Discussion in 'Local Government and Groups' started by Reggie Gaskins, Apr 25, 2019.
Sock puppets are not allowed on SoWal. Prepare to have your usernames merged.
Guess Reggie doesnt realize that nudity on the beaches of 30A is nothing new. There used to be a couple of well known nude beaches. But that probably doesnt fit into what he thinks the "legacy of 30A" ought to be. If he only knew about all the potheads and gangsters that used to be around here (some still are).....
Pirates and moonshiners!!
That was before beach front houses were built on the dunes.
There were some beach front houses....just not on every square inch of the dunes. It wasnt until St. Joe decided to really ramp it up that they went away. The helicopter pilots from Eglin used to make REALLY LOW passes on the beach....
The houses were more modest. Not setback to setback and reaching the 50' height mark.
I wish the south side of 30A was never touched but too late for that. What a shame.
Sorry, but my statements have all been facts. Such as...
CU doctrine was born in Florida in 1974, NOT “since before we were born”. See what I did there? Presented a fact. Not an opinion. So the title of my original post speaks factually to your very point. We all came here for the same reason. Our kids, grandkids, and great grandkids have always enjoyed the unique environment. The facts in this thread speak for themselves. AND ARE STILL UNDISPUTED. What I own, or don’t own, doesn’t change the facts. If you believe this disrespectful carnival show is good for our community, feel free. I spent today on a private beach that IS NOT MINE with many other strangers, visitors, people who came down to enjoy the day. Except for those waiting to shield their children from violent naked protesters carrying CU flags threatening to ruin their vacation. Not the same as a 1970’s Seagrove, sorry, fact. If you don’t think that will ruin the 30A legacy, then carry on your misplaced hate for a few homeowners. I choose to respect those who are interested in maintaining our 30A legacy, not destroying it through true misplaced greed, greed of someone else’s property.
It’s simple, some believe title was issued to property that should never be private and our judicial system will determine who is right. All your blustery and whining won’t change the fact we have a long established mechanism in this country to settle these types of disputes.
Reggie, bfo's etal I appreciate your facts and civility but I think you are missing something. Maybe that something is in the definition of the "legacy of 30A". Maybe your definition is different. You don't seem to accept that people have different perspectives, different definitions and well are just different. I understand why you are fed up with emotional outburst, propaganda and the lack of respect for your perspective. No matter what the facts are regarding CU doctrine and it's legality there is a higher power called the doctrine of good behavior, fairness and equality. Well, it should be the higher power because it is just. Both sides of this issue and most issues begin to lose sight of this powerful doctrine when promoting an agenda. Your agenda is that you worked hard for the money that allowed you to buy beach front property and pay the taxes on that property and the Constitution gives you the power to protect that property. Okay so now I must ask you a question and the answer is very important. Do you think that our economic system is fair to all people? This is not a question that you can answer quickly. It requires a lot of honest reflection not just a quick response to justify with "I worked hard" or "I worked harder than those who want to use the beach behind my house" and I have the Constitution on my side. Even if you do have the Constitution on your side you have to admit that the reason we have a Country is because of oppressive power. Money is power. So if you don't want the people to envy, resent or even hate your success it might be better to go back to the doctrine of good behavior, fairness and equality. I get it, the side that opposes you on this issue has either forgotten how to behave or relaxes good behavior in order to promote their agenda. I have posted on other threads and I can personally verify the disrespect and hatred from that side. My point is that both sides are wrong to fight fire with fire. I am not disputing your facts. I am not disputing why you chose to fight the agenda from those who believe in CU doctrine. BUT I am disputing the belief that you earned the right to keep ALL people off the beach behind your house because you earned that right from an economic system that is not fair to all people. The history of Country supports the fact that the people will eventually rebel against abusive power. It is better to use your power to promote a sense of sharing the beach (with rules of good behavior) remembering that building on those sand dunes already restricts the views of our beautiful natural resource which damages that very resource. If you practice the doctrine of good behavior you do not have to feel guilty of anything because we all damage this planet by definition of consumption. The only way for us all to get along with each other and this planet is to only take what you need and give something back...
Take candy from a baby and you might get some sad babies.
Wah! Waaaaaah! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Motion to dismiss was filed on grounds that the county failed to identify “specific parcels of property” where “customary use affirmation is being sought”. The county’s current filing goes against previous determinations that customary use must be determined on a parcel by parcel basis....at least that’s my understanding all these years.
Talking about “greed”, the county wants it ALL and may perhaps get nothing.
I see the opposite. Owners with fat lawyers stringing it out unti the county quits. Seen it many times over the years by greedy people.
If you’re a capitalist and respect and believe what the Constitution guarantees each and every citizen of the United States - the answer is a simple YES.
If you’re a socialist, then the answer is obviously “not so much”.
Interesting that you have such idealistic views of society (I probably could even share a couple of beers with you). But what’s IRONIC, is that the same capitalist “pigs” are the ones who are pushing for customary use under the guise of public good.
Think about all that for a moment under the context of your post. I still am and truthfully have some mixed emotions regarding who really is attacking private property rights.
Life must be so wonderful for you with clear boxes to put everyone in.
I consider myself to be a realist. Capitalism is great but morality has to be built into it. We try to do it with rules but are currently failing at it as the Middle Class shrinks and the rich class grows along with the working poor class. Socialism does not work because creativity and sustainable growth is suppressed. Our political system has two all or nothing parties. If you believe that either party can solve all the problems in society then that is idealism. Division is because neither side is willing to compromise. The two sides fight over principle. Fighting leads to bitterness. Maybe we are too principled for our own good...
Taxes explained with beer (tax rates at time this was written, I guess):
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The 1st four men (the poorest) would pay nothing..
The 5th would pay $1.
The 6th would pay $3.
The 7th would pay $7.
The 8th would pay $12.
The 9th would pay $18.
The 10th man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar everyday and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
'Since you are all such good customers,' he said,
'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the 5th man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The 6th now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The 7th now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The 8th now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The 9th now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The 10th now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got one dollar out of the $20,' declared the 6th man.
He pointed to the 10th man,' but he got $10! ''Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the 5th man.
'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair he got ten times more than I!
'That's true!!' shouted the 7th man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?
The wealthy get all the breaks!
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all.
The system exploits the poor!
'The 9 men surrounded the 10th and beat him up. The next night the 10th man (the richest) didn't show up for drinks, so the 9 sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
The richest man had been paying for more than all the rest combined.
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, liberals and socialists everywhere, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
(based on an article by D. R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., Professor of Economics University of Georgia)
Good grief, this was a dumb comparison when Sanders delivered it from the WH podium and it’s even dumber for someone to use it again. Forbes did a good job explaining why government isn’t at all like beer maybe you should google it.
So here’s a confesssion.
We purchased a condo over 15 years ago. The building is a gulfront building with private deeded beach. Undisputed. And the amount of beach on a per unit basis, is very small in reality. We’ve had more issues internally. To be honest AFAIK, we have never had to kick off a public beach goer. Yes we asked a few people to leave who trespassed on our upland part of the property, using our walkover to access our private beach.
As I have mentioned before, there were no issues at that time regarding public access, because the public didn’t need to walk hundreds of feet from the public access to find a spot on our private beach. Life WAS good.
Fast forward to today and we all know the story. The county wants EVERYTHING as do many of you.
But us “mean, rich, greedy” BFOs are standing in the way.
BTW, our condo was purchased at just over $100k.
So maybe the mantra needs to be revised.....
“mean, not entitled to own the beach because they didn’t pay enough for it to begin with, greedy.....”
Yeah, I know. Beer leaves a much better after taste in your mouth.
Separate names with a comma.