Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[Auburn Fan]

 

[Auburn Fan]

So Dave refuses to discuss the many CU facts proven false here. So Dave refuses to meet in public forum to have an adult discussion to help heal our community. So it appears the online personal attacks against innocent beach property owners has escalated. A great recap of historical TRUE facts can be followed here at the blog Dave recommended earlier in this thread:
FloridaBeachBum: CU Timeline
Walton Watchdog

Interesting point and information, Reggie.

Voltaire: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise"

 

[Robert D]

My feelings are hurt. My name’s not in the list. You’re leaving the show without sayin bye to me?

I guess you’ve been advised by the attorney for FBFA to avoid / ignore my posts especially when I’m calling you and him out for the Nazi reference. Still you don’t respond. Understandable but cowardly.

The whole purpose of this is to show how hypocritical you and your group are when you profess we should be respectful to each other. But I see very very little of it coming from you and yours. Those were your words about respect in an earlier post when I first responded to your respect comment.

The truth is there is no defense for Uhlfelder’s words and YOU and others KNOW IT. Admit the mistake and maybe we can take a step forward in civility.

Simple.

I harp on this as the “fact” of it all can not be argued.

And regarding the pounding sand comment, if I decide for a beach workout, it will be pounding sand on our private beach. Thank you for the invitation anyway.

Added....and your silence (condoning) of Uhlfelder’s statement is proof positive that Reggie’s premise holds true.... that we’re losing our character and soul on 30-A that we used to have before you and yours stirred all this up.

Added yet again....and if Uhlfelder didn’t say those words, just make that claim.

This area was a gentle, friendly, beautiful place when Dave and many others like him built it. It is crystal clear that the greedy people who have moved here in the last 15 years and their lawyers are ruining it. Bad acting tourists are a shame but no justification for the exclusionary tactics.

 

[Auburn Fan]

This area was a gentle, friendly, beautiful place...

Are you the founder of Seaside?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

This area was a gentle, friendly, beautiful place when Dave and many others like him built it. It is crystal clear that the greedy people who have moved here in the last 15 years and their lawyers are ruining it. Bad acting tourists are a shame but no justification for the exclusionary tactics.

So now we’re putting a time constraint on who is “greedy” and “ruining it”. Wiping the sweat off my forehead. Dodged yet another bullet as have most of my BFO friends.

You know, something profound just materialized in front of me with your “15 year” statement.....

In the old days there was not a problem. But in the last 15 years, unmanaged growth from a beach access perspective has finally caught up with all of us. And here we are in court. I know that part is not profound.

But what is interesting is that the most passionate people in this forum regarding CU seem to be those who have been in the area quite a while as well as have many BFOs. In effect we end up being victims for the real reason of all this debate and vitriol - continued growth / development, restaurants/businesses, real estate industry, BCC constituency pacification, on and on.

And I would venture a guess that many who support CU sincerely do so for the basic concept of just simply going to the beach. I get it.

But the ones that are pushing the hardest and the loudest while using your taxpayer dollars to do so are not the ones who have a pure altruistic reason for doing so.

They are pitting the ordinary beach goer to the ordinary private property owner - many on both sides who have deep roots in the area and used to get along. And they are stirring this up for only one reason...

MONEY, obviously.

The profound part is not the money aspect but rather that so many people are being manipulated by those with hidden agendas. BFOs just want to use their property in peace, the same as many of you who also own private property elsewhere. And of course, the public wants to go to the beach.

The profound part is that many of the “old timers” are the ones that take all this very personally on both sides of CU. We are the ones who yearn for the way things were. A time when when we simply got along. A time when one could go to the beach at a public access and have room to set up an umbrella. A time when BFOs could enjoy their property without hordes of uninvited tourists trying to take over.

And it’s all the new inland development, influx of new tourists and others that now put pressure on many of the private beaches as the public accesses are NOW not big enough to handle everbody. Again very bad planning as in no planning and a very bad bet that beach nourishment would solve that problem on the county’s part.

A previous poster made an analogy of this thread to a chess game. Maybe so, maybe not. But what is clear (to me) is the public (both sides of the argument) is being used as pawns by the government and by those who exert their influence upon the government for the one simple reason - MONEY.

The judicial process is the only thing that seems to keep this county in check. It’s a shame the county can’t do the right thing to begin with but too many have become jaded with many of the government’s questionable tactics. And that statement goes far beyond the CU controversy.

Greedy - such an overused word by so many.

Added: I see good ole Dave is back with a “Winner” feedback on the above quoted post. Never mind... I won’t pick the low hanging fruit.

 

[buster]

So now we’re putting a time constraint on who is “greedy” and “ruining it”. Wiping the sweat off my forehead. Dodged yet another bullet as have most of my BFO friends.

You know, something profound just materialized in front of me with your “15 year” statement.....

In the old days there was not a problem. But in the last 15 years, unmanaged growth from a beach access perspective has finally caught up with all of us. And here we are in court. I know that part is not profound.

