Beaches Of South Walton TDC agrees to support customary use of beaches

[Creeklover]

The bottom line is that the public has used the beaches for decades and thus a reasonable person who is considering a purchase of beachfront property would see that the public in fact is using the beach for recreation purposes. Most of the owners used the property themselves prior to their purchase. SWGB has the right idea, amend the constitution to address the issue once and for all. If pregnant pigs deserve protection, those who have always enjoyed the beach do as well.

If the property is taken from the owner and not paid for it then i see more law suites and more wasted money. Why don't we just take that money and buy more beach property for the public.

I think in SOWAL that there is plenty of pubilc property owned by the TDC, BCC or State for the public to enjoy. Why does someone need to go and pitch their beach equipment behind somesones home where the homeowner ownes the beach property. When they can stay on the public beach.

That property owner pays taxes and does not receive a credit for the public use of it so he should have a right to not allow anyone on his propertyif he does not wont them there.

Yes i was here last year and read and heard about the people who WCSO arrested for tresspassing on a privet beach when the people who set up camp was informed to move and did not. I am glad to see that WCSO did their job. Just like the noise complaints now.

If you do not like what the law says then get it changed..


Maybe we could try and get something like the state did with Mr. Davis in the Freeport area and buy a easement over the beach property where the public has access to the property and it can not be developed it made Mr. Davis alot of money to allow this green way over his property so maybe they could do something for the beach the same way?????

 

[Matt J]

If the property is taken from the owner and not paid for it then i see more law suites and more wasted money. Why don't we just take that money and buy more beach property for the public.

I think in SOWAL that there is plenty of pubilc property owned by the TDC, BCC or State for the public to enjoy. Why does someone need to go and pitch their beach equipment behind somesones home where the homeowner ownes the beach property. When they can stay on the public beach.

That property owner pays taxes and does not receive a credit for the public use of it so he should have a right to not allow anyone on his propertyif he does not wont them there.

Yes i was here last year and read and heard about the people who WCSO arrested for tresspassing on a privet beach when the people who set up camp was informed to move and did not. I am glad to see that WCSO did their job. Just like the noise complaints now.

If you do not like what the law says then get it changed..


Maybe we could try and get something like the state did with Mr. Davis in the Freeport area and buy a easement over the beach property where the public has access to the property and it can not be developed it made Mr. Davis alot of money to allow this green way over his property so maybe they could do something for the beach the same way?????

I'm actually looking into this. The amendment can include a clause that states the land was always public land. This only creates headaches for surveryors, real estate agents, and title companies.

If those people who are truly all about private beaches don't like it, they can sell their property and move to a state that allows private beaches. I'm not exactly thrilled that people with that mindset live in our community.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Creeklover,

I read your thoughts on following the law, but did you actually read the Court's opinion which I presented above?

 

[wrobert]

If those people who are truly all about private beaches don't like it, they can sell their property and move to a state that allows private beaches. I'm not exactly thrilled that people with that mindset live in our community.

AH HA! Finally you admit to being a NIMBY elitist. I knew it. Giving enough time you liberals will always tip your hand.

 

[NotDeadYet]

From August 13, 2002 BCC minutes, available on the internet:

"Commissioner Pauls brought up the issue of the public?s right to traverse the beach due to a recent incident between a member of the public and a beachfront homeowner. He stated that after review of the legal documentation provided, his conclusion would be that the public has a right to use and traverse the beach, including the white sandy area of the beach. However, there is still uncertainty as to what that area is. He stated that he has spoken with Deputy Gray from the Sheriff?s Department who agrees that there is a problem. He suggested scheduling public workshops to discuss this issue further supporting the public?s right to use and traverse the beach.
Mr. Wilde stated that there a more deeds that show ownership to the mean high water line than first thought. He explained that Judge Green has declined to accept a criminal trespass citation and immediately wrote an opinion suggesting the property owner have the mean high water line surveyed. Mr. Wilde stated that several people have assured him that the mean high water line is in the water, but they are unsure how far into the water. He stated that the most important issue is the safety and welfare of the citizens and visitors to Walton County. A policy needs to be developed for the Code Enforcement Officers and the Sheriff?s Department to follow. (Tape 3)
Mr. Mark Austin stated that the Board needs to stand on the side of the people in order to protect funding that comes from the property owners. If the beach is taken away from the public then visitors will no longer visit the beach areas or spend their money in Walton County. He stated that one issue needing to be addressed is "Florida?s Sovereign Land", that part of the beach that is hit by water at any time; this is public land.
Commissioner Walker stated that this is a decision that needs to be addressed by the courts. Commissioner Pauls stated that a policy is needed that can be followed. Attorney Vorbeck stated that an ordinance needs to be adopted stating basically what the Tony Rama case stands for and recognizing the fact that this issue will go to court.
Commissioner Ryan stated that an ordinance needs to be drafted to allow the public free use of the beach. He also suggested contacting other counties who have had to deal with this issue. Attorney Vorbeck requested the Board acknowledge that they are willing to spend the money it will take to go to court once an ordinance is drafted. Commissioner Walker stated that the Board of County Commissioners has always stipulated that the white sand areas of the beaches are public. Commissioner Ryan agreed.
Mr. Bill Higgins, property owner of beachfront property, stated that his deed shows that he owns his property to the mean high water line. Mr. Higgins stated that he favors the public?s use of the beach. He stated that an ordinance needs to be adopted to deal with inappropriate behavior, trash, and structures left on the beach.
Mr. Ed Goodwin, resident and property owner, previously provided a copy of an opinion that was issued regarding an Okaloosa County case. Mr. Vorbeck stated that the case being referred to is a Supreme Court Case, the City of Daytona Beach vs. Tony Rama.
The Board gave their consent for Attorney Vorbeck to prepare a beach ordinance to determine the public?s right to use the beach. A public hearing will be held regarding the use of the beach."


