Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[mputnal]

FOF, speaking for myself I appreciate and respect the honesty of people using their real names. I also agree with you that it makes little difference if there are no personal attacks, no blaming others, no shaming others, no demeaning others and no repetitive quoting of the same facts. I have read many of your posts and I do not feel that you do any of those things and are able to disagree with others without personally attacking or bullying. The general answers to your questions are yes. However when you hide your identity and then go on the attack you lose all credibility. Being kind is our mission in life. It is just too easy to go off mission when you hide behind a fake name.

Reggie talks about linear thinking which is a straight line from a point (property rights) to a point (exclusive use of the beach). I believe it misses the point of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ALL people as it relates to our beaches. I believe it benefits Reggie to use linear thought but not so much for us losers (his word). I understand why it is necessary for the structure and order of linear thought but "life" has multiple starting points and ending points. Non linear thinking is necessary to expand the search for truth especially when linear thinking only solves the problem for a few. You prefer to talk about "sticking to the facts of the topic" as long as we all agree on the starting point and ending point. But, we do not agree. IMO this is not a straight line topic which benefits a few at the expense of many. If you believe that this topic exists in a neat little box of constitutional rights then I would disagree. Reggie believes that economic fairness and human equality is a fantasy and that he has earned the privilege of his personal private beach. He did not stop there as he expanded the topic into people just wanting something for nothing. This is why linear thinking does not work for this topic. Once he expanded the topic it is now expanded into non linear thinking. Now please answer my question: do you believe in exclusive use of our beaches and why?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Seems that all this focus on names is a diversion from sticking to the facts of the topic.

That’s a fact, JACK!

 

[kayti elliott]

The obsession with "fake names" by those who aren't towing the CU line has gotten silly. We know that the leader of the pack enjoys his celebrity, but some people don't. Why not insist that EVERYONE use their real names?

 

[mputnal]

Kathryn, what line are you towing: Exclusive private beaches for a few or Public beaches for many? Also, who is the leader of what pack? It sounds like you believe that public beach supporters are a pack of dogs or something?

Okay, I insist that EVERYONE use their real names

 

[mputnal]

Kathryn, what line are you towing: Exclusive private beaches for a few or Public beaches for many? Also, who is the leader of what pack? It sounds like you believe that public beach supporters are a pack of dogs or something?

Okay, I insist that EVERYONE use their real names

 

[James Bentwood]

Names are an old topic on this forum and the internet in general. It's been covered on this thread a few times. IT IS VERY SIMPLE.... The issue on this thread and this particular topic is anonymous people claiming to be residents coming on and bashing real community members and calling them out by their real names. The real people who live in SoWal and have the guts and accountability to stand up for their community.

The anonymous people started this thread to grind their axe and get retribution against the real people. They've been kicked off of every other internet site so came here to spew their hatred and propaganda. They have no credibility because they are using fake names to attack real people. That loses them all credibility. They have been called out in return by the real people and continue to hide. That is cowardly.

On other topics and in normal threads, use a fake name all you want as long as you abide by internet etiquette and the rules of the forum. Also sock puppets are not allowed which I have no doubt there is at least one beach front owner on this thread using sock puppets. It's easy to tell after so many posts. The fact that they registered at the same time is telling. Also they don't post on any other threads except customary use threads. A couple of "private beach" posters were members before last fall. They are the only ones I don't suspect as sock puppets..

 

[kayti elliott]

I get it. If you don't support the "correct side" on this and other issues, you aren't welcome on SoWal. Why not just vet users and require identification and other "proof". Or make it simple. Just ban those who aren't on the CU train. It would really be fun for all of you if everyone agreed on everything. I live in Walton County but I don't live South of the bay. Besides, one of CU righteous ones who also uses a fake name has already told me that I was here only to make trouble. I've also had a post deleted for a personal attack and I simply asked a question to someone who said they had never been to Oregon to see the "people's beach". I asked, "What's keeping you from going there?" That's a personal attack? I simply don't think "customary use" is the law. I also don't think that people should be sued for something they have no control over, like condo owners who happen to own a unit in a beachfront development.

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

Re-posting with a few modifications. I’ve shown this to a handful of beachfront owners and they are liking it.

The only compromise I can see is eliminate vending on public, county owned beaches, not as a consolation to make private beaches an easer pill to swallow but to rightly keep the public county owned beaches available for people to set up wherever they wish. They can order rental chairs but they have to be delivered and set up wherever there’s a spot; no designated real estate for vendors.

Then, work with the BCC and Beachfront owners to set tighter restrictions on the dry sand within 500 to 800 feet of those county owned beach accesses on either side. No tents, no large gatherings, no night parties...only ghost crab chasing with the kids at night. But the dry sand in those areas with restrictions are open to the public to use within the law with strict enforcement and a hot line for beachfront owners to get quick results if anyone gets out of line.

