South Walton's Community Website
Beach Like A Local!
Create Account
New posts

miznotebook

Beach Fanatic
Jul 8, 2009
925
556
Stone's throw from Inlet Bch
The county attorney stated last May that if the property is less than five acres and contains a single-family home, a property owner is not required to post any markers in order for low enforcement personnel to enforce trespassing violations.
 

jodiFL

Beach Fanatic
Jul 28, 2007
2,479
709
SOWAL,FL
The county attorney stated last May that if the property is less than five acres and contains a single-family home, a property owner is not required to post any markers in order for low enforcement personnel to enforce trespassing violations.
Correct..that is in keeping with FL Statue Chapter 810.
 

Rachael Ashman McKee

Beach Lover
May 21, 2012
58
28
Seacrest
The county attorney stated last May that if the property is less than five acres and contains a single-family home, a property owner is not required to post any markers in order for low enforcement personnel to enforce trespassing violations.
Thank you. But the discourse comes from the beginning of signs due to the WCSO SOP of2015.
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
And we are back! It makes no difference who is right or who is wrong. ... You all have a fine day.
Bob, there are 4,671 beachfront owners including condos and HOAs owners with beachfront for members and there are about 1,200 private property parcels; including some parcels that are not beachfront like Dave Rauschkolb’s Dragonsky Fly LLC in Seaside that Walton gave notice they were being litigated against.

Could not have said it better than Fact or Fiction [Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy], BlueMtnBeachVag (who has been posting on SoWal since 2006?) [Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy], and Reggie Gaskins [Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy].

You are more informed than most and you have made your position known that you support customary use of private property before. I’d guess many of the 4,671 beachfront owners are not as familiar with the ancient English (not American) doctrine of customary use and only hear the intentional misinformation and unsupported opinions in the public square. Owners read little to none factual information from the local “news” papers and CU FB. Many owners do not want to be on Facebook or social media because of the vitriol and unsupported (intentional?) misinformation. If just one of those 4,671 owners learn sometime from a property owner with real property skin in the game, that'd be great. Thanks to SoWal for the forum to do that.

I do want to know why someone disagrees with the data and facts; or what data or facts do you have for quiet title, dry beach is worthless and not taxed, etc. but all I hear in response is you’re out numbered, you have alternative facts (whatever that is), stop, emotional unsupported opinions, and it will be decided in the courts.

I agree it makes no difference here who is right or wrong. It’s about factual information, some knowledge of the law, and pointing out the misinformation. So I will not be silenced. If you don’t want to read it; don’t and CUnCourt.
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
Never means, well never. Are you claiming this property has always been private? No where in history was this stretch of beach free of recorded ownership?
What I said was 30A private properties (east of Topsail State Park) have NEVER had tax payer dredged sand added to private property or an ECL established.
Your question, has this (Vizcaya) always been private or free of recorded ownership? Do you mean never owned by a Governmental entity? Do you want to go back to before there was a USA? I’m not an attorney. Lets discuss only USA since 1776 land patents, not the other multiple foreign countries who claimed land in North America before 1776 or before 1492.

There were US Government Florida land patents in Walton that included all property rights, including littoral rights. Or alternatively, did not exclude any real property rights. Florida defined the littoral property boundaries of the Gulf as the MHWL.

Do a title search if anyone wants to know the title back to the USA land patents. I’ve provided the plat - someone can do the title search from there and let us know if public custom or easements are included. The many Walton beachfront title searches I’ve seen back to the land patents include all real-property rights, including littoral rights and do not include easements or custom rights. If anything like other Walton beachfront title searches back to the USA land patents I’d guess Vizcaya title to 1,036 feet of beachfront has always been privately owned to the MHWL. The owner who platted Vizcaya included a public easement for access (not occupy) to the foreshore (the sand between the MHWL and MLWL). The plat shows a 33 foot and a 68 foot “Beach Access Easement” and “this dedication shall not create any rights of the public of the property shown on the plat ...”.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bob Wells

Beach Fanatic
Jul 25, 2008
3,357
1,331
You are correct and because it is going to the Court I have bowed out of the conversation. I have also said that as the Courts will be deciding I will be accepting of that decision.

