Beach Restoration Halted

[BeachSiO2]

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 .

 

[Smiling JOe]

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.

I acknowledged in my previous post that the brief is made by a third party. A brief is still a brief, and not some Court's Opinion. You keep telling us that the Courts are the only ones who will decide this thing, but you are relying on a third party opinion. You never answered my question referring to the position in the brief that the access to the water would be cut off. You tell me the answer is in the brief, and now you tell me to consult a lawyer. I don't get it. I could care less, but am just pointing out their error in the brief. From your non-legal opinion, can you answer my question? IMO, the statement is just inaccurate. My argument to the brief is that the access to the water would not be cut off as stated. The property owners will still have access to the water. That's my argument in a nutshell, to the third party opinion written in the brief.;-)

For the record, SOB case has nothing to do with Customary Use. Why don't you read up on Customary Use so that we don't have to keep explaining it to you?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Smiling Joe,

We're both butting heads AGAIN. Imagine that. I try to back my position with law, facts and others' opinions who have standing....even PROVING you wrong on occasion after you practically call me a liar more than once.

However your ooozing of excessive sarcasm won't change anything in this situation although I can see that's about the only thing you can desperately resort to now.

There are a lot of things you don't see here because you refuse to.

First of all, I NEVER said that the quoted brief was a "Court Decision" as you stated. The Courts will ONLY decide whether or not the county can facilitate a taking via beach nourishment this go-round. It has nothing to do with customary use.

Then you say "You keep telling us that the Courts are the only ones who will decide this thing, but you are relying on a third party opinion."
Yes I did but I believe there presently is NO CUSTOMARY USE court case in our neck of the woods...and probably for a good reason.


From DEP's website:

...Though such areas can be the subject of private ownershlp, the Court found that the public can claim rights of "customary use" under certain conditions:​

If the recreational use of the sandy area adjacent to mean high tide has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption and free from dispute, such use, as a matter of custom, should not be interfered with by the owner.​

SJ, time and time again in other threads I basically asked you and others what defined "ancient" and "reasonable" use. Nobody has ever defined it from any reasonable perspective. To compare the pier and boardwalk area in Daytona to our area in South Walton is simply ludicrous when one continually quotes Tona-Roma and customary use.​

The business (private entity) that owned the beach in Daytona ENCOURAGED the public to frequent the beach whether or not they spent money at the pier for DECADES. The only entity ENCOURAGING the general public to use our beaches in Walton County is TDC. They now just documented last year that many beaches are private but won't say where. Private beach owners (on the other hand), at least in my neck of the woods, only extend an invitation to renters and invitees and definitely not general public.​

Also from Florida DEP's website:
Although "customary use" may form the basis of a right to beach access, there are several issues concerning its potential applicability in Florida. First it is not clear in Florida what character of customary use will allow an assertion that the public has rights to perpendicular or lateral access to beach areas landward of MHWL. The numbers of people required to have exercised such customary use, and over what period of time, have not been addressed by Florida courts.​

Sound familiar?​

I can see why you or others can't (or won't) answer that simple question: what SPECIFICALLY constitutes customary use. Neither can the courts it seems.​

You continually want me to answer your question. And I did (again right or wrong). I also quoted references that state that the premise in question certainly exists. But of course you deny, ignore and try to spin it:​

You said, "My argument to the brief is that the access to the water would not be cut off as stated. The property owners will still have access to the water. That's my argument in a nutshell, to the third party opinion written in the brief.;-)"​

SJ, if you think a clearly established legal principal should be thrown out the window because it is your argument to the brief, so be it. To h_e_l_l with the law.​

And PLEASE don't use no STINKIN' WINKIE to mask the rediculousness of your statement!!!!!​

Then you say,
"For the record, SOB case has nothing to do with Customary Use. Why don't you read up on Customary Use so that we don't have to keep explaining it to you?" ​

The first sentence is correct from what I understand. If it weren't for the arrogant dripping sarcasm contained in the second sentence, I would guess you were actually trying to exchange information on a factual basis.​

But, again, what the hell was I thinking?​