Why don't you find out for yourself?
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.
Why don't you find out for yourself?
No sense of humor I see.
Yes, this subject is so damn serious.
This subject is extremely serious. I can set my wit and sense of humor aside when appropriate. You can sell your property when appropriate and walk away from it all if you so choose. The locals, not so much.
Honestly, do ANY of you CU people want to have any kind of a real dialogue?
Can any of you explain why Daniel Uhlfelder is representing a client against the county and against FBFA? Don't you find it a least bit curious?
Can any of you defend Daniel Uhlfelder's pulling out the Nazi card at a public town hall meeting? Obviously David R won't touch it.
Can any of you make some kind of a semi-intelligent remark in regards to if CU is knocked down because it is ruled unconstitutional (as is claimed by the recent filing I posted about), do you think the county should then negotiate with property owners adjacent to public beach accesses? Wouldn't that be the last "corrective" course possible? Or would you follow your leaders, MR. and MRS. NO COMPROMISE and possibly end up gaining nothing?
I think these are very fair and reasonable questions and I still hold out hope that some of you CU people do think and don't just react.
Can any of you explain why Daniel Uhlfelder is representing a client against the county and against FBFA? Don't you find it a least bit curious?
Can any of you defend Daniel Uhlfelder's pulling out the Nazi card at a public town hall meeting? Obviously David R won't touch it.
Can any of you make some kind of a semi-intelligent remark in regards to if CU is knocked down because it is ruled unconstitutional (as is claimed by the recent filing I posted about), do you think the county should then negotiate with property owners adjacent to public beach accesses? Wouldn't that be the last "corrective" course possible? Or would you follow your leaders, MR. and MRS. NO COMPROMISE and possibly end up gaining nothing?
I think these are very fair and reasonable questions and I still hold out hope that some of you CU people do think and don't just react.
I was having real dialogue and you wanted to make jokes and dismissed a challange which is fair and reasonable.
This is bigger than Daniel and only he can speak for himself. Why would expect anyone else to answer for him?
Why are you seeking compromise if your are so certain of the outcome?
Semi-intelligent? Really? That feeling of superiority you are embracing is your weakness.
The beach is our lifeblood and you want to put a turnaquite on it. We have nothing to lose.
CUnCourt (per the path laid out in H.B. 631).
This is bigger than Daniel and only he can speak for himself. Why would expect anyone else to answer for him?
Why are you seeking compromise if your are so certain of the outcome?
Semi-intelligent? Really? That feeling of superiority you are embracing is your weakness.
The beach is our lifeblood and you want to put a turnaquite on it. We have nothing to lose.
CUnCourt (per the path laid out in H.B. 631).
Last edited:
Another observation:
Many of the CU defendants have filed motions to sever. What this means is that each parcel must be litigated on a "case by case" basis. Of course the county is opposing this because it is much more difficult for the county to prove AND it will be significantly more expensive to do so.
So let's say for some reason that the county is able to knock down the motions to sever and proceed to treat all the parcels as one.
It would seem to me that they would be shooting themselves in the foot. And here's what I mean:
"Section 163.035, Fla. Stat., created by HB631, outlines limitations and prevents local governments from declaring Florida beaches on private property accessible to the public without the local government first obtaining a court declaration that the property meets four established criteria of customary use. The public’s recreational use of a specific piece of beach property must have been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute."
If properties like the Retreat are lumped in with all the other beach front properties and the county refuses to allow the motions to sever, then based on the above paragraph, a judge could (should IMHO) throw out the whole enchilada because it's very well documented that the Retreat, for example, has instituted interrupted use of their beach and has been in the middle of dispute (putting it mildly - actual arrests on their property many years ago).
I don't see how the county cannot allow severance and then not jeopardize their CU position.
Anybody have an idea as to what timeline is going to be used as to when "without interruption" and "free from dispute" cut-off date would be?
And if the all the beach front properties are continued lumped as one in terms of evidence and litigation, is it a winner take all situation?
Added: Of course none of this matters if the the Doctrine of Customary is found unconstitutional as it should be. Here on SoWal I brought up the idea of what the heck is "ancient, reasonable, reasonable, and free from dispute". Nobody could define it, understandably, including me. And that in and of itself makes the Doctrine of Customary Use unconstitutional IMHO among the other challenges. How can something SO VAGUE trump one of the most important rights clearly protected by the U.S. Constitution?
Many of the CU defendants have filed motions to sever. What this means is that each parcel must be litigated on a "case by case" basis. Of course the county is opposing this because it is much more difficult for the county to prove AND it will be significantly more expensive to do so.
