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. With all due respect the sand behind you home is not taxed and saying is is does not make it so. Also, there are laws that govern trespassing on upland property and legal recourse when they do. 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. Also, there are laws that govern trespassing on upland property and legal recourse when they do. Just because you have not gotten satisfaction in the past there are plenty of ways to keep people from traipsing over or on your private access to the beach;.
#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
I suspect you are in the category of beachfront owners who live near a beach access or are a strong private property right proponent or both. I respect and understand your opinion to the extent that you probably wish you had not purchased near a beach access and you are upset when the public entertains themselves on the sand behind your house (sometimes behaving badly, but mostly not.)
When I build a home in Rosemaary beach in 2000 I had a beautiful home overlooking quiet, pastoral tennis courts. The only noise was people having fun, the whack of the tennis balls and the occasional expletive when a shot went awry. I built my home right on the eastern border of Rosemary; it's the one with the solar panels. The lots just off Rosemary remained unbuilt for 9 out of the 14 years I lived there. Then, one by one a rental home went up, each with a courtyard with a pool. They were attractive enough as the first developers was wise to imitate the archetecture of Rosemary. A few were built then the real estate crash idled them and were eventually all were completed. I sold in 2013. Why? Because of the noise and increased traffic on Winston Lane. Every home with a pool rented out? "Marco, Polo" times 10 and parties resounded across the tennis courts daily and nightly. So my point is I enjoyed peace and quiet for many years then it all went South. I could have fought that land being developed tooth and nail to protect my sanctuary and keep people off it or accepted the noise and remained living there or went on to a quieter neighborhood. I chose the latter.
I have spoken to several beachfront owners who don't live near a beach access and they don't take as extreme a portion as those who live near a beach access. My suggestions for a compromise attempts to address that and are a stab at trying to find and offer a solution that would be helpful in stopping all this nonsense. I believe that if a plan something like what I suggested had been implemented none of this would have happened and we would not be spending valuable life time banging away on our keyboards on SoWal. You can't exclude people from the beaches. You just can't. Just my view but I assure you that notion is not the minority opinion.
Finally, your's and other's out of hand dismissal of my suggestions say a few things.
1. Nothing will change your mind.
2. You are so embittered at me for having the audacity to challenge excluding people from our beaches that anything I say you will challenge and you would never support suggestions I make.
3. Your strong, combative position places you in the extreme minority opinion even among beachfront owners. I believe you will be alienated or perhaps already are by the myriad of opinions beachfront owners have on the issue. I have spoken to many and I have to enlighten you that many beachfront owners don't agree with your position.
So, unless a compromise is reached nothing you or I say here is relevant and it will be decided in court. My personal opinion is that Eminent Domain is not a compromise. I think that has been the end game of the small group of beachfront owners who are driving this. Just my opinion but I too might be in the minority opinion on that one.
Last edited: