Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[Reggie Gaskins]

This despicable, implied, vindictive, shaming, retribution, narrative truly is BS and so carefully, indirectly directed at me. So, if that is the case let me enlighten you.

1. The last thing I will do is seek political office. Not interested; I have nearly 5 restaurants to manage and spending my time looking after 260 employees and my family to find time for that. What I have done and do for this County is purely because I love this place and our community deeply nor for financial or political gain (more below). I do; however have time to work on important issues affecting our quality of life and property values like proposals for offshore oil drilling in Florida's waters and keeping our beaches available to all. Stopping the monster houses is also a priority. You are the one who should run for office if you want to change the game; might be hard to win though if private beaches is going to be your platform; you might also drop the fake name.

2. The notion that I am trying to keep our beaches public to increase my business is pure bullshit. If CU were reinstated and for some reason I had to close my bar on the beach I would happily do it. I am very fortunate to be in the center of 30A and built my businesses for 33 years in Seaside. The business has been and I believe always will be solid/growing; even with a slow moving construction project out front sales are up. Regarding business being up or down, ask some non beachfront owners, realtors and rental companies in areas near certain beach accesses; Business up? Not so much for some. I believe this will be the Achilles heel of private, exclusionary beaches in South Walton.

3. The three year bipartisan effort to incorporate South Walton was to create a representative government for South Walton; I am proud of every minute and dollar I spent on that effort. We worked on this project to create a municipality with 6 City commissioners and a mayor all residing full time in South Walton; our neighbors close to the pulse of our issues and most equipped to solve them. It was a noble effort by good people on equally both sides of political spectrum; It failed but someday I hope it will happen. Someone else besides me will have to carry that torch though. Interestingly, three of our board members differ from my opinion regarding public/private beaches though, yet we will always be close friends. They are people of the highest integrity and character with no malice towards me. We all just recently reunited for a wonderful dinner together.

4. The lawsuit is a result of HB631. A bill you supported then tried to stop the procedure set forth in it; "you can't have it both ways."

5. You calling me a liar does not make me a liar. We have differing opinions on the public or private history of our beach. Nothing will change that I believe.

6. Regarding some BFO's being censored/blocked by "Guess Who?" You will have to ask the admins of that social platform; I am not one of them. But you already know that.


I know a certain Irish Pub that carries Shiner Bock...more crumbs "than a NY deli." I know your offer was for MP but I have always liked that beer too. Someday perhaps we will have a beer when this is all settled.

Please read carefully.

I read the above post without paying attention to which post it was a reply. As I read the narrative, I kept thinking, wow, someone really attacked Dave R and got under his skin. Someone hit a nerve. As I read further, I more anticipated looking back up to discover the original poster out of curiosity. Then, without warning, The Shiner Bock line hit with a bang!

You thought that post was directed at you? You really take credit for all those misdeeds mentioned in the narrative? I’m sorry, and quite amused, that you thought that it was directed entirely at you. It surely sir, was not. Go back and read it again, you’ll see the potential players more clearly.

However, your personal behavior here was quite enlightening. And I gotta admit, more than a little entertaining.

We will have that beer together, if we haven’t already...

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

Please read carefully.

I read the above post without paying attention to which post it was a reply. As I read the narrative, I kept thinking, wow, someone really attacked Dave R and got under his skin. Someone hit a nerve. As I read further, I more anticipated looking back up to discover the original poster out of curiosity. Then, without warning, The Shiner Bock line hit with a bang!

You thought that post was directed at you? You really take credit for all those misdeeds mentioned in the narrative? I’m sorry, and quite amused, that you thought that it was directed entirely at you. It surely sir, was not. Go back and read it again, you’ll see the potential players more clearly.

However, your personal behavior here was quite enlightening. And I gotta admit, more than a little entertaining.

We will have that beer together, if we haven’t already...

Whether it was directed at me or not I have clearly stated my opinions on each issue. That is all I have to say. Good by.

 

[FloridaBeachBum]

Mputnal or any CU believer, to understand the beliefs for The People’s customary use rights of private property; does the doctrine of public customary use only apply only to highly desirable private beachfront property or can customary use be claimed by The People for bay front, lake front, river front, or deer-dog hunting properties[1]?

If me and my friends or anyone, walked an established trail or kayaked in the Choctawhatchee Bay held in Public Trust by the State of Florida with our tents, ice coolers, and chairs to private owned waterfront property on Choctawhatchee Bay; could we or anyone setup on private bay front, rest, recreate/enjoy for the day, and claim customary use of the Bay front private property and not be trespassing? If not; why not?

