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

Stone Cold J

Beach Lover
Jun 6, 2019
150
171
SRB
Shared use. Simple, fair and equitable.

The lawsuit is not about shared use. It is not about access to the shoreline. It is not about walking, swimming, or fishing the entire 26 miles of Walton County shoreline (which is already guaranteed by the State of Florida independent of the Walton BCC). It is not about blocked access to county owned beaches in gated communities.

It is about the removal of Private Property Rights (right of exclusion) of deeded private property owners, which has been recognized for generations, and supported in previous BCC Beach Ordinances and Court Cases. There is absolutely no current court challenge to the ownership of private property, only that the BCC now wants to be the sole authority of who, how many, and how much beach equipment is allowed on deeded private property AGAINST the will of the property owner. This is not about eminent domain and purchasing property and turning into public beach with parking and restrooms, but TAKING Rights away (effectively taking control of private property at no compensation for the property owner). Do you think the Supreme Court is going to allow Judge Green to TAKE away Florida Property Rights (posted on the Walton County Website - #3 Right of Exclusion) for the exclusive control of the BCC to chase billions of tourists’ dollars?

Read the 2016 BCC Special Workshop minutes and decide for yourself if this all about chasing billions of tourist dollars or access to the beach.

There is nothing simple, fair, or equitable about this lawsuit.

Florida Property Owner Bill of Rights (posted on Walton County Web Site)
1. The right to acquire, possess, and protect your property.
2. The right to use and enjoy your property.
3. The right to exclude others from your property.
4. The right to dispose of your property.
5. The right to due process.
6. The right to just compensation for property taken for a public purpose.
7. The right to relief, or payment of compensation, when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of the state or a political entity unfairly affects your property.
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
On this day that we honor all USA Veterans I thought this was worth a repeat (not for the fifth time) from March 24, 2018. Thank you Veterans' everywhere for your service.

As I try to put Walton's customary use of private property in perspective for me as a beachfront owner I think about the young men and women who volunteered to go into harms way, to place their lives in jeopardy, to protect our national and local interests and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Against radical Islamic terrorism in "Afganisand", Iraq, and other failed states around the world. How their grandparents fought in Vietnam against communism and their great grandparents fought Nazism in WWII, and the millions of American Heroes that died in all the conflicts since 1776 who protected us and our values. That's my bigger picture and perspective of "things".

It makes Walton's and customary-use advocates claim of public use on private sand seem petty and insignificant in the big scheme of “things”. And I relax and recommit to protecting my property rights; not necessarily just for my exclusive right of private enjoyment, but because local Governments do NOT have the right to declare private property rights void, regardless if the majority feel property should be private or not, without due process ....

That the idea that private property, rights to ownership, and freedom from government police powers abuse and taxation was such an important value that the United States of America ratified a Constitution 242 years ago that protects private property rights as a key part of the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government can tell me HOW I can use my property but not WHO can use my property. WHO is the jurisdiction of the courts. ...

I just want Government and the public to respect the property rights I have had and have today with the title to the property I paid for, pay annual taxes on and the Sheriff to enforce all the laws.... But first the BCC has to respect those property rights and the BCC and staff don’t. Until then I’ll try to keep in prospective the big scheme of “things”, take a deep breath, and recommit to protecting my property rights from all the public misinformation, misunderstanding, or just plain abuse of power from a misguided local Government.

To read the complete text Customary Use of SoWal Beaches: Contact Governor Scott
 

mputnal

Beach Fanatic
Nov 10, 2009
1,880
464
FBB, I agree with you that this is a special day and I salute our Veterans and their real sacrifices made for this Country and "including" all of us. I made a small and insignificant contribution to the Veteran's Memorial in Freeport and recommend everyone to take a few minutes to visit this memorial or any other memorial.

Unfortunately, we have to address the elephant in the room which is how elite power wants to exclude all people from parts of the beaches. They want private enjoyment! The entire beach is for shared enjoyment not private enjoyment. BPO's already have exclusive buildings for exclusive views and enjoyment. Yes, you have shared this resource in the past and it has not gone unnoticed by all of us who love the enjoyment of the beach. I have to ask exactly why have you changed your mind now? You are being mislead about property rights on this unique resource where the sea meets the land. It is sand not land. The sand came from the sea and belongs to the State of Florida. But lets look at that list of property rights:

1. The right to acquire, possess and protect your property. Not in dispute.
2. The right to enjoyment of your property. Not in dispute.
3. The right to exclude others from your property. The land that you built your exclusive buildings that block everyone's view already is not in dispute. The right to exclude people from the "sandy" beach is in dispute.
4. The right to dispose of your property. Not in dispute.
5. The right to due process. Not in dispute. Due process is occurring as we speak.
6. The right to just compensation for property taken for public purpose. Not in dispute. The sand is owned by the State of Florida. No one is preventing you from using the sand for recreational use. What other use is there?
7. The right to relief...when a new law or ordinance...unfairly affects your property. Not in dispute. The fact that the power brokers want you to demand compensation for sharing the sand that is owned by the State of Florida is not credible. That said, due process will decide the issue so we do not have to argue over what is credible and what is not credible.

So, this thread was a trap. These power brokers want you to get angry and upset about something that is not real like their names. Those who support recreational public use are both BPO's and non-BPO's alike. As a community it is important for all of us to listen to each other. There are issues that need to be solved regarding beach vending, beach density and beach behavior etc. I have read the complaints coming from real BPO's and the problems are real not made up like the power brokers want you to believe. I have read the posts of public recreational use supporters and they have listened to you and have offered solutions. I have learned a lot on this thread not about property rights but about how elite power operates and it has nothing to do with listening and everything to do in provocation. If you are a BPO your greatness is in both your success and awareness of the value in sharing the enjoyment of the beach.
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
Mputnal #1993 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
6. “... The sand is owned by the State of Florida. ...”
Kinda vague definition of what is owned by the State. Do you mean the DRY sand North or landward of the MHWL is owned by the State of Florida?

OK mputnal lets start with Florida Statute definitions.
FS 177.27 (9) “Foreshore” means the strip of land between the mean high-water and mean low-water lines that is alternately covered and uncovered by the flow of the tide.

(14)“Mean high water” means the average height of the high waters over a 19-year period. For shorter periods of observation, “mean high water” means the average height of the high waters after corrections are applied to eliminate known variations and to reduce the result to the equivalent of a mean 19-year value.

177.28 Legal significance of the mean high-water line.
(1) Mean high-water line along the shores of land immediately bordering on navigable waters is recognized and declared to be the boundary between the foreshore owned by the state in its sovereign capacity and upland subject to private ownership. ...

(2) No provision of this part shall be deemed to modify the common law of this state with respect to the legal effects of accretion, reliction, erosion, or avulsion.
The additional property rights littoral (tidal) and riparian (non-tidal) land owners have to gain or loose property over time.

Walton Ordinance 2019-05. “Beach means the soft sandy portion of land lying seaward of the seawall or the line of permanent dune vegetation.” -- seaward to the State of Florida MHWL, because County ordinances do not overrule State law.

If you do not agree with the government’s definitions you can stop now and there is no hope of understanding the property law or having credibility of any further statements about beachfront properties.

Lets go all the way back to #126 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy and Vizcaya legal Plat that is available on the public Clerk of Court site. At the bottom of the plate is labeled “Approximate Mean High Water Line” The MHWL elevation is measure over an 18.6 year average from the NAVD88 sea level datum measured by NOAA. You can look that up on the Government sites.

In March 2019 Walton county measured the State’s MHWL boundary for all 26 miles.
The GIS Green line is the 2019 Walton MHWL and property boundary. Seaward of the Green MHWL is 825 miles of Florida Foreshore and submerged lands. Landward of the MHWL is private property. The red line is the Florida DEP CCCL that defines where owners have to get additional State permitting to build. The CCCL is NOT a property boundary or a no-build line. Ignore the BLUE seaward estimated Walton Property Appraiser estimated parcel boundaries. The Green MHWL is the legal seaward property boundary.

Depending on the tide and winds the MHWL can be in the water or not. The prevailing wind is from the south and blows the water and waves landward of the MHWL elevation and generally the MHWL is in the water unless there is NO wind (and when does that ever happen?). Generally the MHWL survey is valid for a year.

Walton GIS MHWL CCCL Vizcaya.jpg
Thanks to BPO that sent this Walton GIS and ecar info to me.

If you still believe in your non-linear metaphysical thinking that the State of Florida owns the BPOs dry sand; then there is no hope and no one should believe any belief you have about CU.
 

mputnal

Beach Fanatic
Nov 10, 2009
1,880
464
FBB, yes it is a vague definition. The survey is only valid for a very short period. That is the point. Those definitions are average measurements because of the variability in wave dynamics, tide, beach erosion etc. The beach is a general term with no specific boundary. So, it is not reasonable or scientific to assign a fixed boundary for a specific parcel. In other words the deeds are inaccurate or incomplete at best.

Okay now you should relax. This is a "unique" resource where the ocean intersects the land and the sand moves between the ocean and the land. If the sand originates off shore and is deposited on shore then at what point does the State of Florida lose it's sovereign rule over the sand? I wonder if they do lose rule over it? It would not be reasonable or even credible to assume that private ownership of the sand has more power than the State of Florida. I know but I did ask you to relax :)
 

Reggie Gaskins

Beach Lover
Oct 4, 2018
153
259
58
Blue Mountain Beach
So is this the Dave R that has 143 social media posts that firmly DENOUNCE renourishing Walton beaches?
Oh wait, it could also be the same Dave R, who also has 72 different social media posts - but PROMOTING Walton beach renourishment?
Maybe just a little TDS, and not really about beaches at all?
 

mputnal

Beach Fanatic
Nov 10, 2009
1,880
464
It all makes sense now. Wealth capitalizes the beach. Political influence replaces the beach when it erodes away at the expense of the environment and the middle class pays for it. What else is new...
 

kayti elliott

Beach Lover
Feb 19, 2014
151
87
31
Freeport
Since there have been lots of references to Old English Common Law, I read that when Sir Richard Branson bought his island in the Virgin Islands, he owns the land except for the beach up to the high water line. So some of you surfers might want to go to the BVI and surf on out to Necker Island.
 
Last edited:
New posts