Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[SoWal Staff]

Walton County

On December 11, 2018, Walton County, Florida, filed a “Complaint for Declaration of Recreational Customary Use” in the Walton County Circuit Court. The case number is 2018-CA-547. A copy of the “Complaint for Declaration of Recreational Customary Use” is attached hereto.



The specific parcels of property, or the specific portions thereof, upon which a customary use affirmation is sought are identified on pages 6-24 and 26-44 of the “Complaint for Declaration of Recreational Customary Use” filed in Walton County Circuit Court 2018-CA-547 and on Exhibit “A” to the “Formal Notice of Intent to Affirm the Existence of Recreational Customary Uses on Private Property,” which is attached as Exhibit “1” to the “Complaint for Declaration of Recreational Customary Use.”



A customary use affirmation is sought only on those portions of the properties referenced in Exhibit “A” to the “Formal Notice of Intent to Affirm the Existence of Recreational Customary Uses on Private Property” that consist of the dry sand area of the beach. The dry sand area of the beach is defined as the zone of unconsolidated material that extends landward from the mean high water line to the place where there is marked change in material or physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation, usually the effective limit of storm waves, whichever is more seaward.



The detailed, specific, and individual uses of the parcels of property to which a customary use affirmation is sought are as follows: traversing the beach; sitting on the sand, in a beach chair, or on a beach towel or blanket; using a beach umbrella that is seven (7) feet or less in diameter; sunbathing; picnicking; fishing; swimming or surfing off the beach; placement of surfing or fishing equipment; and building sand creations.



The sources of evidence that the County will rely upon to prove a recreational customary use has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute are listed on Exhibit “B” to the “Formal Notice of Intent to Affirm the Existence of Recreational Customary Uses on Private Property,” which is attached as Exhibit “1” to the “Complaint for Declaration of Recreational Customary Use.”



As an owner of private property on which the County seeks to affirm the existence of recreational customary uses, you are entitled to intervene as a party defendant in Walton County Circuit Court Case Number 2018-CA-547. Pursuant to Section 163.035(3)(b)1., Florida Statutes, you must move to intervene in Walton County Circuit Court Case Number 2018-CA-547 within forty-five (45) days from publication of this Notice.



If the Circuit Court has already entered an Order allowing you to intervene as a Party Defendant in Walton County Circuit Court Case Number 2018-CA-547, the County stipulates that you do not need to move to intervene again. If you have any questions, please seek independent legal advice from an attorney.

Please be governed accordingly.

 

[kayti elliott]

As someone once said: "Can't we all just get along?". I guess we can all get along on this forum as long as you're on the "right" side.

 

[mputnal]

Kathryn, in terms of public recreational beach enjoyment (use) or private exclusive beach enjoyment (use) should there be a right side and a wrong side or something in the middle? If we want a peaceful community and enjoyable community don't we need to listen to both sides and come to some compromises? Those who are representing elite power (individual power with a direct effect on our legislative branch) do not believe in compromising exclusive private enjoyment because they have entitled themselves to their elite power and exclusive enjoyment of the beach. To these people it is not about community otherwise they would not be opposed to public customary recreational enjoyment with rules of density and behavior. They do not listen to the community but rather only those that agree with their purpose. Everyone else is irrational or worse in their minds. I wish I were wrong about their purpose but the evidence is that they want conflict and polarization within the community. Otherwise they would not hide their names and would represent the community as leaders with a positive community purpose. Yes both sides of the issue hide their names. I personally think it is wrong to provoke, disrespect and minimize those others that disagree with any issue. This forum allows it to a line. Both sides have crossed that line. I know you have a beef with the forum itself and it has affected they way you see this issue IMO. Or maybe you enjoy life more private and less public which is perfectly understandable. Either way this issue involves the community and has a lot of evidence to support public recreational enjoyment of the "beach". We should be able to disagree without disrespecting each other. We are not enemies. We are friends and neighbors. We are all good. We are all right. We all should all have individual power in our voice and our vote. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights protects us from abusive power. Abusive power hears no other voice, wants no other voice and denies us from having a voice. My only point is that we should all have a voice and this forum does give us a voice. All we have to do is be respectful. Why is that so hard?

 

[Alex Miles]

BPOs are the defendants. In court. BPOs are being SUED...without any previous knowledge or offers of ANY compromise options.

WHEN did ANY of the plaintiffs suing the homeowners EVER exhibit ANY inkling of managing beach density? Ever.
I'll wait.

 

[mputnal]

AM, The lawsuit is an affirmation process required by law. Your purpose is to create conflict. Beach density, behavior and vending are all being discussed and with community input. If you were part of this community you would know this .

 

[Alex Miles]

Don't be so sure about your presumption about my contribution to this community. But that's not what we are here to talk about, is it? Unless you feel the need to distract from the FACT that you have NOT ONE SHRED of evidence that the plaintiffs are the least bit interested in managing beach use density.

For all of you who are on the sidelines, watching this debate, and believe you are for "customary use", all based on a clever social media campaign, maybe start asking those beach use density questions of the plaintiffs.

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

"Beach Use Density" the new buzz phrase made up by anonymous BFO's on an anonymous blog to suggest our shared beaches should have some sort of further restrictions of human visitation. Ridiculous. Beach Use Density. Ridiculous.

 

[Alex Miles]

I'll check again, but I don't think that Walton Watchdog blog is anonymous.

 

[Alex Miles]

"Beach Use Density" the new buzz phrase made up by anonymous BFO's on an anonymous blog to suggest our shared beaches should have some sort of further restrictions of human visitation. Ridiculous. Beach Use Density. Ridiculous.

Are the state park beaches ridiculous for maintaining a carrying capacity as required by law?

 

[mputnal]

AM, please be sure to attend the public meeting on Dec. 17th. If you need transportation Walton County will assist. I am surprised that you are concerned about beach use but overlooked this I guess. I am also surprised that you did not give us the reference to the law that you refer to because being vague is frowned upon