Walton Commissioners historical expert, Dr. James Miller, has “testified” that Native Americans have occupied this area since ancient times. Before the “memory of man”? Dr. Miller’s archeological map shows more archeological sites around the Choctawhatchee Bay than the Gulf beaches. I think it is reasonable as many or more archeological sites, not displayed by Dr. Miller’s map, are around the north side of Choctawhatchee Bay and Hwy 331 too.


[1] Judge: FWC must keep Blackwater deer-dog hunters off private property
“People have been hunting there for years and you decide to buy property right in the middle of it in 2005 and start drama. Shame on the hunters who allegedly threatened the property owners because they make the rest of us look bad. One of the things we were taught is to respect the land and the people who own it. For most of us it is tradition [custom?] and we want to continue that tradition with our children.” The prevailing private property owner’s attorney? Walton’s customary use attorney David Theriaque! Would have been interesting if the State had claimed deer-dog customary of private property.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Just shows that some attorneys play both sides of an issue as long as money is involved. And BFOs are called greedy.

 

[SUP View]

Interesting that the WCC, when asked, could not provide an approximate number of people that are adversely affected by the perceived lack of public beach access. Should be an easy answer if you are prepared to spend millions in a lawsuit on that point. If corporate development were to grow exponentially in the 30A area, which is the likely true motive behind the CU issue, there would be many days where our beach area looks like Daytona during Easter break.

Raise your hand if you want that scenario.

 

[Auburn Fan]

S.O.S.
The whole point of a "neighborhood beach access" is so that local neighbors would have a way to walk/run the foreshore, to take a sunset walk or do a private sunrise yoga session at the water's edge or peacefully launch a kayak or paddle board, or access the foreshore for some quiet fishing, and merely be emotionally and spiritually uplifted by the serene broad sweeping vista views, and enjoying captivating shoreline photography and shoreline birdwatching.

And these forms of ambulatory recreation are NOT insignificant! The availability of these types of recreation by the public are almost completely obliterated where there are hordes of day camps set up on the beaches.

Standing firm on blocking public daycamping use on private property actually helps maintain the TRUE customary use of the shoreline that IS ancient, reasonable, undisputed, and uninterrupted. It protects these OTHER less vocal and less profitable but very much desirable types of recreation that are enjoyed by many of the local full time residents.

Allowing the tourists to bring furniture and wagons and tents and umbrellas and meals and mounds of trash and yet without life-saving supervision and toilet facilities is a complete travesty!

Public behavior is anything but customary these days. My God, just read the news. Licking ice cream lids and peeing on potatoes when nobody's looking?!? The general public cannot be allowed unmonitored free reign willy-nilly up and down 26 miles of these beautiful dry sandy beaches.

Some lands deserve to be protected from unsupervised crowded public irregardless of who owns it. These beautiful shores fall into that category.

In reality, beach owners are being sued to eliminate their right to maintain the truly ancient customary shoreline use in order to be eclipsed by modern, highly profitable, exploitative use allowing forced occupation by hordes of day camping crowds. Which is completely destructive. On all facets. Except the pocketbooks of a few.

The local taxpayers and voters who actually have enjoyed decades of the ambulatory forms of customary recreational use along these private properties deserve a voice. Ahhh ... but they are drowned out (or intimidated into silence or censored) by the greedy owners of the monster rentals, investors and developers, restaurateurs and realtors, and of course, their paid advertisers...

Those who want to "park" your group on the beach, should go to a "park", a designated area where the public is allowed to occupy space.
Managing beach use density is imperative.

The point of "recreation" is to RE- Create. Not just to make a buck.

And humanity needs these other, less profitable forms of quiet, reflective "RE - Creation", now more than ever.

S.O.S.
SAVE OUR SHORELINE
It's sacred.

 

[Mike Jones]

S.O.S.
The whole point of a "neighborhood beach access" is so that local neighbors would have a way to walk/run the foreshore, to take a sunset walk or do a private sunrise yoga session at the water's edge or peacefully launch a kayak or paddle board, or access the foreshore for some quiet fishing, and merely be emotionally and spiritually uplifted by the serene broad sweeping vista views, and enjoying captivating shoreline photography and shoreline birdwatching.

And these forms of ambulatory recreation are NOT insignificant! The availability of these types of recreation by the public are almost completely obliterated where there are hordes of day camps set up on the beaches.

Standing firm on blocking public daycamping use on private property actually helps maintain the TRUE customary use of the shoreline that IS ancient, reasonable, undisputed, and uninterrupted. It protects these OTHER less vocal and less profitable but very much desirable types of recreation that are enjoyed by many of the local full time residents.