So let's say for some reason that the county is able to knock down the motions to sever and proceed to treat all the parcels as one.
It would seem to me that they would be shooting themselves in the foot. And here's what I mean:
"Section 163.035, Fla. Stat., created by HB631, outlines limitations and prevents local governments from declaring Florida beaches on private property accessible to the public without the local government first obtaining a court declaration that the property meets four established criteria of customary use. The public’s recreational use of a specific piece of beach property must have been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute."
If properties like the Retreat are lumped in with all the other beach front properties and the county refuses to allow the motions to sever, then based on the above paragraph, a judge could (should IMHO) throw out the whole enchilada because it's very well documented that the Retreat, for example, has instituted interrupted use of their beach and has been in the middle of dispute (putting it mildly - actual arrests on their property many years ago).
I don't see how the county cannot allow severance and then not jeopardize their CU position.
Anybody have an idea as to what timeline is going to be used as to when "without interruption" and "free from dispute" cut-off date would be?
And if the all the beach front properties are continued lumped as one in terms of evidence and litigation, is it a winner take all situation?
Added: Of course none of this matters if the the Doctrine of Customary is found unconstitutional as it should be. Here on SoWal I brought up the idea of what the heck is "ancient, reasonable, reasonable, and free from dispute". Nobody could define it, understandably, including me. And that in and of itself makes the Doctrine of Customary Use unconstitutional IMHO among the other challenges. How can something SO VAGUE trump one of the most important rights clearly protected by the U.S. Constitution?
Last edited:
Because it would be nice if more beach was made public by purchasing easements / titles from targeted properties rather than pissing all this money away on lawyers. Everyone wins. Right? Truth be known, I do care about public beach access, just not off my back and the backs of my fellow private property owners just because there are so many who just simply think it should be that way.
Because "across the street" aren't "real neighbors", but actually greedy developers and realtors making astronomic profits by sending their customers to private property, ruining the ancient beach experience for the local residents, and convincing the local residents that the beach property owners are the problem.
Short term rental restriction reform is the answer for our community. But there is so much very big money against it.
Last edited:
The same reason the Muscogee Nation doesn't have access to your deeded property and you don't have access to theirs. This is the United States of America, a civil nation with a constitution. We uphold and support private property ownership. Check out the 5th amendment.
The Ancient Muscogee tribes did not originally have written laws, and they were not even nation. In fact they didn't have anything written.
Also, native Americans lived by necessity near sources of freshwater. They primarily fished rivers and bays due to the relative and practical ease and abundance compared to fighting the waves. They were not maritime-oriented. Their crude water going vessels were not very suitable for the gulf. They did not build sail boats.They did not sunbathe. My ancestors are native American and I am extremely proud of many aspects of their culture and history. But let's not try to rewrite it.
Their ancient culture didn't have written language and they did not have deeds to property ownership. You and I are citizens of the United States. We do have deeds and recognize the rights of property ownership. In fact it's one of the cornerstones of the TRUE "customary use" of lands of our nation.
The native Americans did not build a string of micro hotel/homes behind private property and attempt to conduct commerce sending hordes of their customers to enjoy someone else's private property. The native Americans didn't build restaurants and conduct commerce on the beaches. Ancient Native Americans were not commercially oriented at all.
In America, private citizens should have the right to own private property, and be protected from the tyranny of majority rule, fueled by a propaganda machine instigated by greedy developers and realtors who wish to make billions of dollars by conducting commerce using the real estate deeded to those private citizens. THAT IS SO VERY FAR FROM NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURE I cannot believe we are still even discussing this. Utterly preposterous.
Our constitutional "CUSTOM" of recognizing deeds so trumps any fabricated hollywood "custom" of ancient Indians "recreating" on a beach.
The problem with socialistic customary use is eventually you run out of other people's private beaches.
I am against forced occupation of deeded private property, both yours and mine. And you should be too, if you stop and really think about it.
If CU is upheld by the court system then why wouldn't Native Americans have a right to use/occupy ALL native lands that were taken away from them? Where was the activism to help Sitting Bull and all other tribes? If CU is the law then how do we explain the theft of Native American land including beaches? I know the answer but something to think about right? This is the reason why there is not a right and wrong side here. Both sides are right. Both sides are wrong. It is just a matter of perspective. Our history is not all good no matter what side you are on. I think both sides of this issue in Walton County need to step back from their sacred principles and ask themselves about why we assume so much privilege. We all work hard. We all deserve to enjoy the beach. Why not just do the right thing?