Unless I missed something, or don't fully understand the timetable involved with such matters, the motion to dismiss the county's lawsuits has not been honored, so it might not be the slam dunk you imply.
Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
- Thread starter Reggie Gaskins
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Unless I missed something, or don't fully understand the timetable involved with such matters, the motion to dismiss the county's lawsuits has not been honored, so it might not be the slam dunk you imply.
There is no slam dunk in this lawsuit. I have lost count on the number of motions to dismiss already filed. There are lots of them in the over 1000 court documents filed so far on this lawsuit brought by the county against every single private beach front property owner in Walton County. Not one of the filed motions to dismiss have yet to be ruled by the Judge (in other words not one of them have been ruled out by the Judge). It could take months before he rules on ANY of them.
Since it looks like the leader of the FBFA disagreed with one of my previous posts. I will ask the questions again to any FBFA representatives, do you think the county has proved (or even provided any evidence) that the lawsuit by the county to take away private property rights (the right of exclusion) is reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute?
Go ahead and give an answer and be honest. That is 3 of the 4 criteria that MUST be PROVED and HAVE been CLAIMED by the PLANTIF (which now includes FBFA which Dave represents and help found). Ancient is the 4th criteria (of which all must be met). I don't think i have seen any evidence in the submitted court documents of unlimited people using beach equipment on private property against the will of the property owners on 30A, but let's set that one criteria aside for now and focus on the other 3 criteria. I know that is a tough question, but so far THAT question has costs thousands of people millions of dollars, and it has never been answered.
Another question, if FBFA is a PLANTIFF in a lawsuit against thousands of people, making the claim that unlimited people using beach equipment on private property against the will of the property owners, is Ancient, Reasonable, Without Interruption, and Free from Dispute, is found to be frivolous (AKA no evidence provided to make that claim), does that mean the FBFA (as a Plaintiff) has liability for the legal fees? So far estimated at the $2 Million mark but could go to $50 Million or more according the FBFA lawyer.
Come on Dave, The People and the BFO's and others that just read this forum for general information to make up their own mind, REALLY want to know YOUR answer.
To the admins. Those are honest questions seeking real answers from FBFA representatives (of which Dave is known as a founder and vocal supporter of the lawsuit) which has cost millions of dollars so far and will continue to cost millions until the Judge rules or dismisses the case. .Please let this post stand without deleting or banning.
WTFIn summation, some BFO's are banning the people that clean their houses, maintain their landscaping, repair their plumbing, keep the a/c and heat operating, keep the water flowing, serve their food and drink, pick up their trash, educate their children (I'm sure I missed a couple) from using the beaches of Walton County Florida that they had been enjoying without conflict for generations.
Hard to fathom, isn't it?
Hard to fathom, isn't it?
THE UNWASHED YOU PEOPLE NEED TO KEEP TO YOURE TRAILERS!!!
That truly is an interesting question. The first instinct is to say if they were found “co-liable” for the plaintiff fees, that FBFA would just simply file bankruptcy and that’s that. But that’s just an educated guess.
Edgewater Condominiums has already filed for attorney fees from the county and its counsel (which they will get IMO). I did not see where the filing mentioned FBFA.
BTW, if Edgewater does win (and I think they will - click here), does it not weaken the county’s position with all other properties? In the end, what really is the difference between Edgewater and any other gulf front property that has deeded title to the mean high water line and associated private property rights? I do understand it might be a little different if they received beach nourishment. But the county is still going after their property north of the ECL (erosion control line) as well in the CU lawsuit by default.
Which brings up yet another question. Why did the county include all those parcels that received beach nourishment? The public already has a right to use the beach south of the ECL (where everybody wants to be anyway). My theory is they know that the added beach will eventually erode back to the starting point and then the public WILL NOT have open access. Re-nourishment is supposed to “fix” that but who knows what will happen when that occurs. And therefore the county is trying to cover their bases. It’s the only thing that makes sense in that regard. It’s probably cheaper to just “steal” the beach north of the ECL via CU than it is to throw more sand out there re-creating the public beach south of the ECL.
Last edited:
How did the citizens of Walton County every get by before the "activist" crusaders for truth and justice came to save us from the mean old rich people?
Dissenting views expressed on any issue either from Americans or organizations in America is what makes America America. We will not be intimidated, influenced or discouraged in any way into submission by threats, veiled threats, personal attacks or otherwise.
Last edited:
Of course I am kidding you! It is the nature of us humans to make enemies right?
The County has allowed over development of our little island. You and your group has benefited the most from that short sighted and economically motivated decision to approve your exclusive buildings adjacent to the coastal shoreline. Since we are going to be enemies I say that the State should lay claim to all shoreline AND dune systems that nature meant as a barrier to the mainland. If the county was wrong to approve your exclusive buildings then that error must also be corrected. If someone builds on someones else's property because of a faulty deed recording then what do you think the State will do? Sovereign submerged land management will need to be revisited for each development approval. How does rising sea levels affect these permit approvals? Was all permits required approved? If so, who approved them and did they have absolute authority? So, now you BFO power brokers may have another problem to deal with because this game is going in to overtime...just like you power brokers wanted...no compromise...fight to the end. But, you should know that there is always the option of compromise (settlement) to your exclusive beach demands.