Discussion in 'Local Government and Groups' started by Reggie Gaskins, Apr 25, 2019.
Interesting point and information, Reggie.
Voltaire: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise"
This area was a gentle, friendly, beautiful place when Dave and many others like him built it. It is crystal clear that the greedy people who have moved here in the last 15 years and their lawyers are ruining it. Bad acting tourists are a shame but no justification for the exclusionary tactics.
So now we’re putting a time constraint on who is “greedy” and “ruining it”. Wiping the sweat off my forehead. Dodged yet another bullet as have most of my BFO friends.
You know, something profound just materialized in front of me with your “15 year” statement.....
In the old days there was not a problem. But in the last 15 years, unmanaged growth from a beach access perspective has finally caught up with all of us. And here we are in court. I know that part is not profound.
But what is interesting is that the most passionate people in this forum regarding CU seem to be those who have been in the area quite a while as well as have many BFOs. In effect we end up being victims for the real reason of all this debate and vitriol - continued growth / development, restaurants/businesses, real estate industry, BCC constituency pacification, on and on.
And I would venture a guess that many who support CU sincerely do so for the basic concept of just simply going to the beach. I get it.
But the ones that are pushing the hardest and the loudest while using your taxpayer dollars to do so are not the ones who have a pure altruistic reason for doing so.
They are pitting the ordinary beach goer to the ordinary private property owner - many on both sides who have deep roots in the area and used to get along. And they are stirring this up for only one reason...
The profound part is not the money aspect but rather that so many people are being manipulated by those with hidden agendas. BFOs just want to use their property in peace, the same as many of you who also own private property elsewhere. And of course, the public wants to go to the beach.
The profound part is that many of the “old timers” are the ones that take all this very personally on both sides of CU. We are the ones who yearn for the way things were. A time when when we simply got along. A time when one could go to the beach at a public access and have room to set up an umbrella. A time when BFOs could enjoy their property without hordes of uninvited tourists trying to take over.
And it’s all the new inland development, influx of new tourists and others that now put pressure on many of the private beaches as the public accesses are NOW not big enough to handle everbody. Again very bad planning as in no planning and a very bad bet that beach nourishment would solve that problem on the county’s part.
A previous poster made an analogy of this thread to a chess game. Maybe so, maybe not. But what is clear (to me) is the public (both sides of the argument) is being used as pawns by the government and by those who exert their influence upon the government for the one simple reason - MONEY.
The judicial process is the only thing that seems to keep this county in check. It’s a shame the county can’t do the right thing to begin with but too many have become jaded with many of the government’s questionable tactics. And that statement goes far beyond the CU controversy.
Greedy - such an overused word by so many.
Added: I see good ole Dave is back with a “Winner” feedback on the above quoted post. Never mind... I won’t pick the low hanging fruit.
Pretty obvious to anyone who was here that the period from around 2000 until the bubble burst there was an influx of money - flippers, builders, developers, realtors, lawyers, title companies etc. etc. who were chasing the bucks and didn't give a damn about the local environment or businesses, except to exploit everything. Yes - GREEDY.
Probably began around 1995 when a large outside corporation with no real ties to the area planned and built Rosemary Beach. Not that it was perfect before then but at least people were here for the beach and the environment and not the MONEY.
We used to have a community of beach people. Now we are largely a community of exploiters and usurpers.
I don't sit around pining for the old days like some, but we have gone way past that into a dystopian hell of people fighting over sand on the beach no one should ever own.
Buster, I basically agree with your entire post.
But the word greedy is still overused as many have applied it to private property owners who desire and are fully entitled to protect what they do own by the U.S. Constitution.
Substitute Cuba with Walton County?
In 1995, during the filming of The Truman Show, I met Cindy Meadows. She was just a visitor at that time, and was living in Orlando. WaterColor and WaterSound were just barely being planned at that time. She said she saw first hand the way St. Joe developed properties down south, especially Celebration, and she said it was going to be like a tsunami when St. Joe got cranked up. Well, guess what? She was right. She moved up and tried to use her knowledge about urban planning (master's degree) to try to help shape what this transformation would look like. She was treated like s**t by the powers that be, and was called Satan at one point. Oh well.
