Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

What’s the point? No private property condemnation litigation has been taken by the Commissioners to offer market fair value for.

If your point is the dry sand beach is worthless because State and local Government has used its police powers to regulate uses and construction of private property beaches that does not make the property unbuildable or have no value. Government could just as well not use their police powers or authorize acceptations to their police powers and permit construction - making the private property more valuable. Like a fishing pier or a private beachfront property amusement tower like in the Daytona Beach Tona-Rama case. Might want to look up Florida’s Burt Harris Act too that strengthens Florida’s police power use of private property and compensation.

My point is the same constitution that keeps being referenced here as proof of protection says land can indeed be taken for public use. All the whining in the world will not change a fact.

I'm taking responsibility for not being totally versed in all the legal minutia of this extremely complex situation. I think I have built up a small degree of reliability on this website and I am simply trying to express my sentiments about the situation, and in that regard, some people agree with me. You can't change how people feel with a barrage of legal facts, and that is all this thread has been about: trying to put a PR spin on an ugly situation.

I get it LV2 but if you want to make informed decisions; what property law is not complex? You have to take the time to understand the facts and the law. You know, the laws that embody America morals and beliefs. http://morallaw.org/resources/key-documents/the-united-states-constitution/
Call the facts PR if you want, make uninformed decisions if you want, believe you are right by taking social media rants at face value if you want; but you will not make decisions based on facts or the law - just like the Commissioners and that will cost tax payers millions and ill will for the community.

My point is the same constitution that keeps being referenced here as proof of protection says land can indeed be taken for public use. All the whining in the world will not change a fact.

Then stop the FS163.035 litigation and start government police-power property-condemnation litigation to pay fair market value. Why do you think Commissioners are litigation CU? Because they think they can get something for nothing and it costs them personally no money to try - just tax payers millions.

I get it LV2 but if you want to make informed decisions, what property law is not complex, you have to take the time to understand the facts and the law. You know the laws that embody America morals and beliefs. http://morallaw.org/resources/key-documents/the-united-states-constitution/
Call the facts PR if you want, make uninformed decisions if you want, believe you are right by taking social media rants at face value if you want; but you will not make decisions based on facts or the law - just like the Commissioners and that will cost tax payers millions and ill will for the community.

I just wish you would stop talking about Money. I'm sorry you don't want to see that enjoying the beach is a spiritual thing.

I just wish you would stop talking about Money. I'm sorry you don't want to see that enjoying the beach is a spiritual thing.

Paying taxes is also a "spiritual thing" for many. I have heard all the curse words, and maybe said a few, about Walton property taxes too.
I commune with and enjoy the beach and the sea every time I'm on our beachfront, that our family has owned for many decades, before Seaside, and try to forget about Commissioner's inept governance, disrespectful public beach behavior, and anit-social media lies and shaming just because someone is a beachfront owner who believes in private property rights.

Then just this weekend 2 people from 30A parked in the ROW, walked down our driveway, across our home's deck and stairs to access the beach, because they thought no one was home. Their startled response when I informed them they were on private property - sorry; not! And proceeded to walk down our beach walkway to our beach and I ensured they departed the property. Should have called the Sheriff. Should have taken video and shamed them on social media. Those are the realities those with no real-property skin in the game do not understand. Oh well back to nature. Just saw a pod of dolphins swim by as did the people walking the public foreshore.

So it appears that Reggie Gaskins was permanently banned from SoWal after driving this thread into the stratosphere. Would admins please comment? That way, we can better avoid whatever transgression of which Reggie was somehow guilty.

In the meantime, it appears the law and facts are getting in the way of some of the CU slogans, providing more daylight regarding property rights and the Constitution. I've even heard there are rumblings of backroom plans to somehow back off of the aggressive lawsuits against property owners. It seems the Comprimise word is being tested across the network for those trying to salvage something out of this mess. Anyone have the intel?

Again, the fifth amendment to the Constitution says private property can be taken for public use if there is just compensation.

For utilitarian use. Not so sure about recreational-use. I think I read somewhere there's been some court decisions already on this type of eminent domain. Thank you for your mention of constitutional law.

For utilitarian use. Not so sure about recreational-use. I think I read somewhere there's been some court decisions already on this type of eminent domain. Thank you for your mention of constitutional law.

It’s not just a recreational issue. It impacts the economy and property values.

What is the timetable for the challenge to the CU suits being ruled on?

I dunno. It seems like most of it has been done in the dark, but what do I know.

It’s not just a recreational issue. It impacts the economy and property values.

Does the Fifth Amendment protect you against another person's commercial use of your private property?

Surely you do understand that's what this is all about, right?

Eminent domain is taking and compensating certain property rights of certain properties for the greater good. Some BFO's are claiming rights they never really had. That's what the lawsuits are about to decide.

Again, the fifth amendment to the Constitution says private property can be taken for public use if there is just compensation.

Therein lies the next battlefield, IMHO. Of course the county will attempt to take the stand that so many CU proponents have taken - that “the beach has no value because......”. More malarkey. I imagine the county will throw everything they have both legally and financially down the throats individual homeowners and try to force them into submission. The county would then have no interest in beach property that’s not easily accessible such as Watersound.

Beach nourishment failed, CU is failing (IMHO) and imminent domain is the final step unless the county truly compromises and allows BFOs the ability to help the public by allowing public vending on private property. That “compensation/ compromise” just might make the public on private beach pill a little easier to swallow.

It’s not just a recreational issue. It impacts the economy and property values.

You state CU impacts the economy and property values but you do not present data or facts of why you believe that or how CU will impact the economy and property values if it does? How do you know if and what economic impacts will be? You just believe it to be so? Will SoWal become a “ghost town” economically without CU of private property?

Either way, unfortunately for public customary use of private property advocates, the archaic English doctrine is a legal doctrine; not a economic doctrine. There is NO legal criteria of custom that considers the economic or property values of the beachfront private property or surrounding property or properties.

Either the Plaintiff can satisfy the many CU criteria or not. If ALL the criteria can NOT be proved by the evidence in court, or conversely even if one custom (1) criterion can be proven false, the claim of public customary use of private property should be rejected - and the American Defendant BFOs may be owed legal and attorney fees.

That’s also assuming the archaic English common law doctrine of custom is not found to be unConstitutional first. That motion is in front of Judge Green now.

The Commissioners could have tried public prescriptive easement (although that did not end well for Tona-Rama). Commissioners could have asked for private owner dedications but that’s a non starter. Could have first tried eminent domain condemnation litigation but that’s more money than even inept Commissioners and Walton tax payers can afford. Commissioners could have intervened in the 5? private property quiet title cases; but haven’t - I'm guessing because there is no chance for the Commissioners to prevail. Commissioners could have tried to negotiate with BFOs but given the non-transparency and BFO mistrust after the Commissioners’ 2016 beach fortification fiasco, that was rejected by BFOs 1,124 out of 1,193 (94.2%), I wouldn’t negotiate squat with the any of the past or present Commissioners. So Commissioners choose to litigate an ancient English common law doctrine of custom that does not consider the economic impact, either good or bad. It's only tax payer millions to find out in court.

You state CU impacts the economy and property values but you do not present data or facts of why you believe that or how CU will impact the economy and property values if it does? How do you know if and what economic impacts will be? Will SoWal become a “ghost town” economically without CU of private property?

Either way, unfortunately for public customary use of private property advocates, the archaic English doctrine is a legal doctrine; not a economic doctrine. There is NO legal criteria of custom that considers the economic or property values of the beachfront private property or surrounding property or properties.

Either the Plaintiff can satisfy the many CU criteria or not. If ALL the criteria can NOT be proved by the evidence in court, or conversely even if one custom (1) criterion can be proven false, the claim of public customary use of private property should be rejected - and the American Defendant BFOs may be owed legal and attorney fees.

That’s also assuming the archaic English common law doctrine of custom is not found to be unConstitutional first. That motion is in front of Judge Green now.

The Commissioners could have tried public prescriptive easement (although that did not end well for Tona-Rama). Commissioners could have asked for private owner dedications but that’s a non starter. Could have first tried eminent domain condemnation litigation but that’s more money than even inept Commissioners and Walton tax payers can afford. Commissioners could have intervened in the 5? private property quiet title cases; but haven’t - I'm guessing because there is no chance for the Commissioners to prevail. Commissioners could have tried to negotiate with BFOs but given the non-transparency and BFO mistrust after the Commissioners’ 2016 beach fortification fiasco, that was rejected by BFOs 1,124 out of 1,193 (94.2%), I wouldn’t negotiate squat with the any of the past or present Commissioners. So Commissioners choose to litigate an ancient English common law doctrine of custom that does not consider the economic impact, either good or bad. It's only tax payer money to find out in court.

