Maybe. And maybe the CU supporters will lighten up on their hate and hypocrisy pointed at the BFO's.
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.
Maybe. And maybe the CU supporters will lighten up on their hate and hypocrisy pointed at the BFO's.
Are BFOs also expected to pick up trash that slobs leave behind if their back yard is ruled to be a public beach?
Now that's funny. Since Beachfront Owners lawyers in their infinite wisdom talked them into stopping trash pickup by the county on OUR beaches. The good County trash pickup folks can take care of that as they had for decades if you wish.
Dave Rauschkolb, that is only the first third of section (2). This is NOT an open ended limitation of liability as you posted. You inconveniently (purposely?) left out the qualifying remainder of the Statute 375.251. Your credibility suffers when you leave out facts you want us all to consider. Did FBFA attorney Daniel Uhlfelder give you legal advise to exclude the written agreement with the State?
Interesting the specific “recreational purposes” do not include any coastal dry beach activates.
(2)(b) “… makes available to any person an area primarily for the purposes of hunting, fishing, or wildlife viewing is entitled to the limitation on liability provided herein so long as the owner or lessee provides written notice of this provision to the person before or at the time of entry upon the area or posts notice of this provision conspicuously upon the area.”
I’m guessing CU believers are OK with 1,192 BPOs posting on their dry sand beach a large conspicuous sign with this legal notice. Right?
(5)(b) “Outdoor recreational purposes” includes, but is not limited to, hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, nature study, water skiing, motorcycling, and visiting historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites.
Seems clear the 2012 legislature had inland lands, riparian waters, and parks in mind. Did not have the littoral dry sand beach recreation in mind or you’d think they would have listed at least one beach activity; but I would guess CU believers argue the beach falls under the “… but is not limited to, … part. Only a judge can interpret the statute ambiguities.
Here is the current official Florida Statute Chap 375 Sec 251
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
Not the 2012 Senate Legislative page that has not been updated since 2012.
Interesting the specific “recreational purposes” do not include any coastal dry beach activates.
(2)(b) “… makes available to any person an area primarily for the purposes of hunting, fishing, or wildlife viewing is entitled to the limitation on liability provided herein so long as the owner or lessee provides written notice of this provision to the person before or at the time of entry upon the area or posts notice of this provision conspicuously upon the area.”
I’m guessing CU believers are OK with 1,192 BPOs posting on their dry sand beach a large conspicuous sign with this legal notice. Right?
(5)(b) “Outdoor recreational purposes” includes, but is not limited to, hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, nature study, water skiing, motorcycling, and visiting historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites.
Seems clear the 2012 legislature had inland lands, riparian waters, and parks in mind. Did not have the littoral dry sand beach recreation in mind or you’d think they would have listed at least one beach activity; but I would guess CU believers argue the beach falls under the “… but is not limited to, … part. Only a judge can interpret the statute ambiguities.
Here is the current official Florida Statute Chap 375 Sec 251
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
Not the 2012 Senate Legislative page that has not been updated since 2012.
Last edited by a moderator:
FBB, I do not see how the Judge will allow the liability issue as evidence until he rules on the lawsuit. Your group is desperate to encourage BFO's to stay in the lawsuit and you have a credibility issue. The only way you can overcome this lack of credibility is to be honest about who you are. That should make sense to most everyone in the community including BFO's and non BFO's. I don't care whether you do or not I am just explaining why it is important to have credibility.
Dave Rauschkolb, here's another fact you and vocal CU believers never talk about. The State Parks DO NOT permit Walton TDC trash vehicles on the miles of State beachfront property, as is the State's right and power to do as beachfront property owners. The TDC could pickup trash on either side, from the east and west, of private properties that also prohibit TDC vehicles but the State Parks vehicle prohibitions block access from the east or west and strand a few sections of beach that the TDC can not drive (and leave the beautiful tire tracks or drag marks) on. The TDC published a PDF beach trash map. The TDC can access the beach from the road at all 56 public beach accesses too - just like the tourist. The State of Florida blocks many times MORE Walton beachfront that the TDC can NOT drive on the the few BPOs. Can't smoke or have pets in Florida Parks either; but BPOs can't prohibit the public on their private property; unless they have uninterrupted quiet use and enjoyment protected by the Constitution and American courts.
mputnal instead of posting about pseudonyms and my credibility why do you not post about why my and other BPOs posted facts are wrong, or post your own CU facts backed up with the law of something other than I believe. Something other than talking about my "group", your "group" and class warfare conspiracies. Dead horse.
By the way, in my layman's opinion reading FS 163.035 and understanding of old English custom common law, liability has nothing to do with establishing CU, liability is not a CU criteria, and no liability evidence for the Judge to allow and be presented to the court. Maybe you can explain why BPO liability would be a factor in the CU litigation?
By the way, in my layman's opinion reading FS 163.035 and understanding of old English custom common law, liability has nothing to do with establishing CU, liability is not a CU criteria, and no liability evidence for the Judge to allow and be presented to the court. Maybe you can explain why BPO liability would be a factor in the CU litigation?
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you suppose that there are beachfront property owners who actually aren't fighting customary use or do you just assume that since they do own beachfront property that they're bad people? You seem to be rich, so all rich people can't be bad, right?
Now there’s a good question to answer. There’s not one beachfront owner that I dislike or think is bad. There is one vocal private beach advocate that’s not actually a beachfront property owner who I’m not very fond of but he/she are not bad people. I actually respect them more because they speak for themselves as real people. I really don’t know them well enough to dislike them though. In fact, many many private beachfront owners are my very good friends and some of them agree with me and some of them don’t. And that’s the truth. One of your more vocal allies is a very very good friend of mine, She and I talk often on ways to solve this. And wealth has nothing to do with whether or not people are good or bad.
Here is another good question for you to answer, what evidence or arguments that removal of property rights is ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute?