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

hnooe

Beach Fanatic
Jul 21, 2007
3,022
640
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.
 
Last edited:

DuneLaker

Beach Fanatic
Mar 1, 2008
2,643
521
Eastern Lake Est., SoWal, FL
Yea, Some of this will make your eyes glaze over. Just thought some on this thread might be interested. :blink: .[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.
 

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,382
412
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.
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,644
1,773
BMBV said:
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.
 

BeachSiO2

Beach Fanatic
Jun 16, 2006
3,294
737
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?
 

jack S

Beach Lover
Jun 12, 2007
173
84
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!
 

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,382
412
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.
 

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,382
412
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]
 

John R

needs to get out more
Dec 31, 2005
6,780
828
Conflictinator
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??
 

wrobert

Beach Fanatic
Nov 21, 2007
4,132
575
63
DeFuniak Springs
www.defuniaksprings.com
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?
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter