Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[Auburn Fan]

You often use the term "The People".

Please define that term for us. What do you mean when you say "The People"?

Then, while you are at it, please explain how a "legal declaration of customary use", in which all property owners' rights are obliterated, is actually conservative.

BMBV, do we agree that it is always five o'clock somewhere Might need a beverage to read whats below!

We are all capitalist in this country and most do not want what somebody else has unless they earn it...fairly. And, yes the nature of humans wanting free stuff is also a truth. I know of strict capitalist that give their kids everything so what example does that teach. In many ways we are all hypocritical at times. My words might seem confusing because it is not one way or the highway. I think CU has an important benefit to society especially when the resource is being limited by building on the sand dunes.

Capitalism is a good economic principle of market dynamics but it has flaws. Corporate greed is a problem. Unequal distribution of resources is a problem. I believe that you have to have a fair and reasonable regulatory system as a check and balance otherwise CEO's will pay themselves gobs of money, destroy the environment or like in this case monopolize resources. This is just common sense and not marxist or socialist like the BS pie that the power brokers want you to believe. This is about an abuse of power which is a flaw of ALL economic and political systems. Wealth indeed hoards resources in all economic systems.

Capitalism gives the poor the greatest opportunity to move up. Socialism has some advantages as well when it comes to the sick, the elderly and those that have catastrophic events happen to them. Government does a decent job of administering social security and medicare. Our healthcare system is not working before Obama and post Obama but that is another issue. Our regulatory system is not working primarily for small business (which is the backbone of our economy). Because wealth has legislative influence there are loop holes for big business. I am a capitalist and a realist and if that means I am a socialist then yes I am.

The power brokers are distracting you into thinking that CU is "I just want free stuff" entitlement theory. I am surprised they recently used that phrase "entitlement theory" instead of socialism. I think it means that they are aware of The People's political interest in Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren's economic platform. Customary Use is more conservative than you might think. It has traditional principles. It has legal precedent but speaking for myself I do not think it can stand up to Constitutional Law. I also think the recent court ruling will have an effect on the lawsuit between the BFO's and The People (representative democracy). But only if the county attorney can link customary use to the approval process of beach property development.

I edited a lot here to keep it short but I wanted you to understand that just because I or anyone supports CU it does not mean that we are against capitalism or the Constitution. You might even say we have some things in _________(you know that C word).

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

I enjoy your posts on this thread. But I think you are too careful and pulling punches. As a matter of fact therre is a lot of passive aggressive games going on. A few people have truly spoken their mind on here instead of posting propaganda.

The OP is so proud of his thread. Until now. Now he wants it shut down because he has been revealed as a spin artist and a bully.

As for the opposition, you can easily see they have gotten under the skin of beachfront owners. This whole thread has been a response to that which has happened on other social media. They came here for a platform for retribution. It ended up backfiring and revealing their true nature as bullies with money and lawyers. And they transparently cry victim. Typical gaslighting.

On the other side you can clearly see is outraged at being kicked off the beach. Who are these despicable people that would close the beach to people who have enjoyed them for generations? They are trying to hide behind property rights issue. If they get shut down then we will see even more vitriol spewed at the common man and simple beach lovers. Trying to paint everyone who comes to the beach as low lifes and rule breakers. 99% of visitors are families with children. Kicking sand in the face of children is what it all comes down to. Shameful.

Here we have yet another forum topic where the board is invaded by people crying fowl, attacking, getting stern responses, crying victim, then disappearing in failure and frustration while blaming everyone else, including the very site they tried to use and abuse....

Absolutely brilliant stated!

 

[FactorFiction]

What originally started as an interesting and informative post, albeit a personal perspective sharing information to support that perspective and create open dialogue, has now gone completely off the rails. This is definitely not the Walton County I once knew and, frankly, it isn't just about the beach, it's about the way people treat each other and the lack of respect shown to those who have differing opinions. The fault lies with every individual who can't keep on topic and communicate respectfully regardless of his/her opinion. This is a pervasive problem, not just a beach problem. We can do better than this.

