New posts

Dave Rauschkolb

Beach Fanatic
Jul 13, 2005
1,006
790
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.



Here you go Auburn Fan or whoever you are. My reasons were not of course to keep the beaches private, I did not think beach nourishment works. I am not a scientist though that's for sure. Would you like for me to supply all the email addresses from the email trail I copied it to? Oh, they are in the public record as most of these communications were with County Officials. Easy to connect the dots.




Seaside Times Article Winter 2014/15



By Dave Rauschkolb



You know the old adage that “you can’t sell sand on the beach” appears to be coming true right here on Walton County beaches through a proposed “beach nourishment project” The hefty price of $170,197,000 will be spread over the coming decades once every 10 years. Half the price tag of the project will be paid by the state and federal government and half will be paid by the county with bed tax revenue and loans.



This tidy package is brought to you by the hard and persistent work of several well meaning people and agencies. It’s a seemingly insurmountable task of gigantically bureaucratic proportions yet it seems it is going to happen. The questions I have are: Do we do it just because we can? And, will it REALLY make a difference in protecting our beaches and property?



I’ve spent nearly 30 years in Walton County and have not evacuated for all 30 years of hurricanes except one, hurricane “Opal”. Call me crazy but I like to surf those storms. In the thick of it I always stay in a very large concrete building not my house; I’m not that crazy.



Many times I have observed storm surges, during the lowest, middle and highest tidal surges of the storm. The power of a hurricane storm surge is incredible, terrifying really. It’s hard to imagine the entire Gulf 12 feet higher than it normally is. The average tidal surge I have observed is 6 to 12 feet. Basically, a 12 foot storm surge rises up to the height of half of the existing bluff behind Seaside. Every wave, once it reaches the bluff claws at the sandy bluff like a steam shovel.



Every storm this is what I measured: A full 12 foot storm surge takes about 8 to 10 feet of the old, hard packed bluff every 3 to 4 hours. The new sand that had been pushed up as a “cosmetic fix” after past storms washed away at this rate: 8 to 10 feet of newly planted sand was gone in first 45 minutes of the tidal surge. I was astounded at how the new sand just vaporized in a very short time.



The “Storm damage and restoration project” is planning on raising the height of the beach by pumping a 50 foot berm of sand at the bottom of the existing bluff/dunes and tapering the higher beach to a new further out waterline. New dunes will be created and a higher, larger beach will result.



After all this money is spent ONE storm with a 12 foot tidal surge of 3 to 5 hours could wash away the entire beach nourishment project. The new sand simply goes very quickly because it is not as hard packed as the old sand. To make matters worse the tidal surge rises above any new berms, dunes further accelerating the rate of erosion of the new sand. Basically the newly pumped sand will be all underwater and there is a powerful rip current that washes west to Destin and later east to Panama City after the wind shift. Unfortunately the offshore sand is a darker color than our pristine white beach sand.



The other issue is this: In most of Walton county we are blessed with a high bluff. If the bluff is 20 feet high from sea level and they add 10 feet or more of sand that will raise the beach level at the base of the bluff to a point where a 12 tidal surge will over top the edge of the bluff. If the new sand washes away quickly as I illustrated earlier it won’t be a problem but it could create a higher sand ramp for the waves that would be higher then previously without “beach nourishment”.



So, it is estimated one beach nourishment project will be necessary every 10 years. It is clear we have had years where multiple storms have impacted our beaches in only one year. Do we just keep adding more and more “nourishments”? Where will that money come from?



Here are two questions I pulled from the project website.



What will the beach look like after it is nourished?

The beach will be about 50-100 feet wider and a dune will be constructed at the landward portion of the beach. For the first month or so, the sand will look a shade darker than the native sand because it has been underwater. Once it is exposed to the sun, rain and wind, the new sand will lighten and match the color of the native sugar-white sand.


Why are we nourishing the beach when it will just wash away?

The purpose of the project is storm protection. We realize that storms will have an impact of the restored beach; however, the project will serve as the first line of defense against storm surge and waves that would lead to more damages.



The first answer is simply not true. Our sand is white quartz collected over eons it; it doesn’t bleach out; it is naturally white and consists of a special formulation of sand. It’s either the right sand or it isn’t. Sadly, Panama City’s sand has been mixed with offshore sand from nourishment projects; it is no longer as pure white sand as ours is.



