Beachfront Owners Sue Sheriff and County for Closing Beaches

[mputnal]

Walton County is asking a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling, which could force the county to compensate beachfront property owners for losing access to their beach property.

County officials requested the rehearing last week, before the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They are challenging a three-judge panel’s late November decision to side with property owners.

Those owners claim commissioners violated their constitutional rights, essentially taking their property when they closed all beaches to prevent the spread of COVID-19, for 28 days, from April 2nd to April 30th, 2020.

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle originally sided with Walton County, saying the ordinance was a use restriction and did not constitute a taking of property.

Owners appealed to the three-judge panel, who ruled for them, and told the district judge to determine how much compensation they should receive from the county.

That’s on hold until the appeals court rules on this latest motion. Depending on the decision, this case could wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Wealth and power is never satisfied. My grandmother use to say that if you give a child an inch they will take a mile. Well it is the same for the rich and powerful except they will take it all...

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

After reading the decision in its entirety, I don't think it will be overturned even at the Federal Supreme Court. Much is based on their past decisions.

The question now is can the rest of the beach property owners file for a takings settlement once all this has played out.

 

[mputnal]

After reading the decision in its entirety, I don't think it will be overturned even at the Federal Supreme Court. Much is based on their past decisions.

The question now is can the rest of the beach property owners file for a takings settlement once all this has played out.

I believe the federal appeals court will overturn but even if they don't it will not stop the few beachfront owners that will never be satisfied with sharing the beach with respectful families and people. Compensation is probably not the reason for those who filed the lawsuit. It is primarily an exclusive use issue with wealth.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Compensation is probably not the reason for those who filed the lawsuit. It is primarily an exclusive use issue with wealth.

First sentence is correct, IMHO. The very first suit was filed very quickly after the county locked down private beaches. I don't think the original beach front private property owners were looking for a payout. They simply did not want to be illegally excluded from their own private property during Covid - the same as every other residential private property owner in the county.

Second statement regarding "wealth" is more of the same simple minded, class warfare crap that has absolutely no bearing on the subject.

For me (and I absolutely believe most of those involved in the lawsuit), it's about countering the overreach of the county government who pander to constituents instead of the Constitution. "Well we can't go to the (public) beach. Why should private beach front owners be allowed on the (their) beach?"
And the BCC unlawfully agreed. And this had absolutely nothing to do with Covid risk.

One "should", as any private property owner, be in full support of opposing any illegal action by the Walton County Board of County Commissioners. Listen, the BCCs through the years have had a less than stellar reputation on many fronts due to ineptitude, arrogance and probably some corruption. This truly is hard, actually impossible, to dispute. Just ask Alan Osborne and Suzanne Harris for starters.

Let's rewind the clock and go back to Customary Use. The original Customary Use statute (a taking) was passed October 2016 (effective April 1, 2017), again, WITHOUT ANY JUDICIAL DUE PROCESS as required by state and federal law. In essence, the beach front owners lost the right to exclude anyone from their private property for a considerable period of time. IF you read the recent judicial decision in this thread's discussion, this is the big the reason that the property owners recently prevailed when their private property was shutdown during Covid - they were not compensated for the taking. The county and property owner are supposed to agree to compensation BEFORE the taking occurs. Nothing to argue here.

So what does all this have to do with the recent customary use debacle?

Remember when I (and others) asked why Walton County caved in regarding CU litigation just before it went to trial? The county knew that if they continued the legal battle, that they could be on the hook for SIGNIFICANT compensation regardless of the CU outcome for the year long private property takings (when they first passed CU) with no judicial process as required for CU to begin with.

In other words, the county illegally "took" private property rights that they were not entitled to (once more, no judicial process). And this was going to cost them dearly regardless of how CU turned out.

Now add in the fact that the county's CU case was falling apart. Remember when the county paid over $500,000 to the history expert who brought up all kind of "facts" regarding the Indians and others who historically used the beach (ancient use - one of the major cornerstones of CU) at the advice of the county's CU attorney? Most now know that when the United States government owned all the land, not that long ago, that any use before that cannot be considered as "ancient". This, among other things, weakened the county's case., IMO.

The county then made a calculated move as I see it. Rather than the possibility (probability) of losing the customary use case AND the illegal takings counter suits, the county decided (rightly so, IMO) to settle the CU case with prejudice in EXCHANGE for the property owners dropping the takings counter suits that was probably going to cost the county a lot of money, regardless of the CU outcome.


Here's the kicker!

If the constituents were not so gung ho in pressuring the county to passing the ILLEGAL customary use bill in 2016 without judicial process (I can name lots of names and a particular organization), then there would not have been any counter suits for illegal takings. In other words, the customary use law suit would probably have seen the legal light of day - maybe in favor, maybe not, because the county would have had little to lose at that point since they would not be staring at takings lawsuits from over 1100 parcels. The public would have had a shot at customary use since all the legal legwork had been expended up to that point. It was practically ready for trial.

But the county's lawsuit did not get heard by a judge because the county ROYALLY F_CKED UP due to the illegal takings pressured by totally misguided constituents (idiots). They could not afford to lose BOTH cases in court so the county just gave up in exchange for the property owners dismissing their countersuits. The county had an incompetent staff attorney providing BAD advice in the beginning of CU. And, of course, the county hired firms who simply made a lot of money regardless, all at our expense.

So there's your reason why the group of property owners filed their lawsuit against the county - classic and continued overreach, plain and simple. Hopefully the county will be more deliberate in their legal dealings down the road.

 

[mputnal]

First sentence is correct, IMHO. The very first suit was filed very quickly after the county locked down private beaches. I don't think the original beach front private property owners were looking for a payout. They simply did not want to be illegally excluded from their own private property during Covid - the same as every other residential private property owner in the county.

Second statement regarding "wealth" is more of the same simple minded, class warfare crap that has absolutely no bearing on the subject.

For me (and I absolutely believe most of those involved in the lawsuit), it's about countering the overreach of the county government who pander to constituents instead of the Constitution. "Well we can't go to the (public) beach. Why should private beach front owners be allowed on the (their) beach?"
And the BCC unlawfully agreed. And this had absolutely nothing to do with Covid risk.

One "should", as any private property owner, be in full support of opposing any illegal action by the Walton County Board of County Commissioners. Listen, the BCCs through the years have had a less than stellar reputation on many fronts due to ineptitude, arrogance and probably some corruption. This truly is hard, actually impossible, to dispute. Just ask Alan Osborne and Suzanne Harris for starters.

Let's rewind the clock and go back to Customary Use. The original Customary Use statute (a taking) was passed October 2016 (effective April 1, 2017), again, WITHOUT ANY JUDICIAL DUE PROCESS as required by state and federal law. In essence, the beach front owners lost the right to exclude anyone from their private property for a considerable period of time. IF you read the recent judicial decision in this thread's discussion, this is the big the reason that the property owners recently prevailed when their private property was shutdown during Covid - they were not compensated for the taking. The county and property owner are supposed to agree to compensation BEFORE the taking occurs. Nothing to argue here.

So what does all this have to do with the recent customary use debacle?

Remember when I (and others) asked why Walton County caved in regarding CU litigation just before it went to trial? The county knew that if they continued the legal battle, that they could be on the hook for SIGNIFICANT compensation regardless of the CU outcome for the year long private property takings (when they first passed CU) with no judicial process as required for CU to begin with.

In other words, the county illegally "took" private property rights that they were not entitled to (once more, no judicial process). And this was going to cost them dearly regardless of how CU turned out.

Now add in the fact that the county's CU case was falling apart. Remember when the county paid over $500,000 to the history expert who brought up all kind of "facts" regarding the Indians and others who historically used the beach (ancient use - one of the major cornerstones of CU) at the advice of the county's CU attorney? Most now know that when the United States government owned all the land, not that long ago, that any use before that cannot be considered as "ancient". This, among other things, weakened the county's case., IMO.

The county then made a calculated move as I see it. Rather than the possibility (probability) of losing the customary use case AND the illegal takings counter suits, the county decided (rightly so, IMO) to settle the CU case with prejudice in EXCHANGE for the property owners dropping the takings counter suits that was probably going to cost the county a lot of money, regardless of the CU outcome.


Here's the kicker!

