Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Discussion in 'Local Government and Groups' started by Reggie Gaskins, Apr 25, 2019.

  1. Teresa

    Teresa SoWal Guide Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26,612
    Likes Received:
    2,678
    Location:
    South Walton, FL
    Good point. Speaking of nazis and political bashing, perhaps this whole discussion belongs in the lounge.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • List
  2. Lake View Too

    Lake View Too SoWal Insider

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,907
    Likes Received:
    1,726
    Location:
    Eastern Lake
    I cannot agree more. People get called Nazis fairly frequently. If you are a big person, and you know you are morally right, you should be able to laugh it off. If you a small person, I guess you let it fester, and you proclaim your outrage ad nauseum.
     
  3. Auburn Fan

    Auburn Fan Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Auburn
    Mr. Rauschkolb, if engaging on this thread is so insignificant, then why are you?

    An 'echo chamber' is a metaphorical description of a situation in which beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed system.

    Sure. It's a catchy little term to throw around by those who like to continuously speak in false narratives to the uninformed masses, but the term certainly does not not apply here.

    Why? Because this forum is anything but closed. In fact it's very open to the public. Reggie opened this discussion asking some honest, serious, heart felt, thought provoking questions. Many informative facts followed by others (who must remain anonymous thanks to the documented intimidation tactics such as doxxing and staged video ambush by the agitators. That's right. Pro-property rights advocates are fearful of speaking out or even "following" similar groups because of such effective intimidation targeting spurred by a vicious social media campaign.)

    And, where are all those opposing replies and answers to the questions presented in this long thread? After 20,000 views? And it's a very hot topic. If there was indeed any factual opposition, it surely would be presented here. Resoundingly so.

    Dave, unless you have some insider knowledge of the specific metrics of this platform, perhaps you should reconsider your assumption about those 20,000 views. You might just be wrong. Perhaps they are actually representative of a silent majority now absorbing all these facts that have not been refuted. Not once.

    Merely "calling" a fact "alternative" is not good enough for the majority of the educated professionals in our area. (I'm referring to the educated professionals who actually spend money in the upscale restaurants and shops advertised on this site. The ones who are very busy with their professions and giving back time serving the community and don't have time to be keyboard warriors.) Oppositional so-called "replies" filled with only emotional opinions or mere repetitive, disrespectful graveside memes by a known local troll seriously turn off the educated reader from even considering to engage here, so you can't really blame them.

    The lack of factual opposition is indicative of a silent readership now scratching their heads, wondering if they have been bamboozled from the beginning by orchestrated social media campaign that has been quite misleading, built on emotion, not facts. And certainly not sound principles of public policy. Perhaps there is a silent majority who are having their eyes now opened, in that "lightbulb -Ah Ha" moment, as they realize the deep and revelatory hypocrisy of the instigators and agitators of the customary use battle.

    Overdevelopment greed is what is truly driving the CU bus. Perhaps there is a silent majority who are now actively re-evaluating this whole customary use legal battle. A battle that will accomplish nothing over the next decade other than create deep painful social divisions and needlessly cost millions of taxpayer dollars. Funds that could have been spent on so many community amenities to the delightful benefit of our county's citizens and visitors. So many other wonderful ways we could have spent those millions of dollars. Oh, let me count the ways.

    But development greed has successfully orchestrated a propaganda machine to convince a community to actually foot the bill on their behalf, for the sake of more overdevelopment. Slick move by the power brokers.

    I genuinely feel sorry for the good people who have joined the CU bandwagon thinking that this is all on behalf of their grandchildren. No. It's about turning over the control of the commercialization of the beaches from private home owners to a county government. A local government not exactly known for its reputation for honesty when it comes to development and commerce.

    The silly point you were trying to fabricate here Dave is completely without merit, and obviously yet another attempted distraction from the very serious issue at hand that we were trying to openly discuss in this forum. It surprises me that you think so many people would be fooled by those cotton candy words of yours. Go ahead. Enjoy your frivolous fun and make light of this dreadful community division that you have single-handedly spearheaded over the years, causing a great deal of personal pain for thousands of very innocent people on both sides of the CU battle. It's not funny to us at all.

    Dave, if the facts presented here in this open public forum are incorrect, then where are your 6500 adoring fans presenting factual corrections?

