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.
One of the requirements in the county lawsuit, which the BCC claims is true, is that taking property rights without compensation (right of exclusion) is "without dispute". If this is really under dispute, wouldn't this be overturned at the US Supreme Court level if Judge Green agreed with the county's claim that removing property rights without compensation is ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute?
Many believe taking property (removal of the "right of exclusion" property right) without compensation might be against State and Federal Laws. Why not just buy property instead of trying to take it without compensation? If Walton County thinks they can generate Billions of tax dollars (as stated in the 2016 BCC Special Workshop) by bringing in unlimited tourists with unlimited beach equipment (which may or may not destroy our unique ecosystem) why would they risk millions ($50,000,000) on lawyers, and a huge delay (10 years), on something that may get overturned by the US Supreme Court and just buy more property now?
Is it not obvious to anyone that this issue is under great dispute?
Last edited:
Public recreational use is not being disputed. Private beach is being disputed. The sandy beach has always been shared. Private beach suddenly became an issue because elite wealth and power do not want to share the beach anymore. Elite wealth and power are anti-social autocrats. They hide their identity. Is it not obviou their purpose?
Public recreational use is not being disputed. Private beach is being disputed. The sandy beach has always been shared. Private beach suddenly became an issue because elite wealth and power do not want to share the beach anymore. Elite wealth and power are anti-social autocrats. They hide their identity. Is it not obviou their purpose?
Dearest Dave,
I “smiled” ear to ear when I saw your post above. Thanks for the moment!
I “smiled” ear to ear when I saw your post above. Thanks for the moment!
Mputnal, please read the lawsuit, court documents, and the Larry Jones deposition. Private Property is not, nor has ever been disputed by Walton County. The County fully acknowledges the private property deeds that extend from the Mean High Water Line (MHWL) to the Toe of the Dune. There is absolutely no current court challenge to the ownership of private property.
What is being challenged, first by Ordinance and now by a lawsuit, for the first time in the history of Walton County starting in 2016. Is that the BCC wants the Private Property Right (Right of Exclusion) removed from Private Property owner (up to the toe of the dune) and transferred for the exclusive determination of the BCC.
Please read the minutes of the 2016 BCC Special Workshop and see that in attempt for financial gain of billions of tourists dollars, the BCC decided to change the pre-2016 strategy of purchasing property and converting to Public Beach with appropriate facilities, and instead remove private property rights with zero compensation. The County claims the property is still owned by the private property owner but only the BCC determines who, how many, and what equipment, can be on their deeded property against the will of the property owner. It is the “entitled frisbee law” on steroids (sarcastic comment and not a real law).
There is no challenge to the ability to swim, fish, or walk the entire 26 miles of Walton County shoreline, or the entire shoreline of Florida. That is controlled by the State of Florida and not the private property owner. This lawsuit is about removal of property rights (right of exclusion) from the property owner from the MHWL to the toe of the dune, for the exclusive determination of the BCC. This is not about “co-ownership” or “sharing”. The end result is forced occupation against the will of the property owner.
The property owners have already shown they will not give up property rights without going to the Supreme Court. Do you think the Supreme Court is going to transfer the Right of Exclusion to the control of the BCC to chase tourists’ dollars?
Again, please read the lawsuit, court documents, deposition, and 2016 BCC Special Workshop Minutes.
Last edited:
The irony of Dave Rauschkolb’s meme image is Micky owns the coat and has the right, mputnal’s “power”, to keep the coat, but chooses too give or share the jacket at Mickey’s own expense (that makes Mickey’s Greatness). Winnie the Pooh did not demand Mickey give him his jacket because he always had since 1970 or since humans made jackets. Pooh did not go on social media to disparage or misinform the public that Mickey was a greedy and selfish person because he did not give him his jacket.
No politician declared an ordinance or went to court as Plaintiff to demand that Mickey and those with jackets will share their coat with everyone else that does not have a jacket and take away Mickey’s choice to give/share or not.
Since 2015 BPOs have had the choice to “stake out” their surveyed property boundaries and the Sherriff has had a trespass SOP to enforce lawfully recognized beachfront private property rights to the MHWL that beachfront owners have had since US land grants and have today. Since 2018 Walton ordnance BPOs have had the right to place signs on their property boundaries - to the MHWL. Most, 99.999%(?) BPOs have chosen not placed signs on their beach property but could and have chosen to share. Most BPOs including me have the right to choose to share or not - like any American property owner and have shared our legal property. I don’t consider myself Great (see definition) for sharing according to Rauschkolb’s meme. Or anyone not great for not sharing. I just play by the rules and laws (Constitution) and expect everyone else, including those with the Power to make laws, to too. That BPO grace does not mean BPOs gave up that Constitutional right to quiet uninterrupted enjoyment if they so CHOOSE. But if CU believers of an old English common law doctrine of customary use and Walton commissioners declare BPOs do not have the choice and shall share their property with everyone! CUnCourt
“What is greatness in a person?” Greatness - Wikipedia
I doubt mputnal will agree with Dave Rauschkolb’s meme Greatness definition.