It's funny... every single post from you and your bunch mentions Money. You plead that you are being victimized. You are being taxed to death. Etc. It's not about money. I will repeat what I said earlier. Enjoying the beach is a spiritual experience. And you and your buddies and your lawyers and your signs and your chains are truly ripping the soul out of this community. You may get your Money but I can assure you that you will never outlive the animosity you have created.

Eminent domain is taking and compensating certain property rights of certain properties for the greater good. Some BFO's are claiming rights they never really had. That's what the lawsuits are about to decide.

Who determines what the term "greater good" is? Is that a legal term in the US or FL Constitution or the Florida Burt Harris Act?
What BFO legal rights have been claimed that they never really had? Don't just name the rights, give some facts why BFOs never had them. Otherwise not credible statement.

I've only brought up taxes and the costs of Commissioners' litigation for all tax payers. Maybe you should start with the Commissioners about causing and creating animosity. Anti-social media incited by CU misinformation doesn't help either.

"You plead that you are being victimized." Where? "You are being taxed to death. Etc." Where? Not very credible statements. Emotional reactions but not credible.
"It's not about money." Agree it's about Constitutionally protected private property rights.

Either way, unfortunately for public customary use of private property advocates, the archaic English doctrine is a legal doctrine; not a economic doctrine. There is NO legal criteria of custom that considers the economic or property values of the beachfront private property or surrounding property or properties.

Yes, I bolded the above quote for emphasis.

Spot on!!!

Yet that's all one hears from FBFA and other CU proponents. And of course the county CU attorney already knows this is not a valid reason so he absolutely has to rely solely on proving the actual customary use, and NOT any economic impact (good or bad).

Take at look at this page on FBFA website. Considering that any economic reasons are absolutely not part of the validation of customary use, see how they try to appeal the emotional aspect that many people will be hurt economically (you know, DEVASTATED):

Of course they're obliged to add, "We want to ensure that all beachgoers are able to enjoy this resource respectfully and with equality for generations to come" after the first statement above under their What's the Bottom Line. But as many of us have already claimed on this thread, this is about MONEY that the county, developers, restauranteers, real estate industry, property management companies and others so deeply desire (sorry again @Lake View Too).

My bet is FBFA will change their website shortly....at least switch their priorities.

And this "economic benefit" is professed ad nauseam by just about everybody supporting customary use, politicians and activists alike along with the general public who don't understand what customary use really means (assuming it's constitutional).

I watched a FBFA's meeting (click here) where they discuss customary use AND economic impact. The economic aspect discussion starts at 9:10 (if you want to fast forward). BTW this video also has the infamous beach picture from the nut job regarding Vizcaya's Beach ("was public, now private" malarkey). And boy does DR latch on to that.

Gosh I love the slide at 22:32, "So, who can I trust for accurate info?" And then FBFA's website is answered under that. Genuinely got a good chuckle out of that. Maybe they should have included SoWal.com . There's been more accurate info here presented by others than in most any so called journalistic articles and especially more than from FBFA and their Facebook page.

Then there's a FBFA video where someone from the real estate industry speaks to the FBFA group....yeah you've guessed it. I'll save that for another day/post.

"The greater good" seems to be defined by the CU activists (zealots) who are more righteous than ordinary citizens who have a different opinion.

"The greater good" seems to be defined by the CU activists (zealots) who are more righteous than ordinary citizens who have a different opinion.

Calm down Francis.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, pseudonym of American humorist, novelist and social critic Samuel Clemens; who’s remarks should be ignored(?) because Clemen’s used an “anonymous” name, The reports of Walton County economic customary use “Ghost Town” are greatly exaggerated.

Latest South Walton TDC tourist bed tax TDT Report. Nothing but growth. Credibility of impending economic doom is not backed by facts. Walton “Ghost Town” CU voodoo economics or CU agenda fear mongering?

Walton County spring tourism numbers up 17.85%

Before April 1, 2017 BFOs had all leagly recognized bundle of proeprty rights since the 1800s US land grants. Walton contested CU ordinance started April 1, 2017. FS 163.035 started July1, 2018. The tourist demand does not seem to be "impacted" regardless of the antisocial media posts to the contrary. Even after the 2010 Deep Horizon true disaster Walton tourism returned quickly and grew faster than ever.

