Customary Beach Use

[DuneLaker]

Checking signs is a good idea. IMO heat was relieved by enforcing "the remove it or lose it" policy. Tents, and all their related junk, less frequently litters the beach, public or private. Most don't mind anyone walking, visiting or using the space around their homes. But, when individuals recently started erecting tents and leaving them up for indefinite periods, conflicts increased.

 

[rapunzel]

I have been unable to locate anything specific here. Do you have examples or maybe names of communities so I can search further? I want to see how they handle the taking. In Florida the Bert Harris Act would seem to get in the way, but not sure. Of course these would have to be Florida communities since this issue has not been resolved nationally yet.

I think what has been/is being done with the springs is a good example of how a past mistake can be undone. Lest we forget, Florida has always been filled with land speculators, and they sold the springs for a premium back in the days before dog fly planes and air-conditioning. The state has been very aggressive in acquiring the springs and keeping them in public trust.

I'm glad the days of local sheriffs blowing up the entrances to spring caves is over. It just saddens me that seawalls are still going up.

As for my thoughts on beach access, I think it is a short-sighted approach to deal with the real issues -- http://http://www.sowal.com/bb/showpost.php?p=311484&postcount=23

 

[NotDeadYet]

Declaring customary use would probably solve a lot of problems. But how are you going to compensate people for the taking of private land. If they have a deed is that not all they need? Or do we just ignore that deed because we do not like what it says? And if you do the taking, where does the money come from to defend that taking? With revenue limits and SOH along with flat growth, what revenue source do you tap?

I think there is a great deal of confusion between what people call ?private property rights? and what I call land ownership. Ownership of a particular piece of land comes with what is commonly referred to as a ?bundle of rights.? What is contained within the bundle may be and often is restricted to some degree. Examples of this include zoning restrictions, easements that cannot be built on, conservation easements, restrictions that come from local ordinances such as light, noise, tree, sign and height restrictions and so on, and deed restrictions that specify all kinds of particulars about the type and size of allowable construction. I see people using the term ?private property rights? when they resist various restrictions on the use of their land, when historically ?private property rights? had more to do with the right to actually own the land and to buy and sell land between private parties, as opposed to some form of collective ownership of land.
I do not agree that a deed is all they need because the deed has to do with the ownership, whereas the restrictions vary. Along the beaches rights are already restricted in a unique way by the DEP which regulates construction seaward of the CCCL. What we are talking about here is one ?stick? from the ?bundle of rights,? namely the right to exclude. Declaring customary use would certainly affect that stick, but not the entire bundle. I do not consider this to be a ?taking,? frankly. It may diminish the value, and it may certainly not be what the buyer expected when he purchased the property so I suppose in that respect some compensation may be called for, but I don?t really see why it has to be other than a reduction in assesed value. Nobody is coming and taking the land, they are just affirming an historical usage of it that predates the purchase by the current owner.
The county has dug themselves a hole with the tents and stuff left on the beach overnight. Their latest attempt at signage, Smiling Joe?s current avatar, begs the question of which beaches are public and therefore subject to the prohibition about leaving things on the beach. They have put themselves in the position of making case by case judgments as they ride along removing or tagging tents, and so I think they will simply not enforce it.
A few more big hurricanes and some more sea level rise and it will all be moot.
FYI, Oregon settled this long ago:
"In 1911, Gov. Oswald West, a populist reformer, persuaded the Oregon Legislature to pass a bill declaring Oregon beaches a public highway. Up through the early 1900s the beach was the only way to travel between coastal communities without long detours inland. Oregonians became so accustomed to this open access they believed the public ?owned? the beaches, including the dry sand above high tide.
A Cannon Beach motel owner challenged this folk wisdom in 1966. Bill Hay roped off a section of beach in front of his motel, excluding the public from his ?private? beach. House Majority Leader Bob Smith, R-Burns tried to give away the public?s claim to the dry sand portions of Oregon?s beaches. Smith?s maneuvering rained a rare firestorm of public indignation on Salem. A wobbly Legislature produced a compromise plan that was immediately challenged in court.
The Oregon Supreme Court eventually ruled that unrestricted public use of beaches since aboriginal times granted the public a ?prescriptive right? of access to the ?dry sand? beaches above high tide line regardless of what title documents said. That 1967 decision still guarantees public use of Oregon?s beaches today."

 

[NotDeadYet]

Walton County Code Enforcement says they can't do anything about the signs because the signs reference a Florida statute.

So?? Have they even bothered to look up that statute? It does not exist.
I have the hardest time with this as an excuse.

 

[BeachSiO2]

Walton County has more miles of public owned beach than private owned. So why are we not concentrating on making those areas available to the public.

I had a question about this comment as I happen to be more familiar than most on what is publicly-OWNED and I can't get to more than 13 miles being publicly-OWNED as there is 26 miles total. I also saw on Bob Hudson's thread that he stated 16 miles were public. I am assuming that he also meant publicly-owned.

When I do the math I know of the 6 miles of the state parks, add in the 5 miles that were part of the restoration project and thus now there is an ECL there that only brings us up to 11 miles. Any thoughts on where those other 2+ miles would be, or the 5 miles that Bob referenced if that is where you got your numbers. I can tell you that if you add up the land at the County accesses you will not reach 5 miles of publicly-owned land.

 

[wrobert]

I had a question about this comment as I happen to be more familiar than most on what is publicly-OWNED and I can't get to more than 13 miles being publicly-OWNED as there is 26 miles total. I also saw on Bob Hudson's thread that he stated 16 miles were public. I am assuming that he also meant publicly-owned.

When I do the math I know of the 6 miles of the state parks, add in the 5 miles that were part of the restoration project and thus now there is an ECL there that only brings us up to 11 miles. Any thoughts on where those other 2+ miles would be, or the 5 miles that Bob referenced if that is where you got your numbers. I can tell you that if you add up the land at the County accesses you will not reach 5 miles of publicly-owned land.

Just a number I keep hearing at meetings and such. Thanks for the correction. So we have 13 miles of public land. I guess that does tend to change the whole dynamic then.

 

[wrobert]

So?? Have they even bothered to look up that statute? It does not exist.
I have the hardest time with this as an excuse.

Tell me about it. I guess if someone put up a sign saying murder was legal and quoted a Statute number, then it must be legal. Amazing to me the trouble people go to in order to get out of work.

 

[wrobert]

I think what has been/is being done with the springs is a good example of how a past mistake can be undone.

Thinking you are speaking of Morrison Springs, yes, Brannon has done an excellent job in leading the charge in placing that ownership back to the public for use and enjoyment. And it was done without a declaration that the place was now public. The owners were compensated and agreed to transfer ownership. Really a great example of how to approach the beach issue, I guess. Just quite a few more owners to deal with.

 

[wrobert]

.
The Oregon Supreme Court eventually ruled that unrestricted public use of beaches since aboriginal times granted the public a ?prescriptive right? of access to the ?dry sand? beaches above high tide line regardless of what title documents said. That 1967 decision still guarantees public use of Oregon?s beaches today."

Maybe we will get lucky and the Florida Supremes will offer a similar ruling in the near future.

 

[SHELLY]

Maybe we will get lucky and the Florida Supremes will offer a similar ruling in the near future.

...I'm not holding my breath--not now that Sorry Charlie will be packing the bench with Developers' Biyaches.

.