Should have called Jerry and Becki they would have brought the camera.
Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
- Thread starter Reggie Gaskins
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
He was holding my drawers.You're lucky Huckabee didn't call the cops on you
mputnal, thank you for your post. IMHO 4 million tourists are way too many for our sensitive ecosystem and we need to reduce the number of people. I have never seen such a high volume of false crawls and fewer turtle nests on my walks this year compared to past years.
Maybe, just maybe, all this fighting which is destroying our 30A Legacy (people getting along) might actually be a GOOD thing and end up SAVING our 30A Ecosystem by reducing the number of people. Maybe the sacrifice of our "Legacy" is worth it to save our "Future" for our grandkids. Maybe that is legacy we need to focus?
Yes the state of Florida owns the shoreline, so no issues of walking the entire shoreline, swimming, fishing, surfing, or building sandcastles. The only issue is where you can put beach equipment and day camp. Either on State Property (by permit), on County Property (within guidelines) or on Private Property (by renting or with permission). The CUSTOMARY PROPERTY RIGHTS, which was been around since the USA Constitution was written, was not an issue in the past since there was plenty of room for the number of people visiting the area and if someone was on private property and asked to move, they moved. But now we have too many people, in too small an area, who feel ENTITLED, to sit any where and bring anything they want, which is the root of our problem.
IMHO the reason the BCC is suing the private property owners is so they can have MORE room for MORE people for MORE taxes which will result in MORE destruction. So maybe the all the fighting and lawsuits have an upside?
There is no one alive today when all 26 miles of beach was public property. Some private property was purchased or donated to the State which became State Parks and the County has purchased some property which became Public Beach, but the rest has always been private. There has never been any Public property that became Private due to quiet title, it has only been used to clear up private property titles issues. All beach might be taxed the same ($1.8 Million), one may have more beach front than the one next door, but that does mean that one can conclude there is no tax paid on beach front property. A property a few blocks away from the beach is certainly not taxed at $1.8 Million. But, most importantly, if it is truly Private Deeded Property, then there are US Constitutional and State Property Rights.
The State of Florida has a Property Bill of Rights that may eventually put to rest the issue of a Private Property Owner being able to ask someone to leave their property. If not then I imagine the Supreme Court is going to uphold the USA Constitution. Yes the County can purchase more property, but actually I hope they don't, and just reduce the number of tourists. Maybe turn 30A into a toll road with a free pass for local residences? All other funds would go to help the Ecosystem, with the greatest benefit being LESS PEOPLE. If we have LESS tourists there is more room for Local Residents. The more the County spends OUR money on lawsuits, means the less of OUR money the county has to buy local property, which may ultimately mean LESS people on 30A, which might be the BEST thing.
FLORIDA PROPERTY OWNER BILL OF RIGHTS (http://laws.flrules.org/2019/155)
Your rights and protections include:
1. The right to acquire, possess, and protect your property.
2. The right to use and enjoy your property.
3. The right to exclude others from your property.
4. The right to dispose of your property.
5. The right to due process.
6. The right to just compensation for property taken for a public purpose.
7. The right to relief, or payment of compensation, when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of the state or a political entity unfairly affects your property.
To whom it may concern:
Thank you for your efforts and paid expense for flying the banner as such on July 1st.
My only concern is the grammatical tense may already be in error.
Ridiculous
Stone Cold J I agree with you and also appreciate your post very much! If there is an area of disagreement I believe it would be the right to exclude people on the "beach" by wealthy people who have removed themselves from the common people (community), government (except when it benefits them) and justify their wealth as being completely fair and equal in our present day economic system. In my interactions with many (not all) wealthy people I believe they feel superior to most. If you go back and read FBB you will find a very good example of this. I believe that all people have common behaviors (emotional) and common purpose (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). The problem with wealth is that it monopolizes resources because well why not if you can figure out out to manipulate the system. Okay then there are the problems with behavior on both sides of this and many other issues. Houston we have a problem. We all justify our wants, want more than we need and in the end die without figuring out that we missed an opportunity to evolve into a fair and equal society. I call this reality. Both wealth and extremism has destroyed this community. Human behavior has always needed room for improvement so nothing has changed there except there are more humans and more behavior. We can manage human behavior with rules and consequences of breaking those rules. Wealth and extremism is not as easily managed because they have either power or high emotion with large numbers of people. BPO's have the power (in my opinion) to privatize the beach but the consequences of that will not be what they think. I believe they have an opportunity to get this right before it goes to eminent domain or possibly worse. They seem not interested in looking at this from a community perspective. People including myself do not trust wealthy people to decide who can use the beach behind the very structure that already has damaged the ecosystem AND blocks our views of those gorgeous sunsets, colors and water. Water is fascinating to humans and we must have access to it. I believe the people will fight this beyond the Supreme Court until the State has no choice but to take the property thru eminent domain.