    Or maybe you can shed some light personally, Dave. Tell us just one fact that was presented in this thread that is not actually true. Just one. Go ahead. I'll wait.

    It's pretty simple, Dave.
    Renaming a truth chamber an "echo chamber" doesn't make it so.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Best Post Ever Best Post Ever x 1
    • List
  4. Jim Tucker

    Jim Tucker Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    200
    Not sure what your problem is with Dave but it is obviously personal and has no place here. Axe grinding is not allowed and not tolerated. You have crossed the line from attacking the issue to attacking a forum member which is not allowed. Keep on topic and stop the insults. You discredit those on your side of the issue.
     
  5. FactorFiction

    FactorFiction Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2016
    Messages:
    473
    Likes Received:
    166
    It's interesting that people interpret questions to Mr. Rauschkolb as a personal attack. Since he is both the self and publicly proclaimed leader of the customary use "fight", he is the logical person to answer questions and/or refute the facts presented here. The buck often stops with leaders of an organization and they are typically the ones to speak for said organization. Is asking him to address questions unreasonable?

    If, on the other hand, those who are clearly on the CU side of the issues simply don't want to hear anything from the other side, just say so or ignore the posts. If SOWAL doesn't want to hear from property rights people on this site, then say that. If this is an open forum, then maybe if we all open our minds a bit, maybe, just maybe, we can learn something from each other. People on both sides deserve respect. It's just not that hard.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Wish I'd Said That Wish I'd Said That x 1
    • List
  6. Jim Tucker

    Jim Tucker Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    200
    Calling someone out in an aggressive way on the internet is like standing in their front yard and yelling for them to come outside. Would you do that? Probably would be more polite and productive face to face.
     
  7. Dave Rauschkolb

    Dave Rauschkolb Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    629
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach
    As they hide in the shadows behind their anonymous identities. It’s really kind of hard to take any of these people seriously if they’re not willing to speak as themselves. I take responsibility for every word and action I say and do. I never even thought for a second to represent anyone but myself when I got on this forum so many years ago.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2019
  8. FloridaBeachBum

    FloridaBeachBum Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    92
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach
    Are you referring to Lake View Too, bob bob, poppaj, Dawn, EZ4144, MRBS, Duchess, Jenksy, L.C. Bane, mputnal, buster, Leader of the Banned, Emerald Drifter, ShallowsNole, or jodiFL on this thread? How do you know Jim Tucker, James Bentwood, Pam Hicks are not pseudonyms? They are not in the Walton tax rolls used to look up Reggie Gaskins
    Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

    Besides who would want to subject themselves to the CU anti-social media vitriol like with James Linch and many others and staged beach altercations like at Vizcaya and other private properties?
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2019
  9. FloridaBeachBum

    FloridaBeachBum Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    92
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach
    The point of Auburn Fan post IMO is about CREDIBILITY. In an open forum if someone posts a fact, opinion, or belief shouldn’t the open forum members be able to discuss the post and person’s point and credibility and why? Shouldn’t the person who posted the original opinion be accountable for the post if questioned and name be used too if someone disagrees and explains why?

    Because you ally with the original post-er and do not agree with the someone questioning the original post by the post-er; that raises to the level of “axe grinding” and “attacking” and should be censored? There has been far worse attacking property rights advocates on this thread alone.

    Auburn Fan questioned the post-er's analogy and credibility of the original post [Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy] and why, and went on to express that developer over-development and Walton Commissioners complicity allowing it was the counter point.

    If someone makes a public statement like; “I personally am a beachfront owner in Seaside with my restaurant” and posts it in the public domain; but is NOT a beachfront owner, why shouldn’t that person’s credibility be challenged and name used so we know who is being questioned and they can respond to the challenge if they so choose?

    Questioning credibility of the posts and those who post here should not be censored. If you are questioning how the credibility of a post is made? Heck some people claim it is common to call people Nazis all the time and they should just laugh it off.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2019
  10. Bob Wells

    Bob Wells Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,897
    Likes Received:
    710
    Mine is my real name. I have said what I believe in a respectful manner. I do understand why some use pseudonyms but at the same time I think part of the problem with hiding behind one is you are personally NOT ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR WORDS. I could say and do some outrageous things behind a mask. I may not be as polite behind a screen name and I think that is part of the issue here. Just my opinion.
     
