New posts

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
This is a passionate discussion and we need to keep it respectful without personal attacks. If you don't understand the difference between jabs and attacks then you will not enjoy our forum. Thread titles are sometimes edited when they are all caps, confusing, too long, etc. They aren't intentionally edited to skew one way or the other. I changed the title to make it more inviting for to all to participate. I'm not even sure what a 30A Legacy is, or means, and may change it again to an even simpler "Customary Use Discussion".
Thanks Kurt. Looking back over posts from previous years, you posted and provide feedback more often. It's helpful to understand why the SoWal forum is the way it is and works the way it does. Please see my Conversations about my ongoing account delay problems and resolutions.
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
#1016 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
mputnal you ask valid questions to the Eminent Domain CU "solution".

"State [Florida] then have no choice but to protect the economics of tourism ... ?" Commissioners and legislators always have a political choice - and tax payer consequences.
I think CU economic predictions are not based on evidence/facts and are not credible. There is no evidence that Commissioners' or other's South Walton ghost town predictions are anything other than voodoo economic beliefs and fear mongering. Look at the TDC tourist tax data since 2016. It is beach Supply and Demand or Density. "It is just that simple."
More tourists visiting South Walton in month of May
Walton County spring tourism numbers up
January 2019 TDC TDT Report #96 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
April 2019 TDC TDT Report #646 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
April 5, 2019 Report: Walton County top-performing local economy in Florida

Okaloosa and Bay counties have never had customary use ordinances (nor do 65 other counties) and the real estate market is increasing as well as Walton's. Look at the data.
Even if there is a downturn, the supply has never meet demand (thanks too to TDC $20,000,000 annual marketing) and beach demand and property values will continue to appreciate - just like after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. #29 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

"State [FL] ... turning to eminent domain (ED) for beach property?" It would not be the State of Florida turning to ED anyway. The same Florida legislators that saw the legal need for a private property due-process law to stop other FL counties from doing what Walton Commissioners did to "take", by declaration of 5 elected politicians, without going to court FIRST? The Commissioners would have to make that CU ED choice and pay for it. State nor local Governments can not go to court willy-nilly for eminent domain takes on any private property for any reason; and they have to pay fair market value; billion$. Properties that governments use police-power to regulate or condemn to take does not mean it has no monetary value or no taxable value - unless you can provide facts to the contrary. The open free market determines the value. Just like the 220 ft, 1.5 acre Dune Allen parcels Commissioners paid $7,400,000 for in 2016. More than a $1,000,000 over the appraised values. BCC approves purchasing Dune Allen property for regional access

"I believe that BFO's are interested in two things: Privatizing the beach or compensation for loss of privatizing the beach." NO! You can not (A) "Privatize" already Private beachfront property! (B) BFOs don't want money for public use![1] You truly do NOT understand what BFOs "are interested in". Me and most BFOs only want everyone to respect our property rights, that include private enjoyment and use, if they so choose. Only then maybe BFOs would be willing to share, or not, but if Commissioners/CU believers want to force BFOs to share with everyone by litigating an ancient English legal doctrine of custom, you have lost most of us, and that is what has angered and motivated over 50% of the 4,671 BFOs to spend their own money to legally intervene in Commissions litigation.

BFOs "definitely not much interested in community" The "community" definitely not much interested in respecting property rights and the law "per their own [CU believers] statements."
' "best use" of beach front property?' How about the beachfront owner's use and enjoyment they paid for and pay the property taxes on for those bundle of rights?

[1] But if the Commissioners are going to charge the public for beach access, to mange the demand/density as has been suggested, the Commissioners had better compensate the BFOs for public use of their property. I like the idea of "Park" model to mange "density" but would not be workable without being able to control access like at the State Parks.
 

mputnal

Beach Fanatic
Nov 10, 2009
2,522
780
FBB I assume you are one individual with a set of facts that I mostly agree with but not all. After reading your posts it is obvious that you do not trust community CU activism's purpose or local government. I understand why but we disagree on your belief that once you are certified as owner of the beach that suddenly you will find that community matters and "share" the beach. Just about all of your statements of fact is that you "own" the beach and are the sole decider in how that beach will be used because you paid for it. Maybe "you" would share the beach but how do you know that EVERY BFO would follow your lead? The People should not risk losing the beach to private ownership. The County should not risk losing the beach to private ownership. The State should not risk losing beach to private ownership. If we do risk that BFO's will share the beach then it is a matter of time before only wealthy people would enjoy the beach. Our economic system is skewed in favor of wealth. You say that you just want RESPECT but at the same time you say you are a REALIST. You know that people do no always behave respectfully and we can both wish it were not so but human behavior is a mixed bag. Some people respect some people don't. Even people with good intent sometimes don't behave respectfully. Just like ForF said about the fireworks that many of the BFO's are not so inclined to be generous after a display of disrespect. I understand that taxpayers would pay for eminent domain and that is why there would be a renewed activism to keep the beach public. You may win this court battle but the war is just beginning. IMHO and NOT all-knowing opinion I believe BFO's should have thicker skin to manage both disrespectful beach goers and Community Activist wanting ALL beach to be public. I have given you reasons why I believe this. I think your community would agree with you about lowering density and increasing infrastructure. BFO's have an "opportunity" and maybe your best leverage of getting what you want in terms of a settlement. You believe the Constitution to be absolute yet there is only one absolute. We like to say there are two but it seems that many in the wealthy class find a way to avoid the 2nd one. If the Constitution is absolute then Eminent Domain for beach property is very likely. How a court will determine compensation will be the next big lawsuit.
 

Dave Rauschkolb

Beach Fanatic
Jul 13, 2005
1,006
790
Santa Rosa Beach
FBB I assume you are one individual with a set of facts that I mostly agree with but not all. After reading your posts it is obvious that you do not trust community CU activism's purpose or local government. I understand why but we disagree on your belief that once you are certified as owner of the beach that suddenly you will find that community matters and "share" the beach. Just about all of your statements of fact is that you "own" the beach and are the sole decider in how that beach will be used because you paid for it. Maybe "you" would share the beach but how do you know that EVERY BFO would follow your lead? The People should not risk losing the beach to private ownership. The County should not risk losing the beach to private ownership. The State should not risk losing beach to private ownership. If we do risk that BFO's will share the beach then it is a matter of time before only wealthy people would enjoy the beach. Our economic system is skewed in favor of wealth. You say that you just want RESPECT but at the same time you say you are a REALIST. You know that people do no always behave respectfully and we can both wish it were not so but human behavior is a mixed bag. Some people respect some people don't. Even people with good intent sometimes don't behave respectfully. Just like ForF said about the fireworks that many of the BFO's are not so inclined to be generous after a display of disrespect. I understand that taxpayers would pay for eminent domain and that is why there would be a renewed activism to keep the beach public. You may win this court battle but the war is just beginning. IMHO and NOT all-knowing opinion I believe BFO's should have thicker skin to manage both disrespectful beach goers and Community Activist wanting ALL beach to be public. I have given you reasons why I believe this. I think your community would agree with you about lowering density and increasing infrastructure. BFO's have an "opportunity" and maybe your best leverage of getting what you want in terms of a settlement. You believe the Constitution to be absolute yet there is only one absolute. We like to say there are two but it seems that many in the wealthy class find a way to avoid the 2nd one. If the Constitution is absolute then Eminent Domain for beach property is very likely. How a court will determine compensation will be the next big lawsuit.

Wow, just Wow. So succinctly put and spot on.
 

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,289
375
Wow! Did you see the article just posted on the Walton County Wave? Check it out.
Do you mean the one where Suzanne Harris may be about to win yet another lawsuit against the county regarding CU and Edgewater Condominiums? Special executive BCC meeting taking place today regarding all of that, BTW.

Article

From the above article:The county, as evidenced through previous litigation, has already recognized that such recreational customary use has not been present on Edgewater’s private beach property,” the motion states.

And from the Walton County Wave Facebook page:

James Lince - ..and on every neighborhood subdivision private beach where the County signed off and approved the private beach with "no rights to the public" - that too interrupted any claim of "customary use". What's amazing is that Larry Jones completely missed all these legal real property transactions in writing his Master's thesis, and that Theriaque completely missed these in his recommendations to the County.

