Yes, I'm back. And no, it's not ridiculous. Gosh, I just had a flashback that my favorite restaurateur loved to also use that word here on SoWal.
So after years and years of debate regarding Old Blue Mountain Beach and who actually has rights to it, the fact remains that the county never had any ownership interest in the property which was owned by the Blue Gulf Corporation with exclusive rights extended to the subdivision.
Now that the Blue Gulf Corporation is defunct, someone ENTITLED to own the property (adjacent upland beachfront owner) had the right to file quiet title. The quiet title process simply clears up the ownership of the property. Contrary to many ignorant perceptions, the quiet title process along the beach is NOT taking away beach front property from the public. It's simply "clearing the air" regarding the title. Once again, the county (public) never had an interest in this property. On the other hand, the Old Blue Mountain Beach front property was encumbered for the exclusive use of ALL (and only) of Old Blue Mountain Beach subdivision, but not the public, as this was private property.
For the less informed, and those who perpetuated the outright lie that beach front owners were "stealing" beach front property with a lawyer and a $400 filing fee (Florida Beaches for All and their disciples) , it is just that: misinformation. Believe it if you want, but the judge and lawyers (including the county's lawyer) have to (and did) sign off on the process.
How can anyone honestly think that a local judge would sign off on the concept of "stealing beach front property from the public"?
BTW, attorney Mark Davis filed many of these quiet titles in Blue Mountain many years ago. He subsequently became the county attorney who helped spearhead the customary use debacle for the county. Do you think he would have filed these if there was the slightest issue in doing so?
This particular issue (quiet title) will not hurt tourism at all as nothing has changed.
This idea of increasing the tax as mentioned because the value is "priceless", as stated above, GOES COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORYLY against another supported myth perpetuated by the organization, Florida Beaches for All and their disciples, which has been discussed over the years on this forum. That is since one can not build on the beach, it's value is zero. And therefore the county should be able to seize the property through eminent domain and pay ZERO for the property. Can't have it both ways.
One's property valuation is mainly determined by relatively recent sales prices, period. It does happen that beach front property is obviously more valued by buyers than non-beach front property. And beach front property that has private beach is valued even higher that beach front property that is not private. I know I didn't have to spell this out for most people.