  11. FloridaBeachBum

    FloridaBeachBum Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    92
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach
    Bob, do you really understand? Have you seen the vitriol and the intentional altercations that the beachfront owners the Goodwins have endured? The Goodwins even prevailed in court to protect their property rights. If you believe all the lies about Huckabee I have beachfront for $400 to sell you. Have you read the anti-social media and misinformation about beachfront property owners?

    I'll say it again why would any beachfront property owner want to be subjected lies and anti-social media just because they own private beach property? I'm one of the 650+ owners intervening in Walton's CU of private property litigation.

    I think your point is well taken for CU of private property advocates who do not have any real-property skin in the game and support of the social media masses.

    GUEST COLUMN: Walton County couple speaks up for property owners' First Amendment rights
    First Amendment & Property Rights Violation in Florida -- Forbes Article | National Review
    Countering Public Officials Who Respect Neither Free Speech Nor Property Rights
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2019
  12. bob bob

    bob bob Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2017
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    69
    Location:
    SRB
    So scary you are. Keep up the great research. :rolleyes:
    There sure are a lot of silent accounts since gaskins was banned. Hmmmmm :banned:
    #sockpuppets
     
  13. Bob Wells

    Bob Wells Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,897
    Likes Received:
    710
    And because I expressed my view under my own name we have deflected as to why some on both sides won't put their name to something. Kind of hard to own your words when we won't put our name on them. You brought up the Goodwins, who I have met and have respect for. Although I may disagree with them I won't trash them for their views. The arguements here have not changed my mind and I have made clear that the courts will decide the issue. I believe because of the screen names it is easier to be inhospitable than being friendly. Although not a fan of Mr Lince he at least owns his words because if I am correct he uses his real name, I can respectfully disagree with him.
     
  14. FloridaBeachBum

    FloridaBeachBum Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    92
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach
    You are one of the very few exceptions on-line of advocates for public customary use of private property who are respectful. Thank you Bob Wells.

    I'd still be interested in a civil discourse somewhere else on what basis; legal, just believe it, or other, you advocate for public customary use of private property.
     
  15. Reggie Gaskins

    Reggie Gaskins Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Blue Mountain Beach
    Dave, your online posturing is great for the masses. Those that think for themselves understand the manipulation involved in your masked and feigned worry about identities. FBFA and Divisioning followers attack persons into shadows by contacting their employers, customers, neighbors, and family to torch their personal life. It’s happened now a dozen times. Reggie is a perfect example. You couldn’t argue with his logic. You couldn’t embarrass him in his home. So y’all silenced the most prolific poster of Sowal by banning his truth from the very page that Sowal collects ad revenue increase from by his hand. Brilliant display of honest conversation. Not very much. Let us in the community know when you’re ready to have a conversation to support your CU ideas withOUT diversions of irrelevance as you’ve repeated here. Come with facts please.

    I've personally known Reggie for years and he's not James Lince.
    If you knew him personally like I do, you would truly ashamed for a banning him! Reggie is as upstanding as they come.

    P.S.
    And by the way, if anyone wants to refute Dave on is 10 to 12 people number, remind him he predicted only 30 owners would defend the lawsuit against them. When in fact there are well over 1000 individual homeowners defending their property against the attack by the county. So his predictive power leaves a little bit to be desired based on his historical performance.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 5, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  16. BeachSandpiper

    BeachSandpiper Beach Comber

    Joined:
    May 3, 2019
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    South Walton
    Ok, so I am new to this forum and how it works. I don't understand why Gaskins was banned for stating his opinions like everyone else on this thread. And I really don't understand why there is a problem with anonymous names since the majority of people seem to use them. Can someone please tell me what Gaskins did to qualify for banning? Alot of people here have bashed others, called people names, but yet they are still here commenting. Do you have to be in a special group to have protection from being banned? Just asking so I know if this is really a forum for me. PS I may not comment, but I do read the thread. So just because people are silent, it doesn't mean we aren't here reading and learning from the discussion.
     
  17. Dave Rauschkolb

    Dave Rauschkolb Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    629
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach

    It is absolutely ridiculous for anyone to assert or imply that any of the vitriol directed at any beachfront owner is coming from me or the board members of FBFA. To imply that you people are hiding behind pseudonyms because you’re worried about something that I am doing or may do is outrageous. The conspiracy theories abound here and elsewhere. I do not lie nor do I tolerate liars. To imply that we are staging conflicts is also ludicrous. I can't control any person who verbally attacks Beachfront Owners in any social media platform, forum or on the beach. And Fishing Fool, or whatever your name is, I have had zero to do with anyone being banned in the 18 years I have been on this forum.

