Discussion in 'Local Government and Groups' started by Reggie Gaskins, Apr 25, 2019.
You would think some national groups like ACLU or surf rider would step up.
Could it be this is a rhetorical question and Walton County isn’t footing the bill for the entire nation?
I always like to use the words people use and go from there. I suppose it goes to intent, what the intent was versus what folks think it was. In the end the Senator says it must be brought before the Courts. The Governor, imo, seemed to regret signing the bill but of course with his history of close races for Governor, my opinion was he was hedging his bets to ensure he was able to defeat Senator Nelson. Just my take, you are more than welcome to disagree.
I would like to define two terms.
1. Ancient Customary Use as related to Walton County Florida - Defined as the right to transverse the coastline, swim, fish, take family photos on the entire 26 miles of 30A coastline and the right to use beach equipment on County Property (during approved hours) or State Property (with a permit) or Private Property (if no objection by the Private Property Owner).
2. Entitlement Use as related to Walton County – Defined as the rights of tourists, or locals, to use chairs, umbrellas, and other beach equipment against the will of the Property Owner (AKA Day Camping).
Note that Property Owner in item #2 could be the County (use of Public beach or parking outside of posted hours), or the State of Florida (use of State Parks without a permit or against the rules of the park), or Private Property Owners (use of property against the will of the owner). This is not about sharing County, State, or Private Property with tourists or locals. Item #2 is about use of property AGAINST the will of the property owner.
The issue of the County lawsuit is all about item #2 (Entitlement Use) and nothing about item #1 (Ancient CU). If Entitlement Use is dropped from the County Ordinance, then there is no lawsuit because there is not violation of private property rights.
The BCC has never approved, or even assumed, an Entitlement Use Ordinances prior to 2016, so this is a very recent issue by the BCC.
Even previous law enforcement agencies did not assume Entitlement use existed. In July of 2002 Mark Austin used a public access walkover to get to a stretch of Dune Allen beach and the property owner at the time, William Houser, objected to Austin's presence on "his" private property called police, who gave Austin a summons for trespassing. Although the current Sherriff has decided he is temporarily not going to enforce trespassing laws while this is in court, that doesn’t mean the private property deeded boundaries have changed or that somehow Entitlement Use is approved.
Two of the current BCC members were not on the board that decided to try and remove constitutional property rights (right of exclusion) and the BCC may have been acting with assumptions that only a few property owners would object. I am asking for Bill Chapman, Danny Glidewell, Melanie Nipper, Trey Nick, and Tony Anderson to take a new Vote to determine if they should proceed with Entitlement Use or even Vote on a budget for how much public funds to use sue Private Property Owners for Entitlement Rights? How about a Vote to alter the language of the Ordinance which could save us MILLIONS OF DOLLARS by inserting the words "WITH PERMISSION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER" to the beach ordinance referencing private property. That would potentially resolve this issue and then property owners can decided on a parcel by parcel basis if they open up their property on an unlimited basis without restriction, during particular hours, or even with some type of maximum limit on the number of tourists on their property. As far as I can tell through BCC minutes and other postings this was never discussed or even asked of the property owners. Why jump straight to a lawsuit that has already exceeded a combined expense over $1MM and has nearly 900 court documents already filed without even trying to work out something?
Are the FBFA founders, their companies, or people associated with FBFA receiving some of the funds they raised through T-Shirt sales, donations, and Go-Fund Me accounts or are they 100% volunteer organization with no paid compensation? If they are receiving any compensation then that could be seen as a personal advantage to those individuals to keep this in court as long as possible no matter what it costs in tax payers dollars. The FBFA has indicated this could be in court for 10 years and cost $50 Million Dollars, and that could be a conservative estimate. That could explain the FBFA "No Compromise" rally cry.
How we end up working together, or continuing to work against each other to create further division in Walton County on this very issue will impact our future and the 30A Legacy.
Bob, not clear what your intent or point was. “You remember when Governor Scott did this (this what? E-O 18-202?) and what Senator Passidomo had to say?” (say about E-O? or HB631?). Additional comment below. 
Regardless. If you read the words of the E-O and FS163.035 (HB631) and don’t read anything into the HB631 words, that you want to hear, or don’t want to hear, it seems clear what the intent of HB631 was. To codify Constitutional 5th and 14th Amendment due process private property rights . To prevent any other politically elected FL commissioners from doing what no other FL county had done before, and what Walton commissioners stupidly did, by trying to circumvent a Constitutional taking. 
The E-O intent affirmed and clarified public access to Government owned beaches; because all the other FL beaches are protected by the Constitutional due process and private property right of fair market compensation if governments want to take private property for pubic use. 
I don’t think the Governor regretted codifying the legal due-process Constitutional right that private property owners deserve. 
You are welcome to disagree as well but would you explain why if you do?
 When asked to clarify your question; “I suppose it goes to intent (who’s), what the intent (which? E-O or HB631?) was versus what folks think it (E-O? or HB631?) was.” Seem to be confounding the Scott’s E-O and Passadomo’s HB631 and unsure what your point was.
 By hiring $425/hour legal consultants to tell Commissioners what they wanted to hear, not listen to the 3 minutes property owners and their representatives were given to object to the (legal?) customary use “evidence”, then unilaterally declare an archaic aristocratic English common law doctrine of custom on private property. Hardly Constitutional legal due process.
HB 631 correctly (1) prevents local governments from using police powers to unilaterally declare public customary use on private property and (2) placed elected government official’s legal claim of public customary use in a disciplined due-process legal setting with the government claimant as the Plaintiff with the burden of proof to show ALL historical English criteria of custom is superior to the Constitutional private property protections.
 It was a midterm election year and the progressive antisocial media went into high gear but against all odds the conservative Republican Senate candidate prevailed over a career incumbent Democratic politician. If no one substitute “all” beaches for “public beaches”; you don’t have to be an trained attorney to understand the words of the E-O. What was the intent of the E-O? Does it matter? The E-O is not law and can’t change law (FS163.035). It was as confusing as you wanted to make the E-O out to be; especially if you didn’t understand the words or wanted to incite the masses to fit a CU agenda.
 Granted the E-O didn’t not change what already was; the public should have access to all public beaches and HB631 did not change that either. The E-O nor HB 631 change the property title or the Walton Constitution private property rights BFOs have had since 1776 and have today.
 Key 2018 Governor Executive Order statements (of fact);
“Florida Constitution provides that the title to [all 825 miles of foreshore] beaches below the mean high water line is held by the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, in trust for all the people”
“HB 631 as enacted by the Florida Legislature does not privatize or close access to any public beach in Florida”
“it is critical that there be no room for confusion regarding access to public beaches in Florida”
“all agencies headed by an official ... not to adopt any rule restricting public access to any Florida beach that has an established recreational customary use” [Did not and does not include private owned beachfront in 33 other FL coastal counties (67 total FL counties).]
FDEP and Parks “ensure that access to Florida's public beaches is not restricted so that families and visitors can continue to enjoy our world-class public beaches”
“I hereby urge all ... county and municipal governments, to refrain from adopting any ordinance or rule that would restrict or eliminate access to Florida's public beaches.”
“I hereby urge all State Attorneys ... to take appropriate actions to ensure that the ability of the public to access Florida's public beaches”
Suppose I am giving you my opinion, like everyone else. I have come to a conclusion just because you have a certain belief it is not incumbent upon me to believe that way too. At the same time, expression of my opinion is not my intent to sway you from yours. I have not laid out a legal precedent to inform anyone as you have, ad nauseam, and as I have said, I am more than willing to wait for the courts to rule. I will be more than willing to accept its verdict even though I won't pretend it will be over, whichever way Judge Green rules. So to conclude this, I believe that customary use exist, I believe it will cost money to prove it, I believe my tax dollars will be used to litigate it, I think it sucks that there is a division within our community. Just my opinion.
I believe that we are stuck in idealism which is mired in political agenda. Teresa I hear you but disagree with you. Again. Not even our Supreme Court is removed from politics. Take the politics out and we are left with what do you want and are you willing to compromise. I can feel the response from both sides: "I want to be right!" Divisiveness is built into a two party political system and agenda will always be a factor . Emotion is a big part of human behavior and will always be a factor. So, here we are trying to solve problems with agenda and emotion. The more ideal and political we are, the less unity we will have in our communities. I hear both sides of this issue and understand why both sides believe they are right but I am certain that the 30A Legacy suffers when we lose our ability to compromise. It would be all peaches and cream if the court was quick to decide the issue and the side that loses "accepts" the court decision but we have become a society that no longer accepts. Just look at our Presidential elections. So what is my point? First, we as a society have to stop letting politics divide us. Second, we have to be respectful to each other. Third, we must compromise in a democracy. If your emotion and idealism gets the best of you then you are part of the problem. If you are disrespectful then you are even a bigger part of the problem. I would like for the beaches to be open and public for all people but people do not behave and there has to be rules (government). Our local government tried to solve the problem and failed because they did not find compromise. Probably not their fault because people no longer want compromise. They just want to be right...They just want what they want and when they want it...
OK. Ditto on opinions (glad to see Rauschkolb is still reading with his "Like" of your post. Still no answers to previous simple wrong or rights questions.)
You brought up the question "You remember when Governor Scott did this and what Senator Passidomo had to say? " and Fort Myers News-Press post. Then followed up an unclear statement about the Governor's or Senator's intent.
No one has implied you or anyone else must believe anything, I gave may opinion and explained why with variable information. Like it or not, take it or leave it. At least I can explain why with factual information; not because someone on social media said it.
But if you or the Commissioners do believe in something, that will cost Walton taxpayers many millions of dollars in litigation, can you or the Commissioners explain why?
You and the Commissioners do not have to explain anything but the credibility of your belief suffers. If you explain your belief, others who have not formed a belief or opinion have more information with facts, than baseless opinions.
So far I haven't heard anything but - I just believe. Not why the old English legal doctrine of customary use is superior to Constitutionally protected property rights.
Do the Commissioners have a CU case or not? If you or the Commissioners are going to take the advise of a $425 an hour attorney; what do you think the attorney is going to say? No, Commissioners you do not have a case? He gets $425/hr to litigate CU, win or lose, and nothing if he says Commissioners have no case. Just my opinion.
We hear you but I respectfully disagree. There are some principles, many embodied in the American Constitution, that in the 1700s English subjects thought an American Revolution was worth fighting and dying for - not just go to a court over or compromise. Private property rights and due process of law are key principles of the US Founding Fathers and authors of the Constitution. Why should BFOs compromise Constitutional principles (rights) because Commissioners and social media Believe an old English legal doctrine of public customary use is superior to those Constitutional principles? "Can't we all get along" (by compromising Constitutional principles) won't change that. Just explaining why me and many BFOs believe in the Constitution. You don't have to like it, or not like it.
@Bob Wells is very thoughtful and articulate. He is like most locals and Beach lovers. We desire to enjoy the beach as we always have and respect the environment and property rights.
You and your cohort on this forum are obvious in your contemp and self righteousness. Your constant axe grinding against a couple of outspoken Customary Use activists shows your true colors. It's obvious your feelings are hurt and you are lashing out but it just makes you look bad. And cowardly.
I hear what you are saying and I respect your opinion, I respect our Constitution, I respect our Founding Fathers and the sacrifices that were made. I am not a legal scholar by any stretch of the imagination but wasn't the Constitution a compromise of principles and followed by about 26 or 27 amendments? Why are you not willing to compromise your principle? Why are people like Dave and Teresa not willing to compromise their principle? I believe all of you are respectful people but it only takes one person to use a word like "cowardly" or worse and all hell breaks loose. The politics has made our skin very thin and our words very inflammatory. When we fight for pure principle we will lose our humanity. I see both sides going down the path of ruining our 30A legacy. Both sides need to figure out if your principle is worth the loss of our humanity...I know this because I am guilty of hanging on to principle too long...
Dawn, "Cowardly"? "your contempt and self righteousness."? "axe grinding against a couple of outspoken Customary Use activists"? "feelings are hurt and you are lashing out"? " makes you look bad"?
Really? What happened to SoWal's rules, paraphrasing; Stick to the topic and don't attack the person?
I understand you and others don't like or agree with property rights positions and facts. Makes CU positions not look very credable. I understand you don't like the persons, given your posts, who have a different belief, because you're right and they are wrong. Sticks and Stones. Cast the first stone. Come to mind - again.
What have you added the the threads discourse??? Then dispute the facts with your own alternative facts. BFOs are "locals and Beach lovers". BFOs "desire to enjoy the beach as we [BFOs] always have and respect the environment and property rights [BFOs paid a premium on for the title to the MHWL and pay taxes on (not the public)."
I don't have an axe to grind against "a couple of out spoken CU activist". Just their positions against Constitutionally protected private property rights and how that will cost tax payers and BFOs many millions of dollars and get nothing but the BFO legal bills, inciting the masses on antisocial media to bully, shout-down, name call, ... anything but debate the positions with facts. Heck no one will even answer the simple Yes/No, True/False, Right/Wrong questions asked previously.
#530 Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
#539 Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
#697 Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
#710 Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
I have not called posters “Komrades”. Deispicable. "condecending and derogitory". Propaganda. "ridiculous ... ridiculous and silly." "full of it. bombardment of total and complete BS". "narcissism, anger management problems, and delusions of grandeur ... angry buffoon". "dishonest ... dishonest and disrespectful ... propaganda". "morally right ... arrogance ... bullshit ... insulting ... propaganda". There's more but I think you get the idea. Or called anyone cowards or questioned anyone's morals; “ ... is morally wrong and anti-human ...”. You have. Makes me wonder what you would or have posted on social media where there are no rules? Because how can everyone behind a closed FB page be wrong?
#493 Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
SoWal Rules. SoWal forum rules & general info
"Everyone is welcome to post on our free and open forum as long as simple rules are followed." #431 Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
"I am only concerned that you follow rules and treat people here with respect." "Please stick to attacking the topic and not the people." #635 Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
SoWal forum rules & general info
"While debating and discussion is encouraged, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks..."
"Tell us what your purpose is, what you think, why you are posting, whether you are trying to spur an action, simply inform, or start a conversation, etc. Otherwise it is considered spam."
"Resorting to personal attacks or name calling will not be tolerated."
"No community is perfect and we want to be able to discuss real issues, but without being rude or disrespectful."
"Four Agreements", written by Don Miguel Ruiz, a Toltec Indian;
BE IMPECCABLE WITH YOUR WORD
DON'T TAKE ANYTHING PERSONALLY.
DON'T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS.
ALWAYS DO YOUR BEST.
Terms Of Service
3.2 (a) Be courteous.
3.2 (b) Use respectful language.
3.2 (c) Debate, but don't attack.
So, looks like your public relations campaign ain't doing so good. Maybe it's the title of this thread that is insulting a whole community of good people...
Definitely not insulting to thousands of beach front private poperty owners.
Wow! I'm gone a few days and this thread continues to thrive! Lots of information here for those who are interested. At least they have the opportunity to research for themselves if they are open minded. If people just want info that agrees with their perspective, nothing anyone else says will matter anyway. For those of us who see both sides and are somewhat on the fence, I found it quite interesting and educational. I've researched quite a bit of the information on here to double check things and found FBB's (and some others as well) information quite credible. Thanks to those who provided reliable, unbiased sources to verify. Naturally opinions are like ********, everybody has one, so it seems I don't need to waste time on those. I must say, though that it is good to know the folks that aren't interested in facts, just their own opinions. No point in debating with them.
My point is this: clearly you started and contributed to this thread to change people’s hearts and minds (the hundreds of thousands). Do you really think you came at it the right way with your arrogance and false slogans?
@Bob Wells said to @FloridaBeachBum, “I have not laid out a legal precedent to inform anyone as you have, ad nauseam, and as I have said, I am more than willing to wait for the courts to rule.”
As much of a private property rights proponent as I’ve been here over a decade, I concede that @FloridaBeachBum is and has been a very prolific poster regarding private property rights. The vast majority of his posts are chocked full of supportive and substantiating facts that I believe must feel like kryptonite to CU advocates who have a closed mind.
And just because you’ve stated you’ll wait for the courts (over and over) to rule doesn’t give you a pass to factually challenge any of @FloridaBeachBum’s posts (or some of mine).
Even though you’d like to think you’re a step above some of the CU unfounded attacks and name calling in this thread, I don’t see you condemning any of it.
Oh yeah, developers, restauranteers, real estate organizations, etc., mostly don’t care about that things like that.
Much much better with facts than with you calling me an ahole and arrogant. BTW, I didn’t start this thread.
You were the fourth poster with glowing reviews for Reggie. Basically, a founding father. I apologized for the ahole statement.
Please add No bloviating to the rules.
Separate names with a comma.