Allowing the tourists to bring furniture and wagons and tents and umbrellas and meals and mounds of trash and yet without life-saving supervision and toilet facilities is a complete travesty!

Public behavior is anything but customary these days. My God, just read the news. Licking ice cream lids and peeing on potatoes when nobody's looking?!? The general public cannot be allowed unmonitored free reign willy-nilly up and down 26 miles of these beautiful dry sandy beaches.

Some lands deserve to be protected from unsupervised crowded public irregardless of who owns it. These beautiful shores fall into that category.

In reality, beach owners are being sued to eliminate their right to maintain the truly ancient customary shoreline use in order to be eclipsed by modern, highly profitable, exploitative use allowing forced occupation by hordes of day camping crowds. Which is completely destructive. On all facets. Except the pocketbooks of a few.

The local taxpayers and voters who actually have enjoyed decades of the ambulatory forms of customary recreational use along these private properties deserve a voice. Ahhh ... but they are drowned out (or intimidated into silence or censored) by the greedy owners of the monster rentals, investors and developers, restaurateurs and realtors, and of course, their paid advertisers...

Those who want to "park" your group on the beach, should go to a "park", a designated area where the public is allowed to occupy space.
Managing beach use density is imperative.

The point of "recreation" is to RE- Create. Not just to make a buck.

And humanity needs these other, less profitable forms of quiet, reflective "RE - Creation", now more than ever.

S.O.S.
SAVE OUR SHORELINE
It's sacred.

While I agree visitor behavior and quantity have crossed a point we would like, we can't turn back the clock. To pound this forum with such an idea is nonsense. And what you describe are extreme examples. The beach is quite often enjoyable at different places, times of day, times of year. I bet you own next to a bad public access. Maybe consider moving? Instead of suffer so from your principles, accept that there are things in life that are going to make us miserable if we allow them to.

People cry for enforcement and forcing people off the beach. Are they that miserable and that authoritarian? If so they don't deserve to live on the beach. And after all is said and done, that is the bottom line. The beach is for relaxing. If you can't enjoy it, find another beach or a large spread somewhere with less population and no visitors. REAL SoWal locals, the ones that love the beach and honor it, would prefer you go elsewhere.

As they say, "Love it or leave it."

 

[FactorFiction]

While I agree visitor behavior and quantity have crossed a point we would like, we can't turn back the clock. To pound this forum with such an idea is nonsense. And what you describe are extreme examples. The beach is quite often enjoyable at different places, times of day, times of year. I bet you own next to a bad public access. Maybe consider moving? Instead of suffer so from your principles, accept that there are things in life that are going to make us miserable if we allow them to.

People cry for enforcement and forcing people off the beach. Are they that miserable and that authoritarian? If so they don't deserve to live on the beach. And after all is said and done, that is the bottom line. The beach is for relaxing. If you can't enjoy it, find another beach or a large spread somewhere with less population and no visitors. REAL SoWal locals, the ones that love the beach and honor it, would prefer you go elsewhere.

As they say, "Love it or leave it."

Behaviors CAN change and will if the County makes well thought out decisions about beach use and then ENFORCES them. I cannot believe the number of times, people use the excuse that you can't change people's behavior. Yes, you can. Most people will cooperate if they just understand the rules and know what to expect. For the others: Tony Robbins — 'Change happens when the pain of staying the same is greater than the pain of change. People WILL and DO change. The ones that truly won't......do we really need them on our beaches?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

As they say, "Love it or leave it."

You can bet we love it and we’re not leaving it. Nor will we allow the Walton County Commissioners to get away with an uncompensated land grab.

 

[Mike Jones]

Behaviors CAN change and will if the County makes well thought out decisions about beach use and then ENFORCES them. I cannot believe the number of times, people use the excuse that you can't change people's behavior. Yes, you can. Most people will cooperate if they just understand the rules and know what to expect. For the others: Tony Robbins — 'Change happens when the pain of staying the same is greater than the pain of change. People WILL and DO change. The ones that truly won't......do we really need them on our beaches?

I have no trust that we will have any competent or willing leadership that could change the way we do business in SoWal, what we expect of our visitors. But if you're ina war with the county why would anyone want to listen to you?

I believe to make effective change we have to raise expectations and coordinate citizens, groups, business, etc. It would take a lot of concerted effort to turn the rudder on this Titanic. Kind of seems with chains and ropes beachfront owners are making the iceberg bigger.