Hurricane Opal also hit in 1995. A lot of quaint little cabins in Grayton were wrecked, or at least pushed off their foundations. The next thing you know, there were a hundred new contractor's in town and the Monster House started sprouting in Grayton, and most anywhere.
The point of my story... oh hell, there is no point...
These are the good old days for the people just moving here.
I abide the law but I would not use it to take advantage of others, or use the law for cover for actions that are clearly wrong. That is what GREEDY and unethical people do. If you are trying to keep people off the beach behind your home, a beach that has been free and open for decades (actually centuries before white men) for millions of people, then the best word that applies is GREED.
Deeding the beach was clearly a mistake that needs to be corrected. As @ShallowsNole aptly pointed out, it was done simply to give protection to beachfront owners so no person would try to build on the beach between them and the water. Whoever put beach ownership on the deed screwed up. It is time to correct the screwup.
Please explain why anyone would want to own the beach, and to keep people off. Legal deed or not, there is no moral justification.
Not when they get yelled at or threatened for walking on the beach. Not when the sand is to be seen and not felt.
Oh I completely agree with you in regards to the customary use of our beaches
What if people aren't trying to keep people off the beach, but just wanted enforcement and weren't getting it? What if people just don't want the county to be in charge of their property? What if people just want respectful behavior? Is it ok for someone to set up a daycamp from sun up to sun down and come and go as they please on property that is deeded to someone else? Is it ok to leave trash or broken tent frames for someone else to clean up? Is it ok to use dunes for bathrooms? Is it ok for people to let their dogs go in the dunes or leave "gifts" on the beach or in the dunes? Take a good look and see whether people are really keeping others off the beach or if they are just trying to have some say in what happens on their deeded property. It might be eye opening.
This thread started asking questions to understand WHY anyone is for property rights or customary use of private property. Many beachfront owners just know Walton commissioners are costing them a lot of money on attorneys and the majority of the public that have no real-property skin in the game are attacking them as greedy, privileged, carpet baggers for the private property they own, pay taxes on and want to enjoy for themselves if they choose to.
Verifiable opinions and facts about the doctrine of customary use, quiet title, and private property easements where presented. No one has disputed that information yet with contrary variable facts- including leading CU authority David Rauschkolb. Others have resorted to posting over and over childish disrespectful images of a military hero John McCain’s grave site, others shout “Alternative facts” whatever those are, greedy, nameless, rich, privileged, interlopers, portrayed as murderers, and many other names much worse. I just want to know your facts why you believe the way you do other than Dave Rasuchkolb said so.
This is a long term political problem by inept past and present Walton commissioners looking for an easy (relative to a political solution) legal solution. A legal solution designed as an adversarial process, where one side wins and one side looses. Now that Walton Commissioners have drawn a line in the sand and litigated against 4,500 citizens that have legal title to the land they earned; beachfront owners are angry and do not want to share anymore. The judge will rule on the LAW of private property customary use. Not anything else but the law. Not alternative facts or unsubstantiated opinions of Walton economic melt down.
The Walton Commissioner Larry Jones’ 2008 Master Thesis on customary use quoted Theriaque; on page 70 of Larry’s thesis; “… the local government should present their [customary use] ordinance to a judge for judicial review asking for a declaratory judgment (personal communication, Theriaque, D., 2008).” Otherwise, “Absent this judicial review and a supporting judgment, sustaining such and ordinance will be expensive and difficult (personal communication, Theriaque, D., 2008).”
WOW Theriaque, Walton's $425/hr, land use attorney just described HB631! A bill that a super-majority of 2018 FL House and Senate passed, including local FL Rep Brad Drake, to become FL Statute 163.035 to ensure any local Government affords property owners due process of law first.