Bob, there are 4,671 beachfront owners including condos and HOAs owners with beachfront for members and there are about 1,200 private property parcels; including some parcels that are not beachfront like Dave Rauschkolb’s Dragonsky Fly LLC in Seaside that Walton gave notice they were being litigated against.

Could not have said it better than Fact or Fiction [Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy], BlueMtnBeachVag (who has been posting on SoWal since 2006?) [Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy], and Reggie Gaskins [Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy].

You are more informed than most and you have made your position known that you support customary use of private property before. I’d guess many of the 4,671 beachfront owners are not as familiar with the ancient English (not American) doctrine of customary use and only hear the intentional misinformation and unsupported opinions in the public square. Owners read little to none factual information from the local “news” papers and CU FB. Many owners do not want to be on Facebook or social media because of the vitriol and unsupported (intentional?) misinformation. If just one of those 4,671 owners learn sometime from a property owner with real property skin in the game, that'd be great. Thanks to SoWal for the forum to do that.

I do want to know why someone disagrees with the data and facts; or what data or facts do you have for quiet title, dry beach is worthless and not taxed, etc. but all I hear in response is you’re out numbered, you have alternative facts (whatever that is), stop, emotional unsupported opinions, and it will be decided in the courts.

I agree it makes no difference here who is right or wrong. It’s about factual information, some knowledge of the law, and pointing out the misinformation. So I will not be silenced. If you don’t want to read it; don’t and CUnCourt.
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
Thanks Bob. Seriously. Stay in the conversation. I think you just have a different perspective than beachfront owners with real-property skin in the game. Many just want to know what legal or factual basis do you or anyone support the legal doctrine of private property customary use? "Just because I believe it" is not a very supportable (or valid legal) answer. Fact or Fiction did say something about debates that made me dream.

Me and James Lince in an on-line debate of property rights and the history and doctrine of custom in Walton County with Dave Rauschkolb and Daniel Uhlfelder and an impartial 3 judicial judge panel. Winner take all!

Walton’s attorney David Theriaque makes $425 and hour. There are about 25 owner attorneys making lets say $400 and hour ($10,000 and hour). If private property owners prevail; could save Walton tax payers million$.

Alas I guess we will have to pay our attorney surrogates to debate for us. CUnCourt.

To find out more about property rights and customary use misinformation go to the, open for anyone and be respectful, Florida Coastal Property Rights FB page.
Florida Coastal Property Rights
or read James Lince opinions based on the law and verifiable facts about common customary use misinformation. For the full post go to FCPR FB.
James Lince Rebuttal.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Reggie Gaskins

Beach Lover
Oct 4, 2018
153
259
58
Blue Mountain Beach
Objective discussion happening. Love it. Bob Wells, we all agree, we will all be governed by litigation outcome. Think about this y’all; We continue to state facts here because the entire CU public argument is based on mistruths. Imagine this - A court decision not favorable to CU, which is what I predict. Will the public truly accept it without knowing these facts? We all know what that nightmare looks like, don’t we? See more detailed factual CU discussion at Editor's Opinion: Maybe Political Satire isn't for you? Or Maybe it's just for you!
 
Last edited:

MRBS

Beach Lover
Jun 5, 2008
148
72
Seems that the thrust of that blog article at Editor's Opinion: Maybe Political Satire isn't for you? Or Maybe it's just for you! is that the ugly signs, chains, etc., are expression of political satire. Really? Or is that satire also? I get the feeling that the folks opposed to CU in this thread are just trying to goad pro CU folks into making comments that can be used in the opposition's lawsuit. Maybe not but I have a suspicious mind.
 
New posts