"anti-social autocrats." Nice. Namaste.
No politician declared an ordinance or went to court as Plaintiff to demand that Mickey and those with jackets will share their coat with everyone else that does not have a jacket and take away Mickey’s choice to give/share or not.
Since 2015 BPOs have had the choice to “stake out” their surveyed property boundaries and the Sherriff has had a trespass SOP to enforce lawfully recognized beachfront private property rights to the MHWL that beachfront owners have had since US land grants and have today. Since 2018 Walton ordnance BPOs have had the right to place signs on their property boundaries - to the MHWL. Most, 99.999%(?) BPOs have chosen not placed signs on their beach property but could and have chosen to share. Most BPOs including me have the right to choose to share or not - like any American property owner and have shared our legal property. I don’t consider myself Great (see definition) for sharing according to Rauschkolb’s meme. Or anyone not great for not sharing. I just play by the rules and laws (Constitution) and expect everyone else, including those with the Power to make laws, to too. That BPO grace does not mean BPOs gave up that Constitutional right to quiet uninterrupted enjoyment if they so CHOOSE. But if CU believers of an old English common law doctrine of customary use and Walton commissioners declare BPOs do not have the choice and shall share their property with everyone! CUnCourt
“What is greatness in a person?” Greatness - Wikipedia
I doubt mputnal will agree with Dave Rauschkolb’s meme Greatness definition.
"anti-social autocrats." Nice. Namaste.
Last edited by a moderator:
SCJ, this forum is a court of "public" opinion. Why don't you go out and talk to the local community and actually get a sense of the organic part of human existence? Or if you if you want to be a lawyer find yourself a court of law and practice the inorganic words of man. I took a lot of inorganic chemistry for my education and so I do understand it's purpose but human life needs so much more in the pursuit of LLH. On this thread and as Reggie/Regina put it we have "intelligent discourse". Unfortunately people like myself who use common sense is frowned upon. Apparently that thought comes from a warped sense of self importance. I suggest you research by observation and community interaction. Your questions about the Supreme Court has been asked and answered several times. Before doing your research go back and read my posts. I think it obvious that there is an abuse of power. I sincerely hope it will go to the Supreme Court where intelligent discourse will use all the tools in the tool box not just a straight line approach.
FBB, your attempt to twist a simple gesture of sharing is so predictable and tons of funny. Being funny is a compliment by the way. Twisting the truth not so funny. Listen, you even admit that the beach has been shared in the past for public recreational use. You say it was a choice to share the beach and yes that is greatness. No stakes. No fence. Public beach. So what happened. You blame it on the County for delcaring Public/Traditional/Customary Use. Was that not the way you have admitted it the way the beach was used? Listen you can twist and shout and turn somersaults but it will not change the FACT that these beaches have always been shared with the public. You can quote the Constitution all you want but when it goes to the Supreme Court where all the tools are being used it will be a much higher level of intelligence than what you will find reading the posts on this thread. You have educated me a plenty on how an abuse of power can manifest itself for the destiny of private beaches. There is a common sense type of thinking that you and yours have failed at. Common in that human life is organic. Sense in that you are able to see the big picture of human life. Unless you have sold your soul you should try that Eastern Philosophy of connection to each other instead of individualism.
FBB, your attempt to twist a simple gesture of sharing is so predictable and tons of funny. Being funny is a compliment by the way. Twisting the truth not so funny. Listen, you even admit that the beach has been shared in the past for public recreational use. You say it was a choice to share the beach and yes that is greatness. No stakes. No fence. Public beach. So what happened. You blame it on the County for delcaring Public/Traditional/Customary Use. Was that not the way you have admitted it the way the beach was used? Listen you can twist and shout and turn somersaults but it will not change the FACT that these beaches have always been shared with the public. You can quote the Constitution all you want but when it goes to the Supreme Court where all the tools are being used it will be a much higher level of intelligence than what you will find reading the posts on this thread. You have educated me a plenty on how an abuse of power can manifest itself for the destiny of private beaches. There is a common sense type of thinking that you and yours have failed at. Common in that human life is organic. Sense in that you are able to see the big picture of human life. Unless you have sold your soul you should try that Eastern Philosophy of connection to each other instead of individualism.
BTW I do agree with that definition of Greatness but only when it applies to the greater purpose of life. The definition fails for the individual. There are a handful of exceptions...all in the company of Jesus...not you or me for sure 
. Equality is greater than inequality. Fairness is greater than unfairness. Sharing and caring is greater than not sharing and uncaring. Do you have a better understanding now of greatness?
. Equality is greater than inequality. Fairness is greater than unfairness. Sharing and caring is greater than not sharing and uncaring. Do you have a better understanding now of greatness?