Beyond 500 to 800 feet, fewer restrictions because no one walks with all their stuff that far. The "interior" beachfront owners complain the least because people just don't walk long distances dragging their stuff. I truly believe this could set the clock back. Restore the garbage pickup AND "leave no trace" and eliminate the private property, no trespassing signs. Signage would be needed to set the rules plainly and clearly. I truly believe the lawsuits could go away with something like this that addresses the behavior with rules and enforcement where the biggest complaints come from Beach front owners, near Public Beach accesses. Behind beachfront owners homes the beach front owners could get priority placement and register their beach chairs with the county so they will always have a place to set up behind their homes and close to the water; front tier. But, they would not be able to exclude anyone from the sand behind their homes unless they’re breaking rules.

Do a pilot program and try it.

 

[FloridaBeachBum]

Since you do not own private beachfront property, the hundreds of “interior” private properties 500 to 800 feet from county owned beach accesses are not yours; I can understand why you and CU believers “believe” that is “fair”. It is not your real property. Is occupying the “interior” miles of private properties without the owner’s consent Constitutional? Please answer this one and why. Goes to your credibility and relevance. I don’t expect you to because your Constitutional justification is - you just “believe” public access of private property beachfront is just and partisan CU polls say so.

So which is it 500 feet or 800 feet on either side of public beach access? Does that include beach accesses that are public right of way to the foreshore only? Like at Vizcaya? Most BFO parcels are 50 feet wide. That 300 foot makes a difference of about 12 private property parcels at each County beach access that get “special” protections from uninvited and disrespectful people for the private property owner’s enjoyment, who paid a premium and they, not the public, pay taxes on to the MHWL in their deed. How many County beach access are there? About 56 as of today? Beach and Bay Access Locations That’s about 56 x 12 = 624 parcels that get “special” private property protections. Let’s not get sidetracked about the lack of political will and law enforcement of private property rights.

I assure you as FACT, if people are not willing to walk more than 500 to 800 feet as you state, they WILL “cut” through and across upland private property from 30A and public roads (clearly trespass) that they think is not occupied to get to private beaches. By the time they trespass and get to the private beach the Sheriff won’t do anything about north-south private property trespass. Even with security video evidence.
#581 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

You have no real property skin in the game, have no facts, and no ideal what you are talking about, and not credible. Just a belief you are “right” and BFO are wrong which has no relevance in Walton BCC litigation against 4,761 private Walton property owners. CUnCourt.

Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
Customary Use of SoWal Beaches: Contact Governor Scott

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Re-posting with a few modifications. I’ve shown this to a handful of beachfront owners and they are liking it.

The only compromise I can see is eliminate vending on public, county owned beaches, not as a consolation to make private beaches an easer pill to swallow but to rightly keep the public county owned beaches available for people to set up wherever they wish. They can order rental chairs but they have to be delivered and set up wherever there’s a spot; no designated real estate for vendors.

Then, work with the BCC and Beachfront owners to set tighter restrictions on the dry sand within 500 to 800 feet of those county owned beach accesses on either side. No tents, no large gatherings, no night parties...only ghost crab chasing with the kids at night. But the dry sand in those areas with restrictions are open to the public to use within the law with strict enforcement and a hot line for beachfront owners to get quick results if anyone gets out of line.

Beyond 500 to 800 feet, fewer restrictions because no one walks with all their stuff that far. The "interior" beachfront owners complain the least because people just don't walk long distances dragging their stuff. I truly believe this could set the clock back. Restore the garbage pickup AND "leave no trace" and eliminate the private property, no trespassing signs. Signage would be needed to set the rules plainly and clearly. I truly believe the lawsuits could go away with something like this that addresses the behavior with rules and enforcement where the biggest complaints come from Beach front owners, near Public Beach accesses. Behind beachfront owners homes the beach front owners could get priority placement and register their beach chairs with the county so they will always have a place to set up behind their homes and close to the water; front tier. But, they would not be able to exclude anyone from the sand behind their homes unless they’re breaking rules.

Do a pilot program and try it.

I read this post 5 times. For the life of me I cannot see what in this “compromise” gives beachfront owners anything that they don’t already have. At least you’re consistent. You did say NO COMPROMISE many times before. And now you’re presenting a veiled hint of some sort of “compromise” when in fact there is none. You’re good.

I think your beach front owner friends are just being kind to you in their supposed agreement. NO BFO I know would think this is a compromise or benefits them in any way.

On the flip side, I’m hearing rumors 3rd hand from counsel that the county is going to have to seriously reevaluate their position on CU on going after the entire beach as presented in their case (wouldn’t be a big surprise to anyone truly objective in this debate). Perhaps that’s what inspires your so-called “compromise”?


Stickem up! Give me all your money!
All my money?
Ok, ok. I’ll compromise. Give me half your money.