Thanks to the Walton Commissoner's TDC marketing we have more tourist and not enough infrastructure. Maybe Commissioners should stop marketing! Walton TDC 2020 budget request is $29,406,684. Commissioners will soon vote on raising the tax to 5%. Who benefits most from the tourist tax marketing? Beach-side business? Then let the beach-side business pay for the marketing and reduce the tourist tax so that money goes into the local economy to grow real jobs; not government bureaucracy.
The TDC can maintain the public beaches for $5,000,000 I'd guess or if TDC is required to market with the tax how about public education about acceptable beach behavior and respect private property rights.

I haven't met a single beachfront owner who wants their beach taken by imminent domain. This isn't about money to any I've met. The two main things I've heard from them is that they want to retain the RIGHT to exclude and get help when there are behavior problems and they want density controlled since the County/TDC continues to try and draw more and more people here in spite of the known issues. Just because someone has the RIGHT to exclude doesn't mean they use it.

Another thing I keep reading in social media is that owners knew the beach was public (or at least entirely open to the public) when they bought. I know a number of people, both beachfront and inland who have pined for the days when they bought or moved here, when they could "walk along the shoreline for miles and not see a soul." If that's the case, someone tell me how they could possibly have known that everyone was allowed to set up on their beaches?

I haven't met a single beachfront owner who wants their beach taken by imminent domain. This isn't about money to any I've met. The two main things I've heard from them is that they want to retain the RIGHT to exclude and get help when there are behavior problems and they want density controlled since the County/TDC continues to try and draw more and more people here in spite of the known issues. Just because someone has the RIGHT to exclude doesn't mean they use it.

ABSOLUTELY AND POSITIVELY THE CASE! But if the county decides to pursue this imminent domain route for whatever reason, they will throw tons of legal money to try and squash individual private property owners into submission. Looks like a pattern to me.

Another thing I keep reading in social media is that owners knew the beach was public (or at least entirely open to the public) when they bought. I know a number of people, both beachfront and inland who have pined for the days when they bought or moved here, when they could "walk along the shoreline for miles and not see a soul." If that's the case, someone tell me how they could possibly have known that everyone was allowed to set up on their beaches?

Again, another BULLSEYE! I basically said the same thing in a previous post when I mentioned that “back then” all we saw was an occasional sand walker.

Never did anybody walk hundreds of feet from the public access to set up on our beach back when we first bought the beachfront property.

Someone's feeling are hurt so It was removed for copyright concerns following a claim of authorship and libel allegation. Everyone is welcome to post on our free and open forum as long as simple rules are followed.

Dave or anyone else is welcome to start another thread about the issue without posting the blog screenshot in question without the author's approval.

A screenshot of a twitter post made by the Author is not libel by any stretch of the imagination. Reposting a post from twitter on this forum is no different than retweeting a twitter post. The Author did not like that his ridiculous post he posted on twitter which by the way is clearly in the "town square" was being used to educate rental owners of a legitimate concern. They later backpedaled and called it "satire" when really they were testing the waters on a stupid, despicable theory that non-beachfront owners owed back payments to beachfront owners for the past use of "their" beaches. The libel threat, yes threat was lodged to SoWal to stop the spreading of this ridiculous original post by the Author. No libel at all. I reposted the same post on twitter with no libel threat at all. I reposted it a few more times for good measure.

The libel threat, yes threat was lodged to SoWal to stop the spreading of this ridiculous original post by the Author. No libel at all. I reposted the same post on twitter with no libel threat at all. I reposted it a few more times for good measure.

Stay on point here Dave Rauschkolb. Let's not distract from the premise of the thread. No idea what Twitter screenshot you're referring to anyway.

Besides I thought; " I harbor no ill will towards Mr. Lince and am appreciative that this chapter appears to be closed. " post#221.

Why don't you repost any copyrighted material on your business page or personal web site, if you have one, instead of anti-social media.
I'd like to see what happens with your taunting then. Anti-social media is so productive.

I'm guessing you'll reply with something profound and factual like; "He started it ..." or go pound sand. But I hope I'm wrong and you'll post something on point and credible.

Why have you not disputed anything about Vizcaya private beach property or quiet title stole public beaches, or any of the other property right facts on this thread with your on alternative CU facts?