    My position is of what most people's opinion is on this issue and that is to say the beaches are public use and they always have been regardless of "owned sand." The volumes of conjecture and analysis is impressive on this forum to dispute that but in the end our beaches will be public use or they will not. Two differing opinions; it distills down to that one issue.

    I choose not to engage with anonymous people who attack me because I prefer to give all of you the least amount of material you will invariably use to try to twist and turn against me and our efforts. I operate in the realm of respect. Those who disrespect me get very little response or respect in return; I don't resort to nastiness I just turn my back to you and focus my good energies on the task at hand.

    One thing I will tell you all. We will not be intimidated by anyone and we will continue our efforts to ensure the beachgoing public may use every grain of sand on our beaches. We will continue to educate anyone and everyone willing to hear the story of what has brought us to this travesty playing out daily on our beaches. By Judge or by a vote of Floridians we will see this through to the public's shared use of the sand for all. And this goes way, way beyond me and our community. Leaders are being woken up to this all over our Nation. For Beach Front Owners to have the audacity to claim any of our shared, Nation's beach borders are private and may exclude the public is simply wrong on too many levels to count.

    Every word I have written in numerous published articles I stand by. My positions are clear and there for all to see in my own hand and in my own name. Property values near the beaches are higher because of their close proximity to the beach. Beachfront owners pay for the view and convenience of having the water steps from their homes. Homes closer but not on the beach have little less value because of the convenience of having the water and beach a short walk from their homes. Homes that require a short drive are less valuable for that reason and homes that require a longer drive are worth less. So, values both quality of life and financial values are tied directly to the shared beach and those homes closest to the beach. Shared is the operative word and beach is THE place that determines value on all levels. That is to say balance and shared value for all. Beachfront owners have the advantage of view and the closest proximity. So, if the real issue is behavior let's work together to reign in the behavior, set some rules and begin sharing the beaches again; all of the beaches again from dune line to water line. If that is the compromise then that is the only compromise I can see. Fix the behavior and share the beaches. I am full of ideas. But once you start talking property rights and applying them to a beach and excluding people from that beach you have lost me. Any takers?
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2019
  18. Auburn Fan

    Auburn Fan Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Auburn
    Reggie was banned?!!!!???

    Does he even know?

    How did you and Lakeview Two find out?

    Why was he banned?

    What rule did he break?

    Surely that was not an easy decision for the administrators to make, considering the thousands of extra views he could have brought in over the years, views are necessary to attract the advertisers.
     
  19. Auburn Fan

    Auburn Fan Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Auburn
    "The handful of influential beachfront owners stopping beach nourishment was the beginning of the end of customary use. This was the first step in their plan to deny us the use of our beaches."
    Dave Rauschkolb June 5, 2019


    "I've made a good argument against re-nourisment in the Sun, it's a waste of time and money and in the end our beaches will never be the same" -
    David Rauschkolb May 7, 2015

    "I wholeheartedly agree Dr. Leatherman!!"
    Dave Rauschkolb May 7, 2015


    Direct quotes from Dr. Leatherman's study:

    The irony in this misguided Walton County project is that under the guise of strengthening, widening or nourishing area beaches, this plan would have the actual effect of eroding its spectacular beauty, timeless appeal and inherent economic value.

    My findings lead to the conclusion that the project is misguided, counterproductive and harmful to the matchless nature of the sugar-white sand that makes these beaches so outstanding.”

    It is my professional opinion that the nourishment project would be harmful to Walton County’s most alluring resource – its magnificent beaches.”
     
  20. Dave Rauschkolb

    Dave Rauschkolb Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    629
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach

    My beliefs on beach nourishment is well documented and my reasons were that the sand quality would not be the same and for the environment and I did not think it works. The plan played out by beachfront owners had everything to do with securing private beaches. I never imagined they would ever succeed. And stopping beach nourishment WAS indeed the first step in their plan to deny the use of our beaches. There I said it again and I will say it again if you wish. Happy to connect the dots all they way to the beginning.
     

Share This Page