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.
Now that I've seen the video on Facebook, all I can say is how juvenile it is. Poor guy just wants attention for his business and is pissed off that the entire 26 miles of beach is not his oyster (business wise).
And to Teresa's credit, I see where she asks him to remove it but he obviously hasn't.
I understand Dave R not condemning his friend regarding the Nazi card. It does nothing to further the CU cause. But has Dave R refused to outright condemn this video? Please fill me in. Was it also posted on other pro-CU Facebook pages?
Added...BTW the original Chuck Norris was much funnier as it didn't "attack" a group of people for their belief in defending private property rights - only that the "victims" were a little klutzy (actually a bit funny after you look at it from that point of view):
This is not to excuse the other video regarding the heated debate of customary use!!!!!!
And to Teresa's credit, I see where she asks him to remove it but he obviously hasn't.
I understand Dave R not condemning his friend regarding the Nazi card. It does nothing to further the CU cause. But has Dave R refused to outright condemn this video? Please fill me in. Was it also posted on other pro-CU Facebook pages?
Added...BTW the original Chuck Norris was much funnier as it didn't "attack" a group of people for their belief in defending private property rights - only that the "victims" were a little klutzy (actually a bit funny after you look at it from that point of view):
This is not to excuse the other video regarding the heated debate of customary use!!!!!!
Last edited:
Diversion, rhetoric, and silly ditty is your responses? Can you describe how any legal criteria of customary use applies to private property? Why would any beachfront owner identify themselves so Ulhfelder and others can pick a fight and taunt law enforcement on anti-social media?
Last edited by a moderator:
I was going to ask you if the BCC will have to foot the legal bills of the BFOs should the County ultimately lose this battle when I saw the $757,747 amount you mentioned. Then I re-read the above bolded statement and found the answer. I wonder how many people out there know this small but potentially VERY EXPENSIVE fact.
I don't hear too much about this aspect although I thought that to be the case in the beginning.
Yep, I can hear the conversation of a real estate agent and a potential buyer of private beach front property a few years down the road, "And don't forget you might receive several thousands of dollars from the county if the CU is shot down in the courts." Just another selling point. Agents are always looking for ways to entice buyers.
So if the county loses, does Daniel Uhlfelder's client also get their money back that they paid him? Will they have to share part of that with Mr. Uhlfelder? Interesting and complicated.
Never mind! Dave R never disappoints. Gosh, this is getting pathetic.
Dave, this is a serious question. Do you drink at night when you post?
You've got to love South Walton's political activists. They're kind of like the Bernie Sanders and AOCs of North Florida.
Nope, It's pretty clear this young man is trying to advance his business somehow through his bizarre posts. I don't see what he hopes to accomplish by posting this stuff. He is operating on his own and does not seem to listen to anyone.
Dave, would like a serious discussion of the old English law of customary use you and the commissioners base your positions on? So far I agree it’s been a circular discussion, many ask for facts, no one offers any facts or even verifiable opinions; more distraction about aliases and “alternative” facts (that I still do not understand the definition of, you have to have facts to be an alternative to), and legally meaningless partisan polls.
Or how about what facts do you base your public position that beachfront property owners took public beachfront property by filing a $400 quiet title form? I offered facts about that. So far you nor anyone else have disputed or offered alternative facts.
Want to discuss if Vizcaya private beachfront was EVER "public" beach property? Facts here > Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
That's C.G.'s factual legally based Vizcaya slide at the FBFA meeting isn't it?
I answered your question “How exactly does that translate into a beachfront owner? Waiting for your answer.” Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
What would be your response had a beachfront owner produced a video like that? What do you think the CU social media would be like had a beachfront owner produced that video?
So far you’ve distanced yourself and the CU cause by, it’s in “poor taste”, jokes about who the shooter is (like that matters), that it is bizarre; but you have not disavowed the video for it’s message of violence, rhetorical or not. Why have you not is disavowed this C.G. video in public where the video is posted? You are quick to file a police report on an anonymous blogger that you admitted to police you felt threatened by but not a FB active shooter video you know who produced it?
I hope you take the opportunity in an open forum to answer questions that have been posted and to clear the air.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm a little confused by all of this. I read that H.B. 631 established the procedure for adopting a customary use ordinance. Part of that procedure is going to court to affirm cu. That's whats happening. It's now in the hands of the courts. What's the issue? What is this converastion on Sowal suppose to achieve?
The prior ordinance sunsetted with H.B. 631 appearing to single out Walton County based on the dates it spelled out. I don't see how that can be disputed.
The prior ordinance sunsetted with H.B. 631 appearing to single out Walton County based on the dates it spelled out. I don't see how that can be disputed.