Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[SUP View]

FBB, if you do look into a mirror and see Perry Mason, please tell him that he is a good actor and I enjoyed the entertainment but I really want to know if he and Stella worked things out...

Or if you see James Madison, please ask him if he enjoyed taking his family to the beach on vacations...

Or if you see Benjamin Franklin, please ask him why he liked to spend so much time in France...Something tells me you will not see Benjamin Franklin

I must have missed the early happy hour.

 

[stone packard]

Those of you who are so confident of a win in this case are aware that the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs, aren't you? Frankly I don't know what your proof is? Enlighten us. This isn't exactly a slip and fall case where some slick plaintiffs lawyer impresses a stupid jury.

 

[Stone Cold J]

Anyway here are the real issues in the lawsuit:

Who owns the shoreline and what is the shoreline?
How does a dynamic shoreline be considered static relevant to ownership?
Is the property description in the deeds correct?
What is the USE of the shoreline portion of dry sand (aka the beach)?
Has Beach Use always been considered public?

Actually, NONE OF THOSE ARE ISSUES IN THIS LAWSUIT. They may be part of a future lawsuit, but they are not part of this one.

The BCC is suing to remove property rights (right of exclusion) of private legally deeded property in Walton County so unlimited people with unlimited people may occupy “dry sand” on private property against the will of the property owner. That is the lawsuit.

Specifically the “dry sand” in the lawsuit is defined as “area of the beach is defined as the zone of unconsolidated material that extends landward from the mean high water line to the place where there is marked change in material or physiographic form, or to the line of the permanent vegetation, usually the effective limit of storm waves, which is more seaward”.

And the ONLY evidence is exhibit “B”, specifically “The sources of evidence that the County Commission would rely upon to prove a recreational customary use has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute are listed on Exhibit “B” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED in a special session by the Board of County Commissioners for Walton County, Florida, this 3rd day of November 2018.”

Judge Green must rule if removal of property rights (right of exclusion) of legally deeded property between the mean high tide line and the line of permanent vegetation, so people and equipment may occupy private property against the will of the owner, is ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute. And he only has the evidence provided by the County to make that ruling and no where in exhibit B is anything mentioning that removal of the property rights is reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute (actually just the fact there is a lawsuit with so many defendants shows it is under heavy dispute).

That is it. That is what the Judge must rule on. Nothing else. So tell me, PLEASE, what evidence or arguments that removal of property rights is ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute? It is costing Walton County Taxpayers and BPO thousands of dollars EVERY DAY waiting on that answer.

Don't take my word for it. Go look it up yourself and see the wording of the lawsuit and evidence. It is open to the public and there are over 1000 court documents on the County Web Site. Case #2018CA547.

 

[mputnal]

SV, I give you credit for being the only one of your group to understand humor.

SP, it would be a mistake for either side to be over confident.

SCJ, you and FBB need to coordinate. His version is different.

Regardless of how simple it all seems to you I doubt the Judge will see it that way. My point is that it all comes down to Judge Green being the decider and not any of us posting in this forum.

In addition the private exclusive beach group has attacked and bullied people over and over. I usually stay in the middle until I see such blatant disrespect which caused me to take sides. I think others will follow so just keep it up.

 

[customary user]

So thankful for this forum. Giving plenty of rope to bullies to nakedly hang themselves in full view of our wonderful community.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

In this environment, maybe Dave will actually consider Reggie’s outreached hand for a face to face, framed as a discussion, not a debate. And who knows? Maybe something genuinely positive will occur.

Two weeks later....
Maybe not.

 

[mputnal]

SCj, your group has admitted your mission is to encourage BPO's to remain "against the will" of public beaches. Many BPO's have been mislead, some support your politics and many are on the fence. The reason you hide your identity is so that those you represent (maybe even yourself) can run for political offices which is like killing two birds with one stone. The first mistake you made is that The People are so ignorant that they would not figure out your purpose. The second mistake you made is that some in your group has attacked and shamed We The People. Reggie/Regina's posts along with FBB's post provide the evidence in this court of public opinion.

The beach area between the "mean high tide line" and "the line of permanent vegetation" will take years of litigation to determine whether it can be privately owned at all. It is a fact that "property descriptions" in a deed can be wrong. You know this and it is the reason why your group is here on this forum keeping those BPO's that are on the fence stirred up and misinformed about protecting their (our) property rights. NO THANK YOU. I would never want anyone who hides their name and then attacks and bullies to represent me on anything.

The dry sand area of coastal shorelines is in dispute because people with money and power desire to control another valuable resource. This is not necessarily a class issue but rather how wealth and power accumulates and maintains their wealth and power thru "capital assets" and that IS the reason for this lawsuit. All this other stuff is to keep us all divided: Property rights vs Human rights, Liberals vs Conservatives, Democrats vs Republicans etc. If Walton County is not successful this will be the beginning of the end of public beaches for future generations as wealth accumulates capital in another limited resource. WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE PASSIONATE ABOUT SAVING OUR BEACHES.

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

Bottom line.
If you own beach property, you can get sued for liability for any injuries on your property.
Supreme Court still holds a Royal Flush.

An owner or lessee who provides the public with an area for outdoor recreational purposes owes no duty of care to keep that area safe for entry or use by others, or to give warning to persons entering or going on that area of any hazardous conditions, structures, or activities on the area. An owner or lessee who provides the public with an area for outdoor recreational purposes:

1. Is not presumed to extend any assurance that the area is safe for any purpose;

2. Does not incur any duty of care toward a person who goes on the area; or

3. Is not liable or responsible for any injury to persons or property caused by the act or omission of a person who goes on the area Chapter 375 Section 251 - 2012 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

 

[SUP View]

An owner or lessee who provides the public with an area for outdoor recreational purposes owes no duty of care to keep that area safe for entry or use by others, or to give warning to persons entering or going on that area of any hazardous conditions, structures, or activities on the area. An owner or lessee who provides the public with an area for outdoor recreational purposes:

1. Is not presumed to extend any assurance that the area is safe for any purpose;

2. Does not incur any duty of care toward a person who goes on the area; or

3. Is not liable or responsible for any injury to persons or property caused by the act or omission of a person who goes on the area Chapter 375 Section 251 - 2012 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

BFO's are NOT providing any area for recreational purposes or ANY other purpose.

Moot point.

Nice try though.

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

BFO's are NOT providing any area for recreational purposes or ANY other purpose.

Moot point.

Nice try though.

Well, in the future they might have to and isn’t it nice that the Statute is already there to make it easy for them.