Suzanne Corretti Harris - County decided to take no action on Edgewater last night they felt that they could not have a crack in their case or it look would be bad for their suit Edgewater will sue both attorneys and will also sue in Federal Court under the new law that was just passed. As the song goes “ and the beat goes on “.

Suzanne Corretti Harris - We shall see. I think we will spank Theriaque like a baby in court but we shall see.
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
mputnal, you did not answer the previous #1019 question about how many of the 1,193 beachfront parcels are posting signs or fences or are keep people off their beachfront? 50%? 25%? less than 1%? Why not? What would you base your answer on?

You and other CU believers can not make informed decisions or opinions without accurate factual credible information. No one "certifies" anyone as a beachfront owner. Not a credible statement. The legal deed identifies who the legal private property owner is. You clearly do not understand or accept 1,193 parcels are privately owned. I do not know how else to say BFO have ALL the bundle of property rights since the original land grants or patents and have today. BFOs have the sole private use and enjoyment of private property protected by the American Constitution from government "take" and American law from public trespass. NO matter how many times you, FBFA, or social media say owner do not - until proven in court FIRST.

The Government can not, and are not, "risk loosing the beach to private ownership." You can not lose something that is not yours to lose. Beachfront has been and is already privately owned. "It is just that simple." The Commissioners and tax payer's risk is that BFOs prevail and they have to pay both sides of the legal fees and have no other choice than respect private property rights.

BFOs are defendants with all the sticks of property rights and have nothing to prove, or compromise unless BFOs think they will not prevail in court. If the arguments in court are anything like in the public forum or FBFA misrepresentations; I'm not too worried. And neither should any BFO reading this forum. There might be an activist judge or judges; like Tona-Rama, that was a 3.5 to 2.5 ruling against a public prescriptive easement, but 1974 Tona-Rama also did not go to the Supreme Court of the US.

What do you consider "wealthy"? How do you define the "wealthy class"?
How much money someone has in the bank? Net worth? How much someone paid for private property? Our family paid just over 6 figures many decades ago. We have paid much more in property taxes. Can someone be wealthy in family and friends and not in money? Money is but a tool that establishes value people place on services and property. Money is not "bad"; the love of money is bad. Can someone be wealthy in family and friends and not in money? I am wealthy - because I have a loving family and great friends. Our family has a valuable property according to the real estate market but I can't buy groceries with it - does that make me wealthy/rich?

We have gone to school and worked hard. Nobody gave us anything. Nor do we expect anything to be given. We have risked and invested in the economy that has help grow opportunities for others and have made a legal return greater than the losses Can you name another economic system that can give opportunity to more people to succeed if they try? Socialism? Any American could have done the same as we have and achieved the same results. I reject your and CU believers portrayal of BFOs as rich, greedy, or selfish; we v. them, rich v. poor, if you have what I want ... you should give it to us (forced sharing) because that's what we BELIEVE, your sand ... is my sand. That's sounds a lot like a political/economic system that has a 100% failure rate and result in more government control of Life, Liberty, and individual Pursuit of Happiness. Ask the Venezuelans.

I don't think you understand the eminent domain process and I'm not concerned.

I started this before Dave Rauschkob's reply. I'm not retired or wealthy enough to not have to work during the day to pay taxes to fund Commissioners' litigation. But Dave Rauschkob's reply confirms to me the lack of understanding and respect for American private property rights and law. That the only CU solution to determine if the ancient English common law doctrine of customary use is superior to Constitutional private property protections from Government taking, is for the courts to decide. If BFOs prevail and the "people" resent and do not respect the courts ruling; we have bigger problems than public customary use of private property. CUnCourt.
 

mputnal

Beach Fanatic
Nov 10, 2009
2,522
780
FBB I do not think you understand my position. I am not a CU activist. I am just an individual who enjoys "the beach" and enjoys being part of a community even with all the flaws and differences of opinions between the people in this community. I do not know you and even if I did I would not judge you for being rich or powerful or anything else. I will not judge you if you hurt me, my family, my friends or my community but I will defend just as you. All I know about you is the words you type in this forum. I have formed an opinion based on those words. Your opinions of me are only based on the words that I type in this forum. Maybe this is not a good place to form an opinion but it is what we humans do. I have learned a lot about you from your words. I have agreed with many of your words but the more I read them the more I sense a darkness. Your building stands where I use to see a sand dune and a sunset. On another property a sign and a chain restricts my freedom to traverse up and down the beach. You seem to reject anything outside that box that you are dedicated to. You ask me a question about how many BFO's are posting signs. I do not know the number but I assume the number will grow based on your posts and other BFO's. The unwillingness to compromise speaks volumes even though you have such good fortune to own beach front property. It is quite shocking. Okay shocking is a bit dramatic because I am a realist but the point is that you have focused on one part of truth and justice even though life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is almost infinitely more complex. I give you credit that you are razor sharp in your purpose. I think we are from different worlds and we may never be given a chance to know each other properly. You seem to think that going to school and working hard is the difference between us. You have no idea how many people will never have the same opportunities that you have even though they have educated themselves and work just as hard as you do. You are justifying an economic system that favors wealth. Wealth finds a way to kill the competition from the middle class. IMO the middle class is the back bone of this country and I can assure you the middle class is not the class buying beach front property anymore. Yes, I digress only to help you understand that resentment will grow from The People. You laughed at this before. You know a lot but I don't think you know The People...
 

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,289
375
Mputnal,

After reading all your posts, it appears to me that you are talking in circles. Please try focusing on one point at a time....blocked beach views, definition of wealth, happiness, sense of community, economic system, school, working hard, sense of darkness, resentment, knowing the People, on and on.

And I have a real problem with your statement to FBB, “The unwillingness to compromise speaks volumes even though you have such good fortune to own beach front property.

I’d highly suggest that you also direct such comments at Mr. NO COMPROMISE, Dave Rauschkolb. He has repeatedly stated that he will not compromise, period. ICYMI, he is the chairman of Florida Beaches for All, who is co-plaintiff along with the county against all BFOs as well as one of the main voices for CU.

Oh yeah, and when I mention a realistic compromise that would accommodate more public beach goers, I am lumped in with White Supremists by Dave Rauschkolb. So let’s be honest, at this point, what’s the use in trying to compromise? I can’t believe you’re passing judgement on FBB regarding compromise.

On the surface, you appear to be a introspective individual and try very hard to validate your views with many “feel good emotions”. However much of what you post has nothing to do with fact, law and the Constitution.
 

mputnal

Beach Fanatic
Nov 10, 2009
2,522
780
BMBV you are correct. I have come full circle in this discussion BUT either you have not read all my post or you were not "listening". I first responded to Reggie's post. I explained why I supported public beaches, agreed that the tactics being used by CU activist were disrespectful and that I understand why BFO's would be upset about the tactics being used. Reggie's original post was about the legacy of 30A which was a discussion about community and who is responsible for the problems within the community. I simply tried to explain my opinion of why CU activist are emotional about keeping beaches public. If you had read my posts in other threads you would know that I have been attacked and called names in this forum by the same people who have attacked BFO's. Again you must not be listening to what I am trying to communicate which is that I believe it to be in the best interest of BFO's to compromise on their "right" to have full ownership and control of that part of land we call the beach. I am not asking you to agree with me because I understand the Constitutional principles that property rights are based on. But what I am asking is that you try and understand and allow other principles that people value as well AND we are talking about a natural resource that many if not all people enjoy. At the same time I am asking you to have thicker skin in dealing with CU activist. Yes that is a lot to ask of you but I think you can handle it. In my previous communications with people who throw around names like white supremist, nazi, racist and so on it is very hard to not get angry and fight back. I learned that is what they want you to do because you become an easy target in this click and send world of public opinion. Reggie seems able to handle this and not fight back so hard. FBB is learning the hard way just like I did. FBB seems to be so razor focused on the property rights versus government and justification of an economic system that favors wealth that it comes across as extremism. I have not talked about extremism but I believe it to be an enemy of democracy. I think our political system is becoming too extreme and less compromising. I digress. Sorry for bringing that up. My point is that you have an opportunity to see a bigger picture here so just try to work through the disrespect and name calling and realize that you can win this in court but still lose. I am not all knowing so I can be wrong but I strongly feel that BFO's have leverage to get some of the things you want if you settle this lawsuit now. It may already be too late from what I understand but my grandmother instilled into me that it is never too late.
 
New posts