Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[mputnal]

Reggie, when you call out hatred you need to be more specific. If someone disagrees with you it does not mean they hate you. Words are important but in a forum like this many people hide their identity so they can be more... lets say theatrical or dramatic. You have to admit that hardly any of the BPO's use their real names so there is a mistrust built in to the nature of this forum or any forum. I despise the name calling on both sides. Speaking only for myself I did ask some questions to FBB (mainly because of the word count) and the answers changed my mind about BPO's in general. I admitted that it is unfair of me to do this but because of the lawsuit you are all linked together. I try hard to be fair and draw accurate conclusions but sometimes we do make assumptions without really knowing someone and I do apologize for that. I believe in keeping the door open unless it closes but this door will not even budge to be open. The BPO position of exclusion actually believes that the door is made of stone and not meant to be a door at all. Your position does not stop there as it goes on to shame anyone who does not believe the CU position of beaches belonging to The People. Drama. Theater. Polarizing rhetoric. Do you disagree that the Exclusion side called The People entitled, socialist, Marxist, uneducated, emotional etc. Yes it happened on the CU side as well but you keep complaining that the CU side is nasty...well do you not see a problem with this? I understand why you do not use your name but I feel like it is important to use your name and take ownership of your position. Otherwise you might be called a troll. I have been called a troll on this forum even by some administrators so I understand how it feels. Not cool. That word is meant to diminish your value. Since I use my name it is particularly unpleasant but I got over it. The people who called me that do not know me. Move on dot come is my motto in this forum in relation to the name calling. It should not happen but it does.

I think I should clarify my position so you understand who I am a little better. I believe in civility and community. I do not believe in unearned entitlements. I happen to believe that the "Beach" is open to the public no matter what the legal description reads on the deed. I do believe that the court needs to decide the issue of Customary Use which is the legal Precedent. I "wish" there could have been a compromise. Neither side knows what that Judge will decide. I assume he will be under "pressure" to side with property rights. Pressure comes from power so we will see where the power is. You, Reggie, FBB and others are razor sharp in your belief that you have the power in Property Rights. After my discussions in this forum and other people I believe that if you are right then the State will have no choice but to take the property in the form of eminent domain. I hope you will not be able to exclude anyone from the "Beach" unless they are being disrespectful. Reason being is that I believe you are so caught up in justifying your good fortune to own and build on the sand dunes that it has blinded you to fairness, equality and the equal distribution of resources. You are also angry with The People who call you names, disrespect you and you believe "took" your property. I get it so why would I believe you are in a sharing mood? FBB's post left me with no room for supporting the right of exclusion. Yes, I trust the BCC CU position more than I trust the BPO position of exclusion. I do understand your disagreement with my opinion.

 

[Stone Cold J]

mputal, thank you for your posts and clarifying your position.

1. The BPO position of exclusion actually believes that the door is made of stone and not meant to be a door at all.

There are many BPO's and many different positions. Each property owner can make their own decision about their private property. That is a fundamental point of USA property rights. This is NOT a "position of exclusion", but an position of "not allowing the BCC to TAKE property rights and FORCING property owners to accept unlimited occupation of their legal deeded private deeded property against their will". These are two different items. Each property owner can make their own decision on who and how many and what equipment they allow. Just because one BPO allows beach equipment on their deeded property only if you are renting their property does not mean it is force exclusion over all 26 miles. Of course a good portion of that 26 miles (~13 miles) is either county owned, State owned, or State controlled.

2. I happen to believe that the "Beach" is open to the public no matter what the legal description reads on the deed.

That statements sounds like you do not accept the fact that for generations people have purchased legally deeded private property and have constitutional property rights. Is it only legally deeded property next to the shore that you don't accept have property rights or does that also include land next to coastal dune lakes, next to state parks, next to state forests, or next to scenic views?

 

[SUP View]

Along side any Property rights issue is that of property liability. I have spoken with Sydney Noyes and Sara Comander when she was on the WCC, regarding the property liability for the BFO's if all of the beach were available to the public. Sara told me the WCC was looking in to that issue and she would get back to me. I never heard a word from her. I also mentioned to Sara that there was an opinion that the WCC was prepared to spend between $10M and $15M on the lawsuit to gain public beach access. She told me that it may be more than that. Makes you wonder what the motivation would be for the WCC to take a somewhat reckless stance with OUR TAX MONEY on a lawsuit that has no guarantee of going the way preferred by the WCC. And it is ALL OF US who are contributing tax dollars to the county.

I also spoke to Ms. Noyes about the property liability issue and she replied that the County would not assume liability for anyone's private property. I asked her, as a BFO, if I would be liable for any injury, issue, problem, etc.. on my property as a result of public access. Her reply: "Yes you are!". That was a surprising answer.

I am not a lawyer, but it would be hard to imagine the highest court, much less any court, would levee a private property owner with the responsibility of liability when they would not control who goes on their property.

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

Along side any Property rights issue is that of property liability. I have spoken with Sydney Noyes and Sara Comander when she was on the WCC, regarding the property liability for the BFO's if all of the beach were available to the public. Sara told me the WCC was looking in to that issue and she would get back to me. I never heard a word from her. I also mentioned to Sara that there was an opinion that the WCC was prepared to spend between $10M and $15M on the lawsuit to gain public beach access. She told me that it may be more than that. Makes you wonder what the motivation would be for the WCC to take a somewhat reckless stance with OUR TAX MONEY on a lawsuit that has no guarantee of going the way preferred by the WCC. And it is ALL OF US who are contributing tax dollars to the county.

I also spoke to Ms. Noyes about the property liability issue and she replied that the County would not assume liability for anyone's private property. I asked her, as a BFO, if I would be liable for any injury, issue, problem, etc.. on my property as a result of public access. Her reply: "Yes you are!". That was a surprising answer.

I am not a lawyer, but it would be hard to imagine the highest court, much less any court, would levee a private property owner with the responsibility of liability when they would not control who goes on their property.

Prior to all this nonsense (HB631) there was no liability at all for Beach front owners. Can you show me one instance in the history of Florida where someone who owned property on the beach was liable for something that happened on the beach? I’d love to see it.

 

[SUP View]

Prior to all this nonsense there was no liability at all for Beach front owners. Can you show me one instance in the history of Florida where someone who owned property on the beach was liable for something that happened on the beach? I’d love to see it.

Both insurance companies on 30A that handle our property let us know that there would be several "dominoes" that would fall if CU were implemented. One is that rates would certainly go up. I also confirmed this with a larger property insurance group Destin. They also offered that if "legal issues" were to rise after CU was in place, there would be some insurance groups that would no longer offer that liability insurance. The fact that Sara Comander confirmed the WCC was looking into this "and it is a concern" is also telling.

All it takes is a Michael Avenatti self-promoting, self staging, type attorney to file against a BFO after someone steps on a broken bottle and the flood gates will open. There might even be that type of attorney on 30A.

 

[mputnal]

What I believe does not have any legal value. It is my opinion as a human being. So, no I do not accept the legal description on a deeded property that gives you the right to exclude people from the beach. I believe that sand dunes existed prior to the building and therefore the land is part of a natural resource. You should feel fortunate that you were given permits to build on the sand dunes and at the very least share the beach with the public. I know why you are making this about the power of property rights. I am just being honest when I say that I do not trust your power to exclude. I am NOT judging anyone. If I owned property on the sand dunes I might also try very hard to justify exclusion and my right to own and build on a sand dune. I would like to believe that I would ignore my right to exclude anyone from the beach. I am sure I would complain about the noise, trash, furniture etc. BUT even if I did complain my wife would remind me of the power of sharing my good fortune My father also set a good example in his handling of those fishermen at his dock. I am sure that many BPO's believe the same way I do and I wish I could apologize to each one. If BPO's win the lawsuit it will not be what you think. I understand that you seem to have a clear conscience about the right to exclude. Speaking for myself I would not be able to sleep at night if I went down to the beach to tell someone to move because MY family wants that spot or because they did not earn the right to be there or because of any other reason except blatant disrespect which I am pretty sure does not happen very often.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Oh, yes, the two or three individuals who have screens-shotted and blogged what they say is “evidence” of harassment and threats from CU supporters....we’ve all heard this before, this false narrative has been painted over and over again. To try to imply that somehow the more vocal leaders of Customary have individual control over others in social media or are inciting attacks as you have characterized them is completely ridiculous and untrue to the core. No vocal leaders that I know of who are Customary Use supporters have made or attacked or threatened anyone. I have seen individuals reacting to certain Social media posts with emotion and used bad language and made threatening remarks on both sides but to try to characterize the fantasy that they’re all under some sort of Svengali control is utterly ridiculous on ether side. And, regarding all this screenshot-ing that the handful of beachfront owners have done...talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Reggie, it’s becoming clearer and clearer who you might be...more crumbs than a New York deli.

Rediculous .

 

[EZ4144]

Prior to all this nonsense there was no liability at all for Beach front owners. Can you show me one instance in the history of Florida where someone who owned property on the beach was liable for something that happened on the beach? I’d love to see it.

Razor wire coming soon to a beach near you.

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

Rediculous .

Malarkey

 

[Stone Cold J]

Can you show me one instance in the history of Florida where someone who owned property on the beach was liable for something that happened on the beach?

looks like someone bet on a pair of 10's

Landers v. Milton
Ralph v. City of Daytona Beach
Harbor Beach Surf Club, Inc. v. Water Taxi of Ft. Lauderdale, Inc.
Andrews v. Department of Natural Resources, State of Fla.
Bryan v. City of West Palm Beach
White v. Hughes
Lomack v. Mowrey
Harris v. City of Neptune Beach
Landa v. Charles S. Whiteside, Inc.
Wamser v. City of St. Petersburg, 339 So.2d 244, 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
Breaux v. City of Miami Beach
Kendrick v. Ed's Beach Service, Inc.
Avallone v. Board of County Com'rs of Citrus County
McPhee v. Dade County
Janes v. Consolidated Inns of Daytona Beach
Florida Dept. of Natural Resources v. Garcia

About 1300 cases total..