South Walton's Community Website
Beach Like A Local!
Create Account
New posts

FactorFiction

Beach Fanatic
Feb 18, 2016
494
409
ForF, what is your point? What ratio of lawyers seems right to you?

I know you disagree with a community fish fry? I have asked this question of you before so here it is again "do you believe that the beaches in Walton County have been used for public recreation or private exclusion?"

My point has nothing to do with a ratio. My point is that you are exaggerating some things and omitting others. It goes back to dealing with facts instead of emotional diatribes. There is not an "arsenal of lawyers" representing BPOs. Hundreds of BPOs are being represented by a number of attorneys, several of whom may have as many as 50+ clients, but there is certainly not an "arsenal" of attorneys representing BPOs. There may be; however, an arsenal of BPOs intent on preserving their property rights. The County, FBFA, and some individual owners are represented by at least 5 or 6 attorneys, if not more. This is in the public records should you choose to look it up.

My opinion doesn't matter and will not change the outcome at all, but just to satisfy your inquiring mind, I KNOW and have known for many years (decades) that many beaches in Walton County were/are privately owned and respect that. I also KNOW that many BPOs have shared their beaches with respectful beachgoers like myself and many others. I BELIEVE that very few BPOs actually wanted to put up signs or exclude respectful beachgoers from their beaches; however, I BELIEVE based on deeded private property rights (and the constitution) that they absolutely have the right (or should have the right) to exclude people if they choose that.

Personally, I think the hateful rhetoric toward BPOs, denial of their ownership and property rights pertaining to their beaches, the total misrepresentation of quiet titles, the refusal to stick to FACTS, and the constant allegation that the BPOs want to exclude everyone except invited guests from their beaches may create a self fulfilling prophecy that probably wouldn't exist if only the County had not decided to create the CU ordinance without due process. On top of that, the Beach Activities Ordinance for YEARS prior to 2016 stated that there was no presumption of customary use. From Walton County Beaches and Waterways Ordinance 2013-04:

Sec. 22-52. Customary use.

This chapter makes no finding of fact that the public either has or has not customarily used any particular piece of gulf front property beach.

(Ord. No. 2013-04, § 2, 1-22-13)

I don't normally even address trick questions like the one you asked me, but you now have my perspective (for what it is worth) and I hope you understand that there are many of us that can actually see both sides of this issue and would really love to see the end of this conflict through peaceful collaboration.

You're right about this: I see no good purpose for your fish fry anytime in the near future.
 

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,289
375
Both sides need to stop acting like spoiled children and this thread needs to end.
You’re not my daddy!!!

Everything being said back and forth here is just colored bubbles.
How about the perpetuated LIE by Tom McLaughlin regarding how quiet title was used to “take public beach property and make it private” (in his recent article), the same LIE also perpetuated by FBFA. The point is when CU advocates can’t/won’t even put their foot down on situations as clear and repugnant as that, how can anyone think that anything they say is credible?

Yes, the judge(s) will decide as you and many others have already pointed out.

So why does even a “journalist” and others continue turning on the sh!t fan of lies at this late stage of the CU issue?
There truly is only one reason:
To portray private property owners in the worst possible light only for personal motivations. And some of us won’t sit idly by while it takes place. And that’s one of the main reasons why Reggie felt compelled to start this thread, IMO. And he’s one hell of a so called power broker who speaks clearly and honestly for people like me.
 

mputnal

Beach Fanatic
Nov 10, 2009
1,938
477
ForF, your post is the same old song with the same old tune. Let's give it a name "the power broker trap". Get it, instead of rap? Thank you for clarifying your position.

Your position is the same as the people who I call power brokers who are fighting to exclude people from the beach and take control of the resource with private ownership. You and the others have mentioned several times that because of this lawsuit you will not be so inclined to share the beach with anyone anymore which is exactly my point. So you blame the exclusion on everything/everyone but your own needs to have that power to exclude. I am not surprised in the least. I completely understand your selfish entitlements followed by justification. Why do I understand this? Because I am guilty as well as I also want to believe that my wants and needs and expectations in life are all justified. The only difference is that I have made myself aware of who I am and hopefully with a better sense of purpose. Of course you will call this awareness an emotional diatribe with exaggerations and no facts. You may never admit to your selfish entitlements as I have about myself but my hope is that some community event such as a community fish fry or some other relaxed gathering between BFO's and non BFO's may jog your sense of purpose to realize that our beach resources should never be privately owned. I put myself in your shoes at the beginning of this thread and it did not feel right to me. Reggie/Regina dismissed my change of heart as jealousy of your good fortune but he/she does not know me at all. None of this is about jealousy and everything about a profound connection to the beach resource. A connection that I hope my children and grandchildren and great grandchildren will be able to enjoy anytime anywhere there is a beach. I do not think I need to explain this spiritual connection to this very limited resource but if I do just think about why you own an exclusive building next to it. If the beach becomes private then you and I both know that eventually there will not be enough beach to go around. It is not surprising that you are in denial of that fact.