mputnal, thank you for your post. This is good dialog and nice that we have exchanged posts attacking the position but not the person. The problem is that BPO's do indeed own deeded private property. They are not "privatizing" the beach. It has been private property, is still private property, and unless sold or donated to the county or State will remain private property. Being Private Property owners they have Federal and State property rights (until changed by Judge Green) that do include Right of Exclusion. Just because the current "Sherriff" won't arrest people for trespassing while the case is in court does not mean private property rights don't exist. Just like non BPO's private property owners have property rights. You don't have less private property rights if you buy next to a State Park, beach front, or a cow pasture (until ruled by Judge Green, but the US Supreme Court might overturn that one).
I can tell you have a deep seeded mistrust of the wealthy people, some of which might be BPO's. I understand that. Many of the BPO's are families that purchased private property decades ago from other private property owners and would not consider themselves in the "wealthy" group. They have gotten along for decades with local residents and tourists until the number of visitors became greater than the area can bear and people (under the direction of activists) feel they are now ENTITLED to IGNOR property rights and common sense. Just because someone does not like a class of people does not mean they can pin a star on their shirt and take away their possessions.
The County can buy property with or without Eminent Domain. But we also need to monitor the BCC very closely. A few years ago they purchased property across from Stinky's for $7.2 million, $1 million more than appraised valued. And it is still not available for public use today. Wonder who and how many people got paid off in that deal? The county could have bought that same property 2 years earlier when it was on the open market for $3.2 million. Yes the county can purchase property but they can't take away property rights without compensation.
And most of them I know and hear from are cool. They are my neighbors. They love the beach and would never dream about banning people. They are embarrassed by people like you (how many names do you use on the internet?) who spend all their time and money making all beachfront owners look bad. Many also rent their homes and think what you are doing is stabbing them in the pocketbook.
You should sit down and shut up.
I'm good with giving you reasonable compensation. I'm not good with people justifying their good fortune at the expense of others. I am also not good with a group of people who have damaged our resource with buildings and then get to decide what human values are more important. It is really not the wealth but rather how wealth hoards resources by utilizing the power of that wealth. Therefore my deep seeded mistrust is the abuse of power, the superior belief that one group of values are important over others and how the justification of good fortune allows one to believe in his/her superiority over others.
The State of Florida "owns" the "shoreline". If I were a lawyer for the County that is where I would start (of course it is not this simple). I would then argue the State or County decides what if any setbacks should be between the State or County owned Shoreline and the adjacent private property owners. Someone can look this up but when it comes to waterfront isn't it at least 50 feet in Walton County? I really don't know and do not have time today to look it up so anyone feel free to correct me. Let's say it is 50 feet just for conversation. Within that 50ft of a constantly changing shoreline the adjacent private property owner should not be able to "exclude" anyone. If you have read all my post I believed at one time that a compromise would be that private property owners should be able to exclude anyone within their deeded title even when a property line is adjacent to the shoreline. It did not take me long to figure out why that will not work. FBB reminded me of how people can justify inequality and unfairness. My father owned a lot and built a house and a dock into a large lake in Georgia. He chose his lot and dock in a very good fishing area. People who fish in boats would come right up to the dock and fish ALL day. It drove my father crazy as it would most people yet he never felt like he had a right or a justification to tell people to leave. These fishermen would sometimes throw their trash into the water and get hung up and leave fishing line and lures with hooks in the water so I understand what you say about the disrespect. BUT, Once a person goes down the path of human right justification or a "legal" right to tell another person that you are not allowed to enjoy the same resource that he/she enjoys well that is asking for trouble. It is not fair that all BPO's are lumped into this one category but unless the lawsuit is broken into individual claims then there is nothing we can do about that. A MUCH bigger unfairness is when private property owners "exlude" anyone for anything on that 50ft setback area between the shoreline and their property line which is stated on the deed.