restoration goes much further than just tourism, it directly affects the people and businesses who are here year round. and how can the gov and legislators claim everything is being cut because of the economy when the beaches are the biggest tourist draw in Fl? and now the good gov wants to have another primary election that will cost the state millions?? do we or do we not have the money?
We have the money. Just some pretty screwed up priorities.
Beach Fanatic
We have the money. Just some pretty screwed up priorities.
"Screwed Up Priorities Indeed! My children, don't waste your time on looking for expensive quantites of "matching white sand" to replace what I temprarily took away in the first place!
...Who do you think you are, me? I will return the sand to you, my children ,on my time at my own speed, not on the time of self serving, nuerotic humans like yourselves!" --God.
Edited
Beach Fanatic
Yea, Some of this will make your eyes glaze over. Just thought some on this thread might be interested. 
.[1] Sea level was rising about 25 cm per 100 years and had slowed down to about 4 cm per 100 years.[2] While the shoreline was about 100 miles out 10,000 years ago, in South Walton it was probably only about 40 miles out partially due to the high elevation of the area.[3] Walton County has the highest elevation in Florida, 345 feet above sea level. It is the lowest high in America.[4] Land and shore erosion might be slowed down some if greedy and reckless real estate speculators would quit clear cutting lots. Saw palmettos can live 400 - 700 years [5] and their ancient roots help hold the soil.
[1]Randazzo and Jones, The Geology of Florida, 158.
[2]Ibid., 156.
[3] Dr. Judith Bense, archeology department head, University of West Florida, ?Archeology in the Seaside Area? (presentation at Seaside Institute, Seaside, Florida, 7 May 2005). Author has video and digital pictures of talk.
[4] Scott Jackson, University of Florida, IFIS, Sea Grant Extension Agent for Walton/Okaloosa, interview by author, 5 April 2006.
[5]Dr. Bob Swinford, professor emeritus, forestry, University of Florida, email message to author, 30 July 2005.
.[1] Sea level was rising about 25 cm per 100 years and had slowed down to about 4 cm per 100 years.[2] While the shoreline was about 100 miles out 10,000 years ago, in South Walton it was probably only about 40 miles out partially due to the high elevation of the area.[3] Walton County has the highest elevation in Florida, 345 feet above sea level. It is the lowest high in America.[4] Land and shore erosion might be slowed down some if greedy and reckless real estate speculators would quit clear cutting lots. Saw palmettos can live 400 - 700 years [5] and their ancient roots help hold the soil.[1]Randazzo and Jones, The Geology of Florida, 158.
[2]Ibid., 156.
[3] Dr. Judith Bense, archeology department head, University of West Florida, ?Archeology in the Seaside Area? (presentation at Seaside Institute, Seaside, Florida, 7 May 2005). Author has video and digital pictures of talk.
[4] Scott Jackson, University of Florida, IFIS, Sea Grant Extension Agent for Walton/Okaloosa, interview by author, 5 April 2006.
[5]Dr. Bob Swinford, professor emeritus, forestry, University of Florida, email message to author, 30 July 2005.
Beach Fanatic
This is not necessarily new news; from the Pacific Legal Foundation:"
The Fifth Amendment Applies to Beachfront Land, Too
Walton County v. Save Our Beaches, Inc.
Contact: Steven G. Gieseler
Status: Amicus brief filed in December, 2006.
Under Florida law, waterfront landowners? title extends to the ordinary high water mark and includes several rights such as access and view of the water, title to accretions, and the right to have the property remain in contact with the water. These rights are protected property rights under Florida case law. The State?s beach erosion control law seeks to upset this scheme, however. Beaches that are designated as ?critically eroded? (and there are no standards for that designation) qualify for replenishment under the erosion control law. Once included in the program, the ordinary high water mark is fixed, and any future accretions will belong to the state. Access to the water is cut off by the newly created public land and the right to have the property remain in contact with the water is lost.
The City of Destin and Walton County, Florida, filed an application for a beach restoration project under this law. This application was challenged by two property owner groups (Save Our Beaches, Inc. and Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc.) who argued that the beach erosion control law effects a taking of property without compensation. The property owners prevailed in their challenge before the Court of Appeal and the Florida Supreme Court granted review.
In support of the property owners, PLF argues the following facts and principles: The procedures for establishment of the erosion control line are not sufficient to ensure the due process rights of the private upland property owners who may lose their property and riparian rights. Furthermore, the establishment of the erosion control line results in an uncompensated taking of private property and riparian rights.
The Fifth Amendment Applies to Beachfront Land, Too
Walton County v. Save Our Beaches, Inc.
Contact: Steven G. Gieseler
Status: Amicus brief filed in December, 2006.
