Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[mputnal]

SP, that is the point. We are not participating lawyers in the lawsuit therefore all we can do is speculate with opinion. I speculate that Walton County will try to prove that Traditional Use or Customary Use has been in place for generations. Kind of obvious right?

What they are presenting in part as evidence is a conclusion based on the general fact that BFO's have allowed this use...until the power brokers got involved. There are also affidavit's that are being presented as evidence of customary use going back generations. I believe there is evidence in the fact that specific beach front development approvals such as with St. Joe were contingent on public use (this was a significant portion of the overall beaches). I believe there is evidence in precedent of general beach use by the public. I believe there is additional precedent in property line disputes where the specific use of the property is recognized regardless of the deed description and taxes paid. Kind of like possession is 9/10's of the law where the general beach has been unrestricted to the general public.

I believe the Judge will rule in favor of Public Beaches or Customary Use by the Public. Of course this is my opinion and I have no crystal ball. The power brokers are behaving as an autocracy where they ridicule anyone who has an opinion that is opposed to theirs (autocracy). The information that was made available to us from FBB (minority and majority rights) actually explained how an abuse of power from autocrats will be held in place (checked) by the US Constitution. This would be an issue in a higher court. So if the defendant lawyers are utilizing this same behavior in court as the power brokers it would not go well for them. Trust me the power brokers will slice and dice and whoop and holler about how the Constitution protects their superiority and supreme power to exclude families from the beach. They are over confident and damaging to the community. Is that their purpose? If not what is their real purpose? If I were a BFO I would ask them to stop because they are creating unnecessary conflict. This is just a community forum and the power brokers are not from this community. Their facts are noted but I believe the Judge will rule in favor of public beaches.

All that said and I still welcome the fish fry summit with the power brokers. I believe that civility in society is very important. Why make enemies?

 

[Stone Cold J]

You and I are not accomplishing anything here.

But I think we are accomplishing something here, because so far you have helped confirmed that the following:

Dave Rauschkolb, Founder FBFA (Co-Plaintiff of Lawsuit)
Dan Uhlfelder, FBFA Attorney,
William "Bill" Chapman District 1 BCC and approver of lawsuit
Cecilia Jones (R), District 2 BCC and approver of lawsuit
Melanie Nipper (R), District 3 BCC and approver of lawsuit
Sara Comander (R), District 4 BCC and approver of lawsuit
Tony Anderson (R), District 5 BCC and approver of lawsuit
Sidney Noyes, County Lawyer
David Theriaque, hired by the County to sue every Walton County Beach Property Owner​

that although you speculate should be some evidence, you have not been able to find any evidence why Private Property Rights (in particular the Right to remove unlimited people with unlimited beach equipment on private property against the will of the owner) cease to exist in 2016. Court documents prove the BCC, prior to 2016, recognized (along the State of Florida and the USA Federal Government) that these same owners that the county is now suing, had legally purchased private property and had legally binding deeds, which were accepted by Walton County, that granted all the property rights. These property rights are currently posted on the Walton County Web Site, include the right to fully determine who, and how many, and what beach equipment, may be on their private property (right of exclusion). The State of Florida and the US Federal Government still recognize private property owner rights in Walton County, it is only the Walton County BCC, that as of 2016, no longer recognizes these same rights that they had recognized for generations.

This is the first time a County has tried to “Nationalize” or “Countyalize” an entire stretch of private property that boarders the State owned coastline by the elimination of private property rights and transfer those rights (the right of exclusion) to the County with no compensation to the property owner. This is every different than Eminent Domain, where the County takes property, with compensation, against the will of the property owner.

There have been numerous owners and others willing to discuss facts and still are. Reggie has asked Dave Rauschkob for this public discussion of facts many, many times.

We don’t even need 12 questions, only one: What evidence has been submitted by the County that that forced occupation of private property of unlimited people with unlimited beach equipment, against the will of the deeded property owner, is ancient, reasonable, without interruption and without dispute?

Answer that question and let’s get this fish fry scheduled.

 

[mputnal]

SCJ, you have asked and I have answered the question several times. We are both chasing our tails. You frame the question with a flawed opinion "forced occupation" "against the will" "unlimited people with unlimited beach equipment". Those words are not facts. Those issues would have been solved except for the no compromise position you and the other power brokers have on the exclusive right to kick families off the beach. Again, the County concluded that Customary Use of the beach is the general use of the beach based on the fact that BFO's have not excluded the public in the past. For example, if you and I own adjacent properties (both with deeded description of property line) yet you put up a fence on my side of the property line and used that portion to grow a garden or farm or ranch and I allowed you to do this for many years then I lose that portion of the property to your use. It is considered a "conservative use". If the beach has not been used by the property owner "exclusively" I believe the Judge will accept the general use of public beach. Okay that said I have NO idea how Judge Green will interpret the laws of the land. I admit your guess is as good as mine but I guess that it will be public beach.

What has never made common sense to me is for BFO's to insist on the exclusive right to kick families off the beach. You mention unlimited people and unlimited vending. Both those issues could have been worked out. To spend all that money on a lawsuit that may or may not solve those problems just makes no sense to me. You power brokers know this and you are leading these people down the wrong path. Until our fish fry where you can explain this better I will assume the beach is the manifest destiny of wealthy people.

 

[mputnal]

SCJ, btw Walton County has filed over 8000 pages of evidence for general recreational beach use. Are we ready to schedule our fish fry summit?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Unfortunately, a public debate at this point probably wouldn't alter people's opinions and would be a moot point since the case is in court. Until there are some rulings or new information, seems that the current topics have been exhausted.

Moot, yes - but still satisfying to expose the mistruths , factless finger pointing and character assassinations by those with FBFA, in particular. Many THANKS to those who helped clear up the smokey air - perpetuated by some, not all, CU proponents.

And thank goodness for powerbrokerphobes and fried fish eating socialists. Why? I don't really know. Just trying to spread some kindness, I guess.

Heercumdajuj - at least the first one.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

....Still somewhat puzzling that the CU supporters have not or will not state why it is in the best interest of ALL OF US that millions OF OUR MONEY is being spent by the county on this issue.

"It's the economy, stupid"
is a slight variation of the phrase "The economy, stupid", which James Carville coined as a campaign strategist of Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against president George H. W. Bush. Wikipedia

Oooops! I almost forgot. Economic benefit is NOT one of the 4 requirements for customary use. Good enough for Bill Clinton but not customary use. Sorry about that.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Also note that ALL evidence by the County has ALREADY been submitted to prove their claim. They are not going to be able to make up and submit new evidence. So, if you have reviewed any of these documents that make it “sufficiently clear”, please share it!

SCJ, btw Walton County has filed over 8000 pages of evidence for general recreational beach use. Are we ready to schedule our fish fry summit?

STOP! STOP! You're both right! (loved the Doublemint Twins)

BTW, where were ALL those 8000 pages actually "filed", with the county or with the court?

 

[mputnal]

BMBV, good to have you back. I am looking for a moderator for the GREAT debate. Will you reconsider?

Why do and the others asking questions that you really do not want an answer to? Ahh, I get it. You just want to make a point. This is the reason why we should debate issues in public where real questions and real answers are considered civil discussions.

I will answer you question in honor of civility. The County has filed over 8,000 documents as evidence of Recreational Customary Use on Walton County Beaches. Is that specifically clear enough? I believe that a County Government has the authority to make a conclusion of whether or not the beach has a history of general recreational public use or exclusive private beach. They concluded recreational public use. There is much evidence that will support that conclusion. Of course you and the power brokers disagree and that is why we have a lawsuit. You blame the lawsuit on the County but the lawsuit is because the power brokers convinced BFO's that they need to "dispute" recreational use so that private ownership of the beach will give them the power to exclude families (fathers, mothers, children, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, Veterans etc) from the beach. The definition of a power broker is someone who abuses power. The only taking of the beach would be if the Judge rules in favor of private beaches because of the historical recreational public use of Walton County beaches. The US Constitutional will not support an individual's right to exclude the public from a public beach in my opinion.

When you use a word to demean, minimize, bully or ridicule like "socialist" you are trying to provoke an emotion. I believe we both have participated and believe in Capitalism but one of us is a realist and the other is an idealist. Don't be an idealist unless your ideal world is about kindness, respect and civility and less about owning and excluding people from the beach or just wanting to always be right. A more appropriate name to call me a realist...someone who is able to see both good and bad. It allows me to focus on truth instead of justification or entitlement.

 

[Stone Cold J]

 

[kayti elliott]

Moot, yes - but still satisfying to expose the mistruths , factless finger pointing and character assassinations by those with FBFA, in particular. Many THANKS to those who helped clear up the smokey air - perpetuated by some, not all, CU proponents.

And thank goodness for powerbrokerphobes and fried fish eating socialists. Why? I don't really know. Just trying to spread some kindness, I guess.

Heercumdajuj - at least the first one.

But don't you love the socialists who have profited by running businesses with huge profit margins that finance their crusades for the "little people"?