If the constituents were not so gung ho in pressuring the county to passing the ILLEGAL customary use bill in 2016 without judicial process (I can name lots of names and a particular organization), then there would not have been any counter suits for illegal takings. In other words, the customary use law suit would probably have seen the legal light of day - maybe in favor, maybe not, because the county would have had little to lose at that point since they would not be staring at takings lawsuits from over 1100 parcels. The public would have had a shot at customary use since all the legal legwork had been expended up to that point. It was practically ready for trial.

But the county's lawsuit did not get heard by a judge because the county ROYALLY F_CKED UP due to the illegal takings pressured by totally misguided constituents (idiots). They could not afford to lose BOTH cases in court so the county just gave up in exchange for the property owners dismissing their countersuits. The county had an incompetent staff attorney providing BAD advice in the beginning of CU. And, of course, the county hired firms who simply made a lot of money regardless, all at our expense.

So there's your reason why the group of property owners filed their lawsuit against the county - classic and continued overreach, plain and simple. Hopefully the county will be more deliberate in their legal dealings down the road.

I do not see your argument from a legal standpoint. There was no "taking" therefore there should be no compensation. That said if I were the Judge I might ask both parties to find common ground. That would be best for you and me and a dog named flea. Your need to punish people (community, government) for the illusion of a perceived threat to your rights will never be justified by anyone but you. You enjoy a privilege without merit and you will never understand this from a human value or economic value point of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I should not have to explain what this means so I will let you figure this out or just live your life as a victim of nothing. You and others that think like you will cry, complain, sue, holler, hate and never be happy. You have a psychological need that likely will never be satisfied. One year ago I believed that we WOULD find common ground just based on my belief in the good elements of human nature. Over this past year I have finally realized the power of money and power and it's psychotic effect on human nature. Whether you believe this is simple minded class warfare or not you know I speak the Truth. I still hope you will come to realize that our short time on this ball of wonder is way more important than your need or my need to be right about anything...except treat others like we want to be treated. It is that plain and simple...

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I do not see your argument from a legal standpoint.

Of course not. And you never will because you're in ABSOLUTE denial.

There was no "taking" therefore there should be no compensation.

Obviously you didn't read the judicial decision from THREE judges. You see only what you want to see and then try to convince others that your vision is the only one with zero credible support.

 

[Brittny]

Second statement regarding "wealth" is more of the same simple minded, class warfare crap that has absolutely no bearing on the subject.

Let them fockers eat cake!

 

[mputnal]

Of course not. And you never will because you're in ABSOLUTE denial.


Obviously you didn't read the judicial decision from THREE judges. You see only what you want to see and then try to convince others that your vision is the only one with zero credible support.

Are you a lawyer or just posing as one. I’m certainly not. All you and I have are opinions. We are not experts in legal opinions but even if we were we still would not know how the appeals court will rule of course. My point is that you will never be satisfied with sharing the beach with or without compensation. Therefore the court would be wise to overturn and save themselves from continuous lawsuits. Obviously it would be foolish of me to try and convince you of anything. You are a victim and ain’t nobody going to change that except you. I am no longer in denial of how people can use victimization to justify anything…

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

My point is that you will never be satisfied with sharing the beach with or without compensation.

Absolutely wrong, again.

Way back on SoWal, I suggested that beachfront owners share the back half of their beach which is typically lightly used in exchange for reduced or elimination of property tax. I sincerely felt both sides could have benefited from this.

And @Dave Rauschkolb wouldn't have any of it. Remember "All or None"? Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

 

[mputnal]

Absolutely wrong, again.

Way back on SoWal, I suggested that beachfront owners share the back half of their beach which is typically lightly used in exchange for reduced or elimination of property tax. I sincerely felt both sides could have benefited from this.

And @Dave Rauschkolb wouldn't have any of it. Remember "All or None"? Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Please put me in that same category as Dave. After communicating with you and Huckabee in this forum and learning from those who believe in their higher status in life I now realize you and he would never be satisfied with people that are what you may not say but believe are "lower class" or "underachieving" or "want something for nothing". I also tried to find common ground early on with the exchange with Huckabee but he would have nothing of it and you have followed in his hallowed foot steps. You know I am right. No elimination of any of your property tax for the purpose of sharing the "beach"!!!