Surely the Walton BCC would not ignore Theriaque’s legal advice given to then Commissioner, now County Administrator Larry Jones? “sustaining such and ordinance will be expensive and difficult”. A recent public records request shows that Walton Commissioners have expended $757,747 of tax payers dollars. Should the beachfront property owners prevail; that’s less than half the costs to the Walton tax payer and we just started the litigating. What do the commissioners care; it's not their personal money. CUnCourt.
Dave Rausckolb can you please explain just ONE of the four or more criterion of ancient English customary use and what evidence you think applies to any of the 1,192 Walton private beach parcels to justify your positions?
David Rauschkolb, seriously, have you filed a police report on the CUer C.G. threatening, malicious, and violent Facebook video? Same Sheriff’s number you filed the complaint against the anonymous property rights blogger you reported to be threatened by.
Do you honestly believe that owners of over 600 parcels that actually represent many more individuals are "clearly wrong", "GREEDY and unethical?" That is a very vicious remark to be throwing out at thousands of your neighbors. And its's remarks like that make us BFOs who are under attack so passionate about defending our property from the general public. You must understand that there is no going back with statements like that.
And it goes against the respect theme that I continuously remind those who just can't get a point across without insulting and demeaning their neighbors. More emotion, zero facts.
Just for the record, David Rauschkolb's good friend and attorney, David B. Pleat, is against customary use and is representing a multitude of BFOs against the county. BTW, Pleat used to be a committee member with www.abettersouthwalton.com to incorporate South Walton along with Rauschkolb. I guess David Pleat is "clearly wrong, GREEDY and unethical" based on your yardstick. Oh and this goes for the dozens and dozens of other attorneys defending private property rights. On the other hand, maybe you're on to something regarding attorneys. Just kidding! I love my attorneys.
What the hell did I just find???
The savior of the Customary Use movement and attorney, Daniel Uhlfelder (you know, the one who has a way with words when demeaning BFOs in front of a town hall meeting in front of hundreds of people) has filed a motion to intervene on behalf of a client on 2/8/2019 (document # 110 for those of you following the online filings).
Wait a minute! How can that be?
How can Daniel Uhlfelder be such a driving force for the Customary Use movement plaintiffs (County + FBFA) and then represent a client who wishes to intervene against (assume against like everyone else and not with) the county? Maybe his client is indigent and can't afford a real CU attorney and Uhlfelder feels compelled to help. Maybe Uhlfelder had a momentary lapse in judgement. Maybe Uhlfelder is guaranteed to be a winner by playing both sides. Or maybe it was simply for "GREED?" It does feel good to use that word. Thanks Buster. Maybe I shouldn't be too hard on those who continue to use the word "GREEDY".
So by your own standards, Uhlfelder and his client must be "clearly wrong", "GREEDY and unethical?" Would that be a fair statement?
PLEASE anyone, if I'm reading the filing wrong please shine a light on it. As, unlike some others, I will admit my errors when the light of truth is unfiltered. Also, if anyone sees it the same way I do, please confirm. It's just very difficult to understand why Uhlfelder is representing a defendant.
ADDED.....And how in the hell can an attorney represent the plaintiff AND defendant in the SAME lawsuit anyway?
Perhaps you should make your request for explanation to Daniel Uhlfelder.
Hey I'm chillin out with a glass of ice water. Can someone please provide a link to this infamous video? I feel left out.
Dave, look closely. The text is Private Beaches Solved! Chuck Norris (not Client Eastwood) is pointing a hunting rifle at the camera.
Below the image "Chuck Norris has a solution to the Private Beaches!!" To make it clear the video shows; a private beachfront owner with a hunting rifle and scope shooting a (nude) male from the public on private property as the "Solution to the Private Beaches!!"
And that does not concern you? This was filmed near your beach side business on private property. Why would you not call the Sheriff if you reported you felt threatened by a much less malicious anonymous blogger?
Will you do more than scoff and distance yourself and CU supporters and use your CU leadership to disavow the video and demand the video be taken down? Even if C.G. does not, you have made your position clear this is not acceptable and should be removed because it is more than just tasteless.
If not you are a hypocrite.
Separate names with a comma.