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.
With all due respect, the premise that a beach parcel has no more value than a filing fee is, to use your word, "ridiculous". There would be no fight if that were the case. The County would be snapping up beach for $400 a pop with eminent domain, don't you think? Also, given your premise, I would like to understand how you justify making a profit with the beach bar located on the dry sand. Aren't YOU profiting off sand you don't even pay taxes on under your argument? Hasn't that also been a major argument related to vending, even on public beaches? Basically vendors of any kind are making profit off of public beach with only a vendor license fee. How is that different on the beach where your bar sits?
Again, the anger and personal vendettas come out. Dave attracts beachfront owners like moths to the flame.
What is your business sir? Fill us in so we can discuss.
You are making interesting assumptions. I am asking for clarification. Many statements have been made that don't make sense to me and don't seem to be consistent and/or supported by independent facts that I can find. If I could go buy a piece of beach for $400, I would do it and I suspect many more people would, too. I have no problem with vendors or Dave's beach bar except as they are profiting on supposedly public sand that they don't pay taxes on and he continually espouses that argument. I'm not angry at all and I have no personal vendetta against Dave. As a matter of fact, I am an inland owner, but it doesn't mean that I can't see both sides of an argument or empathize with members of both sides.
115 pages of axe grinding and you have no property? Then surely you are a lawyer. Or a liar. But I repeat myself.
There you go again, twisting my words. Beachfront owners pay taxes on beach front property but not the sand behind their homes. The unbuildable portion behind the dune line to the waterline is not taxed.
Last edited:
Ah, there you go again with more "myths". Taxes are paid on the entire property. A property that has title boundaries to the MWHL will cost significantly more than the same size property a few miles inland and taxed accordingly. Therefore taxes are paid on the "unbuildable portion behind the dune line to the waterline" because those property boundaries make it more desirable and thus more valuable. The more value the higher the sale price, the higher the sale price the more taxes paid. Nice try Dave, any more "myths" for a raining day?
I am pretty sure that it is the "improvements" on that beach front property are what makes it more valuable. The little 30 year old block house on the 1/2acre beach front isnt going to be taxed near what the 4 story mega- house that sleeps 30 in that 20K sq.ft. on the same 1/2 acre lot will. Dont forget the pool that people that rent them have to have because there are "ewww... fish in the "ocean" will tack on some more taxes.
There is no difference in value between two properties, all things equal except one with deeded sand and one without.
As someone posted on here before the purpose of including sand in a deed was because some paranoid owner (or attorney probably) in the past wanted to ensure no one could build on the beach between them and the water. This illegal mistake was compounded time after time. Now it is time to correct the mistakes of the past and I am glad it will play our in a court and not the court of public opinion. You'd think people would be smart enough to shut up about the issue and let the court decide. This thread illustrates how the arrogance and vindictiveness wins out over common sense.
Private beaches are a mistake and a ludicrous idea which has since been seized upon by greedy, selfish, exclusionary beachfront owners who are on a power trip. @mputnal has made it plain a hundred times but the scum keeps rebutting.