Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

As of today the property owner would determine the price of admission which means the State of Florida would determine admission price for State Parks and Walton County would be responsible for admission policy for Regional Beaches. Until Judge Green makes a ruling that private property rights are not valid for beach property owners then private property owners determine if guests are welcomed at no cost (and how many), or as part of a package if they also rent the home, or some other type of arrangement.

 

Mputnal #934 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
“The truth of the matter is that many beach front property owners [A] built structures that block the view of a natural resource that everyone has a right to whether it is with the sense of human sight or touch. [C] Our legal system allowed you do block the views and possibly damage that resource for the rest of us [D] so you now have the "opportunity" to relax your legal right to keep people off your property.

1. Would you agree that the American Rule of Law protects American individual Liberties?

All property is “owned”. Either by private citizens/legal-entities or the Government. What is a “natural resource” property? Amber waves of grain of the Heartlands? Purple mountains majesties of the Rockies? Stark beauty of the Deserts? Just the white quartz sand beaches of Walton County?

[A] BFOs obtain/bought for fair market value the legal rights in title and “built structures” legally. Legally, property owners have the right to build in the space above the land but Walton Commissioners have used their police powers to limit that to 50 feet. But the Commissioners have not legal authority to determine WHO can use private property.

There is NO unalienable public right to anything on private property much less “a right to ... human sight or touch.” American property law does not distinguish between natural and not natural land resources. That seems to me to be a philosophical emotional desire for a “human right” to be Happy but it is not an American or Constitutional public “right” that is superior to American individual property rights, Liberty or Happiness. See 1. above.

[C] Then change the legal system that “allowed” whatever you and others have a sense of entitlement about. It’s not the opinion of the governments or courts that public views are illegally blocked or is superior to private property rights or that a “resource for the rest of us” was possibly damaged. Or can you provide some alternative facts?

[D] Yes, American private property owners have the right to private enjoyment and use or the right to share property with invited or “licensed” guests or not. That does not make BFOs criminals, “anti-human”, or even bad people for expecting others to respect their American private property rights FIRST, or if not, enforcing their legal property rights. It’s the, public customary use of private property, sense-of-entitlement CU agenda perpetuated by Commissioners, surfer dudes, and activist attorneys and the CU credibility and tactics that you and others should be questioning; not BFOs “opportunity” to do the “correct thing for humanity”. Respect and accept private property rights FIRST. BFOs are defendants with all legal property rights with NOTHING to prove or compromise.

Maybe discuss your philosophical “competing truths” next; “It seems like we have two competing truths in terms of "rights". Human rights versus Legal rights.

 

FBB that is a lot to digest so let me just ask you one question: Are you willing to compromise at all?

 

Show us where the constitution states property rights disputes can not be settled in a court of law.

 

Compromise? Why don't you ask the Commissioners and CU believers that?
What is there for me and BFOs to compromise? BFOs have legal title to what you want - 50% of the dry beach.
Commissioners and CU believers can't even define or describe the historical archaic English common law custom criteria.
BFOs are defendants with all legal property rights they have had for the past 243 years and today with NOTHING to prove or compromise. Commissioners have the burden of proof.

Do you mean, am I and BFOs willing discuss voluntarily sharing our private property like BFOs have in previous decades?
In general discussions and negotiations have to begin with trust and respect. Declaration of CU April 1, 2017 without due process and CU litigation of 1,193 parcels and 4,671 BFOs after July 1, 2018 is not how to approach "compromise".
Given the BFO mistrust of past and present Commissioners; I would not expect meaningful private property sharing discussions or a support of CU believers.

Discuss sharing? Maybe; IF Commissioners and CU believers FIRST respect and accept private property rights and BFOs private enjoyment of their property, if BFOs so choose. And if the Goodwins and Mike Huckabee agree to participate and the discussions are binding.
Only then can Commissioners and and the 50+% of the 4,671 BFOs discuss HOW to voluntarily share private property; but forcing BFOs to share - you will "have lost me." and the other BFOs.