As it happens, I was at this meeting, and I remember it a little bit differently than what is stated in these BCC minutes, which do not reflect the lively discussion that took place, nor the consensus that seemed to be reached following the discussion. As I remember it, the BCC was in agreement that language supporting customary use of the beach by the public would be placed in the preamble of the Beach Ordinance and defended by the county, all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Until the private beach rights people got wind of it, anyway, it sure seemed like that BCC, which is of course different from this BCC, was in agreement that the public's use of the county's beaches was essential for tourism.
While I certainly do support Tom's efforts, I also wonder why the result will be any different this time around.

 

[Matt J]

AH HA! Finally you admit to being a NIMBY elitist. I knew it. Giving enough time you liberals will always tip your hand.

How is this NIMBY elitism?

 

[Creeklover]

I still belive if you take some one's property rights from them that you should pay for it.. Maybe if the county started just buying all of the property in the county that came to them with Development order then we would come out cheeper than all the Law Suites we are having. just think of how much Camping on the Gulf will cost or Jolly Bay?????

I still belive we have enough beach land in the public holdings to hold ALL of the visitors to SOWAL that we should leave the homeowners alone with their beach property they paid for. If you for some strange reason only wont to set on that section of beach then you should approch the home owner and buy it.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Creeklover, there is a major difference between YOU thinking that one thing should be done, and the COURTS, thinking that it shouldn't be done.

 

[BeachSiO2]

Here is a Destin Log article updating the situation. I could not find it on the Walton Sun or Herald site:

In Walton, it's public beach vs. private property | walton, public, div - News - TheDestinLog.com

The mere mention of "customary use" on Walton County's beaches — which pits the rights of the public against private property owners - ruffled some feathers at Tuesday's County Commission meeting.

"It's absolutely socialism," Blue Mountain Beach resident Emmett Hildreth said of a proposal to update the existing beach activities ordinance and comprehensive plan to include the customary use doctrine. "It's taking private property rights and redistribution of wealth and that's nationalization on a county level."

County commissioners have agreed to investigate a proposal by the Tourist Development Council to include the customary use doctrine in the ordinance. The doctrine determines exactly how the public may use the county's 26 miles of beaches, into the ordinance.

"We're asking the commissioners to ascertain if the doctrine of customary use can apply, and if the evidence that's presented to them supports the doctrine. Then we're further asking that they change the ordinance and comprehensive plan to recognize the doctrine of customary use," TDC Director Sonny Mares said after the meeting.

He said the existing law does not clarify exactly what activities the public may enjoy on the beaches or clarify that the public and businesses can freely use the 60 beach accesses.

Mares said the question is whether the doctrine of customary use supports the public's right to use the dry sand portion of the beach for activities such as swimming, fishing, walking and sunbathing.

Property owners are now putting up signs warning people away from their homes and even hiring private security guards, he said.

Those actions "certainly go contrary to this being a tourist destination and does great harm to the tourist industry in Walton County," which is a $1 billion industry, provides about $20 million to the school district and supports 1,200 jobs.

"Tourism has been one of the largest stimuluses for construction, and this is certainly not the time to be downgrading the importance of tourism and thus losing the benefits of the tax revenue to the county," Mares said.

Commissioner Larry Jones said controversy has been sparked recently over whether property owners have the right to exclude people from certain areas of the beach and it is "probably time that it be addressed."

Commissioners took no action Tuesday; they agreed only to study the issue.

The next step will be for those who support the customary use doctrine to investigate whether there is enough evidence to support its inclusion in the beach activities ordinance.

Jones said if that evidence does exist, another meeting will be scheduled for residents to give their input.

"In a public forum, you'll have people speak against what is being presented," he said after the meeting. "It is now the onus of proof to the commission that there would be reason to move forward to strengthen the ordinance to clarify what areas of the beach the public can use. I think it's going to be a fairly lengthy process."

 

[sunspotbaby]

It's on the front page of the Sun today.


"This is evil socialism! " :roll: