BMBV, we are not enemies and I understand and respect the laws and principles of property rights. However I do believe we can go too far with our principles. I am willing to debate the issues with people like you and even the power brokers...with respect and civility. This forum allows us to hide our identity and therefore not exactly conducive to respect and civility. I think you and I probably would agree on many things just not private vs public beach. It is okay to disagree and okay to debate the issues again with respect and civility. I am just going to say this. The power brokers don't give a rats aspirin bottle about you or me or our recreational use of the beaches. They are here for one thing: power. The power they want is to control gain full control of a capital asset. If they win this lawsuit it will be a matter of time before they own much more of the beach. Probably would eventually own your condo and trust me to them it will be about profits and whatever their whims are. If we the people public lose this in court it will severely limit who can enjoy the beaches. I wish I were wrong about this but my instincts and common sense say do not trust the purpose of the power broker in protecting anything including our property rights...
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.
If you understand and respect the laws and principals of property rights. Then please understand the following two FACTS
1. Legally deeded private property with defined legally binding property boundaries have been purchased in Walton County (some owned for decades by the same families). These property boundaries are legally protected by the Federal Government, the State of Florida, and until 2016, Walton County. Even if Walton County does not want to recognized them anymore as legally purchased private property, the State of Florida and the Federal Government DOES.
2. The Principals of Property Rights include the Right of Exclusion. That means the County cannot FORCE a private property owner to allow unlimited people with unlimited beach equipment on their legally deeded property against the will of the property owner.
Private property can be purchased but MAY NOT BE TAKEN WITH OUT COMPENSATION. An individual can purchase private property and donate it to Walton County (as has done many, many times in Walton County) or individuals can work with the State of Florida to purchase property and turn it into a State Park (like was done with Topsail), but the County cannot take (AKA steal) property without compensation.
These legally binding private property deeds and property rights are STILL recognized by Federal and State LAWS even the county decided in 2016 to try and remove them. IF Judge Green someone does decide to rule with the BCC and local power broker who stand to gain MILLIONS by REMOVING PROPERTY Rights, then it goes to the next court, and eventually the Supreme Court (actually their is a fast track provision so it may it to the supreme court sooner than later). So, how do you think the Supreme Court will rule on a County trying to remove property rights, effectively trying to steal property from a target group of minority property owners without compensation?
SCJ, I am not a lawyer but I believe you are incorrect. The general recreational public "use" of the beaches is the conservative use that will be recognized by the court. Yes the use is has legal precedent over the deed description. If you do not believe it then just wait on the Court to decide. The general public has more to lose here than the BFO's because no one is "excluding" BFO's from the beach. Beach density and vending are not relevant to the court but it is relevant to our community and need to be addressed. Your group have confirmed this by making this only about exclusive rights to throw families off the beach. That is all you really care about because you are not from this community.
SCJ, forgot to address the issue of local authority. I believe the court will recognize the County as being representative of the will of her citizens and will allow the County to make a general conclusion about recreational public use. That authority is real. Your political machine in the legislature required said authority to go thru a process to determine public use or private use. The County is following that requirement. Your political machine is the reason we have a lawsuit at ALL but maybe in the end it will be a good thing if this goes all the way to the Supreme Court. I think we both agree on letting the Supreme Court decide control of this limited resource to autocrats or Recreational Public Use. I would welcome that scenario even though it will cost a lot of money because I want my children, my grandchildren and the future of mankind to be able to enjoy this beautiful resource.
Power brokers, I watched a tv program from one of your leaders this weekend. It was about happiness. Apparently only one in three people are consistently happy in the US. The author of the book talked about how to be happy and it was not about material things or power. It was about sharing, giving back and general good will toward others. Kind of like the opposite of what you want in this lawsuit. Maybe you and the others need to practice what your leaders preach. So do I so I enjoyed the program a lot and it made me think of your relentless attacks on the public and my own balance in life. I think we need to let this issue rest in peace and let the Courts decide. Lets relax and have a fish fry without a debate at all. Just get to know each other a little more before either of us gets so riled up. How about it?
Maybe not. But one of us has a funny way of showing it...
BTW, you never disappoint with your mish-mash, especially with your happiness jibberish.
Damn, I used to like fried fish.
Okay you don't remember that I apologized to you? You are local. Someone with skin in the game. When I made that statement I was actually lumping you in with the power brokers and that was wrong but I stand behind that statement for the power brokers.
Ask the power brokers about the TV program that I watched on TBN I think. I get most of my information from learning from the statements coming from the power brokers. So the happiness jibberish came from those you side with!
Man, lets do the fish fry. Seriously
Ask the power brokers about the TV program that I watched on TBN I think. I get most of my information from learning from the statements coming from the power brokers. So the happiness jibberish came from those you side with!
Man, lets do the fish fry. Seriously
Wait a minute here. You're insulted by something Kayti said but you have no problem with someone telling her that she's stupid? I think some on this forum just have a problem with the idea that everybody doesn't agree with what you believe.
SP, no you misunderstand. I am not insulted and I don't know who called her stupid. I would never do that to anyone. Cause junkie does not bother me but I was referring to at least two other people she has a beef with. I believe that she might be a little tired of my posts but so am I so we actually agree on that issue.
I must not be communicating clearly because I believe it is okay to disagree as long as we are respectful and civil. I do not expect everyone to agree with me and prefer debating the issue until a compromise can be established. Anyway I think you are barking up the wrong tree. There are some people posting here that call anyone with a differing opinion as stupid and it ain't me. Go back and read FBB, Reggie Regina and the others.
I must not be communicating clearly because I believe it is okay to disagree as long as we are respectful and civil. I do not expect everyone to agree with me and prefer debating the issue until a compromise can be established. Anyway I think you are barking up the wrong tree. There are some people posting here that call anyone with a differing opinion as stupid and it ain't me. Go back and read FBB, Reggie Regina and the others.