The Commissioners since 2007 to 2015 to today have taken us all down a legal road of no return and painted themselves into a CU corner and I don't expect them or FBFA to do a 180 now.
So what is there for BFOs to compromise? What if BFOs prevail in court? Commissioners have to make the next move not BFOs.

 

This is the most depressing post I have seen on this forum in 16 years since it started.

All I can say is what I have tried to teach my son. Being kind is often more important than being right.

 

FBB I really do understand why you are so upset and determined to be a voice for your fellow BFO's. You have been hurt by the name calling, lack of facts (that support your perspective) and finally the local government who you feel threw all BFO's under the bus. It seems you are in a highly reactive state and as much as I would like not to admit I can relate. When I first read your posts I sense that reactive behavior and I understand why but I did see a glimpse of will to compromise. I learned a lot from my Grandmother when I was a kid. One of her sayings was "if there is a will there is a way". Yes everyone will have to compromise to settle conflicts but we all must have the will. I believe there is enough leadership in the BCC that understand the power of compromise AND the complete waste of money from a lawsuit that has some potential for settlement. You are correct in my question about sharing the beach. I believe it to be in your best interest (I of course am not always right) to make a list of terms of settlement and submit it to the BCC (not their lawyers). At least that would be a starting point. Why do I believe it to be in your best interest you think? I am in my 60's and I have had my share of "being right". Being right never gave me peace and happiness especially when it hurts someone else. Listening, sharing and compromising gives me 100% more peace and happiness even when the other side hurts me! I now realize that normal people say bad things when they feel hurt. Our emotional part of being human does not care much about facts. Of course people can also be hypocrites and I agree with you that it bothers the heck out of me. They are upset by people telling them to move when they were not doing anything disrespectful. So maybe try to understand that most people are upset by all the fences, signs, chains and complete blocking of a view of the water by your buildings. They are upset because our economic structure is not fair and they will never own the beautiful views such as you do. My Grandmother taught me to put myself in someone's place and you will understand the question of "why do people say bad things sometimes". I am still learning how to do that. Anyway if there is any chance for peace and happiness in this community it will be born out of compromise and not being right. IMHO of course.

 

Thanks. Your assessment of my "highly reactive" state, unsure what you base that on, is your own. I understand your philosophical “humanity” belief but that is another post. Why have you not asked CU believers about "compromise"?

As I've previously posted you and others need not worry about my “emotional” well being or portraying me as something I'm not. I present credible facts many do not want to hear. I ask questions many do not want to answer. That does not make me any more "highly reactive" or emotional than the vocal CU believers with no facts or answers - but I just believe - without regards to the facts and reality of today. Would you label CU believers posts (name calling etc) “highly reactive”?

At least I can say on what credible factual, not emotional, basis I take a position. Highly reactive is when you make false statements and perpetuate misinformation even when credible information is presented to the contrary. Facts are facts. I represent only my positions; but, I' do not think I am unique in my positions or 650+ BF parcels owners would not be intervening against the Commissioners CU litigation. I’m just willing, and a “handful” of others too, to take the time to present some facts and counter the CU misinformation repeated over and over again.

Perhaps you should be more worried about depressed Mike Jones, Bob Wells, surfer dudes, the SoWal CU posse here more than me and BFOs; (caution opinion next) who are under the illusion that the American laws and Constitution is whatever they think it is or should be and the light of credible facts show something else. I invite anyone to pick a previous CU position taken and support it with credible facts - not opinions.

Go back and read Mike Jones’ and Emerald Drifter’s post just in this thread and the CU believers past posts just in the past 60 days ........... now put yourself in my and the BFOs shoes. #11 What if we focused on solving the problem, instead of wasting time and money on a lost CU cause?

I teach my kids to respect others, respect the law and law enforcement, to stand up for your rights, don’t be taken advantage of, know the facts before you act, and be kind.

Do you think BFOs are unkind and why? Mike Jones or Bob Wells, do you think the Commissioners and the CU SoWal forum, social media masses have been "kind" to BFOs because they stand up for their individual lawful property rights?

I, and most BFOs, want respect for our property rights and justice, that’s not “highly reactive”, that's part of the United States Declaration of Independence expressed as an individual's "unalienable Rights" to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I do not need to react in-kind to the CU assaults and have not - a definition of a thick skin. What’s not kind about that? Namaste.

 

How did you come to that in-credible conclusion from that post? Property rights disputes can ONLY be settled in a court of law or by agreement of the parties.

 

FBB was I wrong about my "sense that you are willing to compromise"? You have made your statement of facts. I do not disagree with your facts. I believe the BCC would step up and listen to a settlement. Those CU activists only have power in numbers. They have greater numbers. It would be in your best interest to settle this lawsuit now. Even if you win the lawsuit it may not be a satisfying win filled with the quite peace that you deserve and supported by all facts that you have listed. Think about the next part of life on your private beach. I feel like there may be more to life than winning this lawsuit. All we can do in this life is make an effort to be as fair and respectful to other humans as possible. If you lose the lawsuit and disrespectful people invade your beach then would it not be a good thing to know that you have a good relationship with local government and decent, respectful and observant beach goers? The community part of this is all I am interested in. People with differing perspectives able to find a way to compromise principle and ideals.

 

Interesting comment considering that Dave Rauschkolb and Daniel Uhlfelder (and other CU folks) preach NO COMPROMISE. And when I throw in a viable compromise for the public to access the lightly used part of private beaches (back), I’m branded as a white supremist by Dave Rauschkolb on this thread. CU proponents are not interested in any compromise - no question about that.

 

Correct, so save all your constitutional bloviating for the courtroom.

 

You can always switch channels to MSNBC if you don’t like what you see here. Nobody forcing to you read and comprehend the facts presented by FBB. You sure as hell aren’t challenging any of them with anything credible.

 

It’s because unlike you I’m not a keyboard attorney. You are trying to argue a legal defense in the court of public opinion while I am willing to wait for an actual court. Keep playing Perry Mason if it amuses you.

 

It’s called staying informed with facts, unlike what you’ll find on CU Facebook pages and websites. I’m very grateful that people like FBB take the time to post information and present the “other side” with those facts. Too many CU advocates take personal offense with this information simply because these facts are not what they want to hear.

 

October 27, 1964 - 55 years ago. Before political office, actor Ronald Reagan, 30 minute speech "A Time for Choosing".[1]
"Someplace a perversion has taken place. Our [individual] natural unalienable rights are now presumed to be a dispensation of government, divisible by a vote of the majority. The greatest good for the greatest number is a high-sounding phrase but contrary to the very basis of our nation, unless it is accompanied by recognition that we have certain rights which cannot be infringed upon, even if the individual stands outvoted by all of his fellow citizens. Without this recognition, majority rule is nothing more than mob rule.

It is time we realized that socialism can come without overt seizure of [private] property or nationalization of private business. It matters little that you hold the title to your property or business if government can dictate policy and procedure and holds life and death power over your business." Page 780, 25. http://cdn.constitutionreader.com/files/pdf/constitution/ch123.pdf

[1] "The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing ... You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream—the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order - or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism." Page 774, 24.

"But any time we question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goal. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help those less fortunate. They tell us we are always against, never for anything. Well, it isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so." Page 777, 15.

The full text of that address is as relevant today as it was in 1964.
A Time for Choosing - Wikipedia

When questioned "A Time for Choosing" by Ronald Reagan - YouTube
Unalienable rights "A Time for Choosing" by Ronald Reagan - YouTube

 

Can anyone please provide a spoiler on what "Customary Use-Revisited" being held on Wednesday evening July 10th from 6-8pm at the Coastal Branch Library will be about?

I can’t figure out what there is to “revisit” unless more CUers now see it’s not so black and white like maybe they thought (mislead with all the mistruths). Perhaps another tactic will be thrown out?

 

Afraid facts might not be there?

 

Received info on the July 10 meeting stating that attendees would be updated on litigation in connection with customary use. It is sponsored by the Walton County Democratic Women's Club, and one of the members will be serving as moderator. Was unable to get further info on who else will be speaking. One of the members posted today that they are planning to record and provide closed captioning of the meeting.