Under Florida law, waterfront landowners? title extends to the ordinary high water mark and includes several rights such as access and view of the water, title to accretions, and the right to have the property remain in contact with the water. These rights are protected property rights under Florida case law. The State?s beach erosion control law seeks to upset this scheme, however. Beaches that are designated as ?critically eroded? (and there are no standards for that designation) qualify for replenishment under the erosion control law. Once included in the program, the ordinary high water mark is fixed, and any future accretions will belong to the state. Access to the water is cut off by the newly created public land and the right to have the property remain in contact with the water is lost.
The City of Destin and Walton County, Florida, filed an application for a beach restoration project under this law. This application was challenged by two property owner groups (Save Our Beaches, Inc. and Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc.) who argued that the beach erosion control law effects a taking of property without compensation. The property owners prevailed in their challenge before the Court of Appeal and the Florida Supreme Court granted review.
In support of the property owners, PLF argues the following facts and principles: The procedures for establishment of the erosion control line are not sufficient to ensure the due process rights of the private upland property owners who may lose their property and riparian rights. Furthermore, the establishment of the erosion control line results in an uncompensated taking of private property and riparian rights.
SoWal Expert
Access to the water is cut off by the newly created public land...
A lawyer must have written this non-sense. Care to enlighten me on how adding sand to the area between the existing beach and the Gulf cut off one's access to the water? You would be walking across sand, just like you do today.
Beach Fanatic
the right to have the property remain in contact with the water. These rights are protected property rights under Florida case law.
Can someone tell me which Florida case this one was decided in?
Beach Lover
BMBV, you posted a brief made by a lawyer, not a decision!
It should be noted that right of accretion also carries the responsibility for loss due to erosion! Once you put up a sea wall you mitigated your erosion potential and therefore should no longer benefit from accretion!
It should be noted that right of accretion also carries the responsibility for loss due to erosion! Once you put up a sea wall you mitigated your erosion potential and therefore should no longer benefit from accretion!
Beach Fanatic
A lawyer must have written this non-sense. Care to enlighten me on how adding sand to the area between the existing beach and the Gulf cut off one's access to the water? You would be walking across sand, just like you do today.I believe you've claimed you're not a lawyer. This is an opinion of the Pacific Legal Foundation which I feel somehow has a better handle on the law than you do. Take your argument up with them, not me. I gave you the link in my last post.
Oh....and now for us laymen....a row of 37 umbrellas, 62 chairs, 10 tents, 1 volleyball net COULD block one's access. I'm not sure if this is what is meant legally, but it could happen.
Beach Fanatic
Can someone tell me which Florida case this one was decided in?
From this link....
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The Court also cited another important Florida case (Sand Key Assocs., 512 So. 2d at 936) which provided, "Riparian and littoral property rights consist not only of the right to use the water shared by the public, but include the following vested rights: 1) the right of access to the water, including the right to have the property's contact with the water remain intact; 2) the right to use the water for navigational purposes; 3) the right to an unobstructed view of the water; and 4) the right to receive accretions and relictions to the property." [/FONT]
needs to get out more
Regarding the photo link posted by yippie; I have no sorrow for the owners of jetty east. It appears that they built at least 50' closer to the water than anyone else visible in those pictures. They made their own bed and get to live with it, as does anyone else who wants to walk that stretch of beach at high tide. how appropriate a name, as when the building begins to tumble, it will indeed become a jetty, and removal of same will never be financed by those responsible.
and we're questioning proactive code enforcement??
and we're questioning proactive code enforcement??
Beach Fanatic
A lawyer must have written this non-sense. Care to enlighten me on how adding sand to the area between the existing beach and the Gulf cut off one's access to the water? You would be walking across sand, just like you do today.
It does not kill access per se, it kills access to the water without leaving land that you own. If you deed says you own to the high water mark, they move the high water mark with the addition of public monies, then take the sand that the public buys, this conflicts with the deed. Who would have ever thunk it?
Beach Fanatic
Regarding the photo link posted by yippie; I have no sorrow for the owners of jetty east. It appears that they built at least 50' closer to the water than anyone else visible in those pictures. They made their own bed and get to live with it, as does anyone else who wants to walk that stretch of beach at high tide. how appropriate a name, as when the building begins to tumble, it will indeed become a jetty, and removal of same will never be financed by those responsible.
and we're questioning proactive code enforcement??
Maybe they built there first and when the others came and saw what was happening they built back, or the whole thing took place after the CCL was established. What has that got to do with proactive code enforcement?
Beach Fanatic
From this link....
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The Court also cited another important Florida case (Sand Key Assocs., 512 So. 2d at 936) which provided, "Riparian and littoral property rights consist not only of the right to use the water shared by the public, but include the following vested rights: 1) the right of access to the water, including the right to have the property's contact with the water remain intact; 2) the right to use the water for navigational purposes; 3) the right to an unobstructed view of the water; and 4) the right to receive accretions and relictions to the property." [/FONT]
Thanks.
SoWal Expert
I believe you've claimed you're not a lawyer. This is an opinion of the Pacific Legal Foundation which I feel somehow has a better handle on the law than you do. Take your argument up with them, not me. I gave you the link in my last post.It's a brief by a third party, not a legal opinion, and it doesn't answer my question of how it "cuts off access to the water," as it states.
needs to get out more
Maybe they built there first and when the others came and saw what was happening they built back, or the whole thing took place after the CCL was established. What has that got to do with proactive code enforcement?
maybe the ice cream man likes to go there first.
maybe they thought that being closer to the water would fuel sales faster. regardless, they are where they are, affecting everyone around them.
jetty east was completed in 1975.
regarding proactive code enforcement; if we had it, a lot of what is discussed in this forum wouldn't need to be.
SoWal Expert
I vote we send all the lawyers and "private" beach owners out to the beach during the next hurricane.
They can't leave until they come to an agreement of 30 words or less.........or until Mother Nature ends the discussion and solves the problem for us ;-).
They can't leave until they come to an agreement of 30 words or less.........or until Mother Nature ends the discussion and solves the problem for us ;-).
Beach Fanatic
" My children, don't waste your time on looking for expensive quantites of so-called "matching white sand" to replace what I temporarily took away in the first place!
...Who do you think you are, me? As with all things, I will return the sand to you, my children, on my time at my own speed, not on the time of self serving, nuerotic humans like yourselves! Your laws do not apply here!" --God.[/quote]
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Now, you are really making me angry now, don't make me repeat myself....God.:angry:
...Who do you think you are, me? As with all things, I will return the sand to you, my children, on my time at my own speed, not on the time of self serving, nuerotic humans like yourselves! Your laws do not apply here!" --God.[/quote]
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Now, you are really making me angry now, don't make me repeat myself....God.:angry:
SoWal Expert
WaltonGOP, I understand what you are saying, but that is not what they wrote in the brief. They were specific.
Beach Fanatic
It does not kill access per se, it kills access to the water without leaving land that you own. If you deed says you own to the high water mark, they move the high water mark with the addition of public monies, then take the sand that the public buys, this conflicts with the deed. Who would have ever thunk it?
Actually, this is one of the MAJOR areas of confusion. It's not about who pays. If it was then the owner "could" pay for their sand if that is what everyone wanted. It's about filling in state-owned properties, i.e. lands below the current MHW location, and then transferring ownership to a private owner (i.e. lands held in common good for state given to upland owner) This is why it's in the Supreme Court and why the takings argument is being used.
One question I have is that if it is determined to be a takings, could the $100 beach purchases in Blue Mountain from September 2007 be used as comparables.
Beach Fanatic
It's a brief by a third party, not a legal opinion, and it doesn't answer my question of how it "cuts off access to the water," as it states.
Amicus Curiae
Definition: Latin term meaning "friend of the court". The name for a brief filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case.
"... a phrase that literally means "friend of the court" -- someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court's decision may affect its interest."
SJ, you must be a bigger "friend of the court" as you'll try to discredit everything and everyone that doesn't agree with you. I simply made reference to their brief and then you say it's just a brief.
Their brief is their position as per their interpretation of the law. Somehow I just have to believe they know the law a tad better than you.
If there was no basis to this entire argument as you suggest (customary use and all), why is the case of Save Our Beaches vs. Walton County all the way to the Florida Supreme Court? So far, the District Court of Appeals upheld their position.
Deny what you want.
And ask your question, "how it cuts off access to the water" to a lawyer who is well versed in this area as any I answer I would give you could not possibly be right since I already answered it. But that's status quo with you.
Beach Fanatic
Actually, this is one of the MAJOR areas of confusion. It's not about who pays. If it was then the owner "could" pay for their sand if that is what everyone wanted. It's about filling in state-owned properties, i.e. lands below the current MHW location, and then transferring ownership to a private owner (i.e. lands held in common good for state given to upland owner) This is why it's in the Supreme Court and why the takings argument is being used.
So the 60 million dollar question is do our beaches need renourishment bad enough at this moment in time to justify the expenditures? Or does the county just want to try and accelerate the "takings"?
One question I have is that if it is determined to be a takings, could the $100 beach purchases in Blue Mountain from September 2007 be used as comparables.You forgot all those
.Edited
Beach Fanatic
So the 60 million dollar question is do our beaches need renourishment bad enough at this moment in time to justify the expenditures? Or does the county just want to try and accelerate the "takings"?
You forgot all those
Actually, the question is do our beaches need restoration bad enough because you restore and then nourish
.Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.