 

[Auburn Fan]

Renourished beaches are not private. Period.

Dave, what difference does it make whether a beach is private?

 

[Auburn Fan]

Your veiled caring for the well being of the folks at SoWal. Your pathetic attempt to scare SoWal into submission because you think you have some sort of influence or power over their brand and revenues is ridiculous. Your attempts to manipulate this thread are ridiculous. You truly are delusional.

Dave, your personal attacks are the last resort of one who lacks rational, sound arguments. Personal attacks do not belong here.

Reggie has likely concluded that one cannot reason someone out of a position that he did not reason themselves into.

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

No personal attacks just stating the facts.

 

[mputnal]

AF, In a representative democracy, The People are supposed to be the "represented". We elect representatives that are supposed to represent The People. So, we The People need to always be aware of an abuse of power and not let political propaganda divide us with fear. In this thread the purpose was to cover up a sicking desire of power to exclude The People from the beach. Unfortunately, the BPO's who are not part of this power play have been mislead and unfortunately for them they are caught in the crossfire of emotion from all sides. Listen, these power brokers are not from around here. They represent elite wealth and power. They do not care about your property rights. I am no authority on anything so if you believe they care about you (at all) then that is your right of course. They certainly do not care about this community otherwise they would have compromised on excluding respectful people from the beach. Compromise is a shameful word to power brokers. It is the way wealth and power manage to stay in wealth and power. We The People are learning how to recognize this abuse of power even though it is cleverly hidden within the power broker BS pie.

I believe The People would compromise on beach use. Keep the beaches open to a respectful public. Give BPO's the right to choose their spot on the beach. I understand the devil is in the details but my point is this should have been a compromise and not a lawsuit. I believe most BPO's would also like a compromise. The only reason we don't have one is because those in power wanted to test CU against Constitutional Law believing that they will win this in court and hoard yet another resource. I hope that the County has sufficient representation to link customary use with their beach development approval process by way of public beach easement. It is very possible that CU and Property Rights will both be moot...

 

[jodiFL]

Dave, what difference does it make whether a beach is private?

Did he/she really just say that?

 

[mputnal]

ForF, I agree with you about respect and would like to know if you believe that Reggie Gaskins etal are the standard by which respectful people should behave? If your answer is yes then I assume you know these people and willing to defend their behavior. The thread "Customary Use will destroy our 30A legacy". The elements of the title are community (30A legacy), destructive accusations (destroy) and personal (our). If you believe that these people are members of this community, are without fault regarding accusatory behavior and finally did not get "personal" then I would have to disagree with you.

Society will always have differing perspectives on issues but the one basic ingredient of a sustainable civilized society is the ability to equally and fairly distribute resources. Many resources are already taken by wealth. Excluding people from the beach was never a good idea. The resource keeps people happy and hopeful. Reggie etal believe that beach exclusion should not be compromised ever but he/she did not stop there. Reggie etal made this about The People "taking" something that is not theirs. I am surprised that you would not see how wrong that is. He was not thru. In one post he believed that a child should be punished for simple exercise on the beach. Who made Reggie this authority? Does a lot of money make you an authority? Please tell me that you understand why this thread exploded with emotion!

 

[mputnal]

AF, I forgot to answer your 2nd question. Let me give an example of how a court ruled in my home town located in Florida. A property owner was given a deed for a property that he bought and paid taxes on for many years. The survey showed the fence with the neighboring property was off by 15 feet yet that fence had been there for many years and trees and very old trees had grown into the fence. The neighboring property benefited from that 15 feet and used the property for cattle grazing for many years before being asked to move the fence to the property line. The neighbor paid no taxes on that property yet the court ruled that the traditional use or customary use is the conservative use of the property and must be obeyed. The resource was distributed according to this traditional/conservative/customary use. The deeds were modified and those paid taxes made no difference. You might say the property owner that paid the taxes had that money obliterated. Not fair huh? This is why I believe that BPO's should have taken the chance to compromise because you just never know how a court will rule PLUS it is the right thing to do in my opinion.