I’m not a big fan of the anti-social media. Just mass ganging on - without facts - just emotional knee jerk reactions - and shout downs for having different opinions just because they are different - even if supported with facts. I wish I could make these facts shorter to the little CU misinformation bullets that are posted as facts. Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

It’s interesting to read the real not so polite positions of outspoken CU “Komrades” incredible, as in not credible, baseless antisocial media, similar to what was witnessed on this thread and others. Hopefully this won’t get deleted or I get banned for “Komrades” since Rauschklob used the description on SoWal first. I guess it’s just cute to spell with a K. Is it really behavior that caused the CU vs Private beach issue?

The new trend on anti-social media is creating this illusion that there are just a “handful” of “anti-CU” BFOs “Komrades” and of course the celebrity BFO, to sensationalize whatever CU lie of the day about him is. This anti-social media campaign to expose the BFOs incredible evil plans to stop the public from using “their” beaches, is a CU tactic to incite the masses and expose the evil BFOs with the “truth”. But is fanning the flames the Walton Commissioners started, and may destroy what’s left of south Walton’s legacy - the premise of the thread.

"... stopping beach nourishment [beach fortification] WAS indeed the first step in their [BFOs] plan to deny the use of our beaches." Facts please or just a not-credible, baseless, conspiracy theory!

How FBFA think they know about BFO “plans” is just not credible if you know the facts. Creates a good BFO greedy “boogie man” to focus the mass of vitriol. But NOT credible.

From the 2016 Walton Commissioners’ failed beach fortification (Federal Hurricane Storm Damage Reduction plan) was defeated by those handful of “sneaky” BFOs? Beach fortification on private property with 3.8 CY of off-white off-shore sand, that a judge ruled did not meet Commissioners’ own white sand ordinance. An ordinance that any beachfront owner would have to comply with. Even outspoken CU advocates didn’t think that was a good idea.

Fact. 94.22% of the 1,193 BFOs rejected Commissioners’ private property easements. Why? Because the Commissioners were not transparent of the sand facts, BFOs connected the dots what Commissioners’ real intent was, and do not trust the Commissioners then and now.


It did not cost 1,193 BFOs money to intervene in the Commissioners’ and TDC’s inept beach fortification plan easements; just reject by mail or refuse to return the Commissioners’ 50 year (really perpetual) legal private property easement. Only a “handful”, 94.22%, of 1,193 BFO saw through the Commissioners’ ruse and made their thoughts known.

Before the Commissioners’ even shelved beach fortification in March 2016 they were talking about public “beach access” or aka public customary use of private property.
February 23, 2016. Walton Commissioner Chapman starts customary use beach access agenda. Not once did Chapman consider or mention beachfront owner property rights, who owns 50+% of the beachfront. Why?
BCC February 23, 2016 Regular Meeting Video Click and press Play in new window.
Commissioner Cindy Meadows asks about a Public Beach Access “Emergency” Order for public to use private property but is cautioned by the County Attorney. Why? Because of bad sand or bad public behavior?
BCC February 23, 2016 Regular Meeting Video

Two years later a “handful” of BFOs and a celebrity BFO convinced 29 out of 36 FL Senators (80.6%) and 95 out of 126 FL Representatives (84.8%), including local Representative Brad Drake to Vote for 2018 HB631. 83.8% of the 2018 FL legislators and the Governor.
House Bill 631 (2018) - The Florida Senate

A “handful” of BFOs owners convinced 124 Yeas, including Brad Drake, to vote for HB631 is just NOT CREDIBLE.

That a “handful” of BFOs convinced 650+ of the SAME 1,194 (about 54+%) private beach parcels, owners to spend their own money to intervene, including Seaside developer and other prominent beachfront owners, would be in-credible for a “handful” of anyone to accomplish. I wonder how many BFOs are going to “ride the coattails” of the 54% of the intervening BFOs instead of spend their own money? If there was no legal expense, like with beach fortification, I’m guessing there would be more than 54+% of the 4,761 BFOs intervening.

Me and a “handful” of BFOs are willing take the time to shine the light of truth and facts on the CU myths. We are just the TIP of the 4,671 BFO iceberg, BFOs are angry at the Commissioners and anti-social media vitriol, that is certainly not discouraged by leading outspoken CUers. BFOs are communicating and organized to any threat to private property rights as needed (thanks to the Commissioners' failed beach fortification). BFOs can connect the Commissioners’ public use of private beach dots too. BFOs have long memories, and we don’t have to incite the masses to make our case, might does not make right in America, the rule of law does. BFOs have only just begun the fight for our due process and Constitutional rights. Remember the Titanic and the iceberg. CUnCourt.