I get it, the only facts you are interested in are the ones that give you the power to exclude. I also get it that I am not going to change your mind and you will blame my position on everything that minimizes my position, my voice my beliefs. Like I said, I get it but I must hold out hope for a community event that will bring both sides to the table...
 

mputnal

Beach Fanatic
Nov 10, 2009
1,938
477
Oh, about the lawyer ratio. The last ruling by Judge Green was primarily about how the County is not performing "process" adequately. I am not blaming the County Lawyers or those that intervened but they are out-gunned at the moment. I know lawyers who have been in this position many times and they generally reach out to other firms to compensate. Not only that but I know lawyers that have won cases that involve property line disputes and public recreational use of land and water resources. You may ask away about the specifics but it will be a waste of your time. The bottom line is I believe the County will need to lawyer up as the power brokers call it. If they do it now they will win this lawsuit...in my exaggerated and emotional opinion of course!
 

FactorFiction

Beach Fanatic
Feb 18, 2016
494
409
ForF, your post is the same old song with the same old tune. Let's give it a name "the power broker trap". Get it, instead of rap? Thank you for clarifying your position.

Your position is the same as the people who I call power brokers who are fighting to exclude people from the beach and take control of the resource with private ownership. You and the others have mentioned several times that because of this lawsuit you will not be so inclined to share the beach with anyone anymore which is exactly my point. So you blame the exclusion on everything/everyone but your own needs to have that power to exclude. I am not surprised in the least. I completely understand your selfish entitlements followed by justification. Why do I understand this? Because I am guilty as well as I also want to believe that my wants and needs and expectations in life are all justified. The only difference is that I have made myself aware of who I am and hopefully with a better sense of purpose. Of course you will call this awareness an emotional diatribe with exaggerations and no facts. You may never admit to your selfish entitlements as I have about myself but my hope is that some community event such as a community fish fry or some other relaxed gathering between BFO's and non BFO's may jog your sense of purpose to realize that our beach resources should never be privately owned. I put myself in your shoes at the beginning of this thread and it did not feel right to me. Reggie/Regina dismissed my change of heart as jealousy of your good fortune but he/she does not know me at all. None of this is about jealousy and everything about a profound connection to the beach resource. A connection that I hope my children and grandchildren and great grandchildren will be able to enjoy anytime anywhere there is a beach. I do not think I need to explain this spiritual connection to this very limited resource but if I do just think about why you own an exclusive building next to it. If the beach becomes private then you and I both know that eventually there will not be enough beach to go around. It is not surprising that you are in denial of that fact.

I get it, the only facts you are interested in are the ones that give you the power to exclude. I also get it that I am not going to change your mind and you will blame my position on everything that minimizes my position, my voice my beliefs. Like I said, I get it but I must hold out hope for a community event that will bring both sides to the table...

No disrespect meant, but did you read what I said? If so, you either are totally unwilling to accept any differing perspective from yours or you may have a reading comprehension problem. Your position is clear. My words speak for me, not your misrepresented version of my words above.
 

Stone Cold J

Beach Lover
Jun 6, 2019
150
171
SRB
Mputnal. I FINALLY FOUND WHAT CHANGED IN 2016.

First, Fact or Fiction is totally correct. The 2013 Walton County Beach Ordinance Chapter 22 is as follows:

Sec. 22-52. - Customary use.

This chapter makes no finding of fact that the public either has or has not customarily used any particular piece of gulf front property beach.

(Ord. No. 2013-04, § 2, 1-22-13)

But something happened in 2016 for the BCC to change direction that they now claim that they (BCC) actually control Property Rights in Walton County (Right of Exclusion) instead of the Private Property Owners, whose rights had been recognized for GENERATIONS! The evidence is in the March 16, 2016 BCC Special Workshop. If you need a full copy, please ask Danny Glidewell.

“The following Board Members were present: Commissioner Sara Comander, Chairman; Commissioner Cecilia Jones, Vice-Chairman; Commissioner W. N. (Bill) Chapman; and Commissioner Cindy Meadows. Mr. Larry Jones, County Administrator, and Attorney Mark
Davis, County Attorney, and Attorney Sidney Noyes, Assistant County Attorney, were also present. Attorney David Theriaque was present on behalf of Walton County.”

“Attorney Theriaque presented the following information relating to the economic impacts of tourism: Tourism has a $2.9 billion direct economic impact annually to Walton County; 19,500 jobs are directly related to tourism; $202 million was spent on tourists' accommodations in June and July of 2015; south Walton County was the #1 Coastal Economy in Florida for tourism in June and July of2015; and 3.2 million tourists visit south Walton County every year. By not allowing the public/tourists on the beaches it would bring substantial economic harm to the county.

“Mr. David Ravschkolb spoke about the economic impacts which are self-evident”

“Mr. Jimmy Kuhn, a member of the Emerald Coast Chapter of The Surfrider Foundation … offered three suggestions: 1) he urged the county to enforce obstructions in the Beach Ordinance; 2) step in and intervene to protect the public beach access use when threatened by beach front
property owners; and 3) urge the county to pass a Customary Use Ordinance for all 26 miles of the beach from the base of the dunes to the Gulf of Mexico. He asked to keep the beaches public either by acquisition, legislation, enforcement, or even litigation.(looks like the BCC decided to start with litigation instead of acquisition, legislation, and enforcement).

“Mr. Bruce Anderson, Okaloosa County resident and local attorney, stated he has spent much time on the beaches. Mr. Anderson stated he has assisted homeowners and associations regarding this issue relating to the impacts on homeowners. He stated there is a failure of Sheriffs Office to enforce the trespass laws. He felt this Board is looking at taking property and overlooking the rights of landowners. His clients will pursue litigation.”

“Mr. Kent Safriet, Hopping Green & Sams, Tallahassee, stated he was present on behalf of multiple residents. Mr. Safriet felt Mr. Theriaque's information was presented as an advocate for the county and did not give both pros and cons to provide all of the necessary information. He
spoke regarding the magnitude of a lawsuit. Mr. Safriet recommended obtaining independent neutral advice in order to do the right thing for taxpayers.”

So looks what changed in 2016 is the BCC is chasing the development and $2.9 Billion impact of new tourists dollars and decided the easiest way was to try and take away property rights that have existed, and recognized by the BCC in previous ordinances, from the legally deeded property owner for exclusive use (right of exclusion) by the BCC. So this is not about allow locals access to the beach, but trying to make billions of new dollars for developers and businessmen. The power brokers are NOT the private property owners. The power brokers are the BCC (or those that might be paying the BCC) and developers and local businessmen out to make a quick buck at the exploitation and potential rapid demise of our unique and sensitive ecosystem. Dave said there would only a “few property owners” objecting to losing private property rights (right of exclusion) and recommended a lawsuit with “no compromise” and “no matter the cost”. If this happens, it won’t be long before beach bars, tattoo parlors, and t-shirt shops dominate 30A, because this is about exploitation and power brokers making money and not access to the beach or the deeded private property owners in Walton County.
 

kayti elliott

Beach Lover
Feb 19, 2014
151
87
31
Freeport
For the record, I recall staying at a condo across the street from the beach in Seagrove Beach, it must have been 15 years ago. There was a boardwalk to the beach and we put our chairs up behind Beachcrest condos and were promptly told that we couldn't sit there so we moved. I assumed that only Beachcrest residents and guests were allowed on that area of the beach. It didn't ruin my life or my parents' lives so I assumed that it was a private beach, My point is that not everybody was aware of "customary use". And as far as one side not wanting to bend a little to resolve the issue, I agree that the CU zealots are the ones taking the position that "we're right and everyone who disagrees with us is wrong, especially the leader of the "movement".
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
#1870 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
#1873 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

JodiFL, what are the CU uses and CU criteria to establish the public CU of privately owned beachfront property? Does CU include playing football? Throwing a Frisbee? Entertaining your own out of town guests? Is 33 years use of some private beach on Seagrove, Grayton, BMB, or Santa Rosa Beach, ancient or as long as the ancient English common law doctrine “memory of man runneth not to the contrary”?

Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy Dave Theriaque's, Walton's lead $425/hr land use attorney, has historical 7 CU criteria, not 4, that he cited last year 2018.

JodiFL (JMC) all the Walton Plaintiff affidavits are available to the all 2,600+ Defendants and will likely become public record after the litigation. If BPO prevail seems like you have 15,000+ sworn trespassers of private property. Wonder what the statues of limitations are for private BPO to file civil trespass?

This is not about debating the litigation but about Credibility or lack of it.
 

mputnal

Beach Fanatic
Nov 10, 2009
1,938
477
ForF, you speak for yourself quite well. I absolutely understand you. The comprehension of your words are self-evident for those of us who as you say lack the human ability to comprehend what you are communicating. It is the nature of individuals with elite power to dismiss another opinion or fact. You are starting to fit in well with the one side I call power brokers. Your posts are very similar in content. Recite the Constitution, blame, justify and then sing kumbya. The lyrics to the song "power broker rap" is starting to come together nicely.

SCJ, The economics is not an issue relevant to the lawsuit. None the less it is relevant to the community. We both know why you could care less about the community.

FBB, it is quite funny that you hide your identity, type a bunch of inflammatory words and tag team with the other power brokers to devalue everyone who disagrees with you. Like I said, the hypocrisy coming from your side is off the charts.

All three of you represent yourselves which is very obvious. Again and again I get it. You are protecting "yourself" (good fortune, wealth, power). Once you capitalize the asset you can sit back and let the gravy roll in. Makes your life so much easier to not have to share stuff...
 
New posts