But what is interesting is that the most passionate people in this forum regarding CU seem to be those who have been in the area quite a while as well as have many BFOs. In effect we end up being victims for the real reason of all this debate and vitriol - continued growth / development, restaurants/businesses, real estate industry, BCC constituency pacification, on and on.

And I would venture a guess that many who support CU sincerely do so for the basic concept of just simply going to the beach. I get it.

But the ones that are pushing the hardest and the loudest while using your taxpayer dollars to do so are not the ones who have a pure altruistic reason for doing so.

They are pitting the ordinary beach goer to the ordinary private property owner - many on both sides who have deep roots in the area and used to get along. And they are stirring this up for only one reason...

MONEY, obviously.

The profound part is not the money aspect but rather that so many people are being manipulated by those with hidden agendas. BFOs just want to use their property in peace, the same as many of you who also own private property elsewhere. And of course, the public wants to go to the beach.

The profound part is that many of the “old timers” are the ones that take all this very personally on both sides of CU. We are the ones who yearn for the way things were. A time when when we simply got along. A time when one could go to the beach at a public access and have room to set up an umbrella. A time when BFOs could enjoy their property without hordes of uninvited tourists trying to take over.

And it’s all the new inland development, influx of new tourists and others that now put pressure on many of the private beaches as the public accesses are NOW not big enough to handle everbody. Again very bad planning as in no planning and a very bad bet that beach nourishment would solve that problem on the county’s part.

A previous poster made an analogy of this thread to a chess game. Maybe so, maybe not. But what is clear (to me) is the public (both sides of the argument) is being used as pawns by the government and by those who exert their influence upon the government for the one simple reason - MONEY.

The judicial process is the only thing that seems to keep this county in check. It’s a shame the county can’t do the right thing to begin with but too many have become jaded with many of the government’s questionable tactics. And that statement goes far beyond the CU controversy.

Greedy - such an overused word by so many.

Pretty obvious to anyone who was here that the period from around 2000 until the bubble burst there was an influx of money - flippers, builders, developers, realtors, lawyers, title companies etc. etc. who were chasing the bucks and didn't give a damn about the local environment or businesses, except to exploit everything. Yes - GREEDY.

Probably began around 1995 when a large outside corporation with no real ties to the area planned and built Rosemary Beach. Not that it was perfect before then but at least people were here for the beach and the environment and not the MONEY.

We used to have a community of beach people. Now we are largely a community of exploiters and usurpers.

I don't sit around pining for the old days like some, but we have gone way past that into a dystopian hell of people fighting over sand on the beach no one should ever own.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Buster, I basically agree with your entire post.

But the word greedy is still overused as many have applied it to private property owners who desire and are fully entitled to protect what they do own by the U.S. Constitution.

Added...Dear Cuba
Substitute Cuba with Walton County?

 

[Lake View Too]

In 1995, during the filming of The Truman Show, I met Cindy Meadows. She was just a visitor at that time, and was living in Orlando. WaterColor and WaterSound were just barely being planned at that time. She said she saw first hand the way St. Joe developed properties down south, especially Celebration, and she said it was going to be like a tsunami when St. Joe got cranked up. Well, guess what? She was right. She moved up and tried to use her knowledge about urban planning (master's degree) to try to help shape what this transformation would look like. She was treated like s**t by the powers that be, and was called Satan at one point. Oh well.
Hurricane Opal also hit in 1995. A lot of quaint little cabins in Grayton were wrecked, or at least pushed off their foundations. The next thing you know, there were a hundred new contractor's in town and the Monster House started sprouting in Grayton, and most anywhere.
The point of my story... oh hell, there is no point...

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

Pretty obvious to anyone who was here that the period from around 2000 until the bubble burst there was an influx of money - flippers, builders, developers, realtors, lawyers, title companies etc. etc. who were chasing the bucks and didn't give a damn about the local environment or businesses, except to exploit everything. Yes - GREEDY.

Probably began around 1995 when a large outside corporation with no real ties to the area planned and built Rosemary Beach. Not that it was perfect before then but at least people were here for the beach and the environment and not the MONEY.

We used to have a community of beach people. Now we are largely a community of exploiters and usurpers.

I don't sit around pining for the old days like some, but we have gone way past that into a dystopian hell of people fighting over sand on the beach no one should ever own.

These are the good old days for the people just moving here.

 

[buster]

Buster, I basically agree with your entire post.

But the word greedy is still overused as many have applied it to private property owners who desire and are fully entitled to protect what they do own by the U.S. Constitution.

Added...Dear Cuba
Substitute Cuba with Walton County?

I abide the law but I would not use it to take advantage of others, or use the law for cover for actions that are clearly wrong. That is what GREEDY and unethical people do. If you are trying to keep people off the beach behind your home, a beach that has been free and open for decades (actually centuries before white men) for millions of people, then the best word that applies is GREED.

Deeding the beach was clearly a mistake that needs to be corrected. As @ShallowsNole aptly pointed out, it was done simply to give protection to beachfront owners so no person would try to build on the beach between them and the water. Whoever put beach ownership on the deed screwed up. It is time to correct the screwup.

Please explain why anyone would want to own the beach, and to keep people off. Legal deed or not, there is no moral justification.