The second answer just doesn’t hold water, or better stated, sand. The answer isn’t very convincing is it? The power of a hurricane storm surge is incredible and I don’t believe there is any amount of money or dredged sand on our beaches that will stop it.



Of the three restaurants I have in Seaside Bud & Alley’s is most at risk from a storm surge. I have about 20 feet of old sand bluff left behind the Gazebo and porch. I stand to lose a lot from future potential storms. Believe me, If I thought for one second that there was anything that really would protect us from a hurricane storm surge I would support it. The only thing that could be done is to build a wall from Pensacola to Panama City and then there would be no beach just like Galveston Texas. Not an option.



I would love to be comforted that beach nourishment is a solution but I just don’t believe it’s going to make much if any of a difference. The likely emphatically stated answer is “well, we have to do something Dave, don’t’ we?” Well, Do we?



I ask again, are we doing this just because we can? Will it really protect our beaches and property or are we just buying sand at the beach?
 
Last edited:

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
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.
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 [1 Can you quote what SoWal post you are referring to? Goes to credibility of this statement]. To imply that you people are hiding behind pseudonyms [2 Even Benjamin Franklin , one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution use pseudonyms. Would you tell ol Ben to go “pound sand” if he questioned your belief that the Constitution protect beachfront private property rights too? Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy] because you’re worried about something that I am doing or may do is outrageous. [3 No person or FBFA is publicly speaking out against the vitriol directed at property owners either or extolling civil discourse either.] 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. [4 Are you denying that an attorney who should know better, on at least 3 different occasions, with the intent to incite the Vizcaya property owner and have an altercation with law enforcement on social media? If so that is disingenuous at best.] I can't control any person who verbally attacks Beachfront Owners in any social media platform, forum or on the beach. [5 No person or FBFA is publicly speaking out against the vitriol directed at property owners or extolling civil discourse either.] 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 [6 we are a nation of individual rights protected by the Constitution, rule of law, and due process - not polls and opinions.] is on this issue and that is to say the beaches are public use and they always have been regardless of "owned sand." [7 Until proven in a court of law, respect the private property rights owners have had since 1776 and have today or why would the Sheriff need a trespass SOP?] 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. [8 Today it is NOT public use. Do you respect that enough to lead others to respect private property rights and speak out publically on the attacks on beachfront owners?]

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. [9 How about verifiable facts and credibility as well?]. 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. [10 Nor have I if you want to personalize the statements.]

One thing I will tell you all. We will not be intimidated by anyone [11 nor will beachfront owners of the masses who you rally support from with baseless internet misinformation] and we will continue our efforts to ensure the beach going public may use every grain of sand on our beaches [12 still legally the owners private property so you can not say the sand is “ours”. That is an untruth. Even then Walton’s claim of public use is limited to 9 activities. Ask your attorney for clarification if you are unclear.] 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. [13 As will beachfront owners shine the light of facts and truth on misinformation and unfounded beliefs]. By Judge or by a vote of Floridians we will see this through to the public's shared use of the sand for all. [14 Not if the ancient English common law doctrine of public customary use of private property is found un-Constitutional in America. Until then getting a 2020 FL Constitutional CU amendment on the ballet is unlikely and non-starter if CU is found to be un-Constitutional in America.] 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. [15 Which morality do you based that judgment? The morality embodied in the US Constitution?]

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. [16 Will SoWal become a Ghost Town or other dark economic disaster?] Beachfront owners pay for the view and convenience of having the water steps from their homes. Homes closer but not on the beach have 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 [17 response below]. That is to say balance and shared value for all. Beachfront owners have the advantage of view and the closest proximity [18 and legal title with a deed to the MHWL and all rights that you have with your private property]. So, if the real issue is behavior [19 criticism of public beach behavior may have started the discussion but beachfront owners are being litigated against their legal property tile and property rights - the Commissioners should have thought about that before litigation that you encourage ad nauseam.] 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 [20 because that is the only “compromise” you want to see. That does not include property rights so you offer no compromise.] Fix the behavior and share the beaches. I am full of ideas. [21 I have many ideas as well how. Identify publicly available pedestrian right of ways public available beaches and all the rest is private beachfront and the owner has the choice to share it or not - like it has legally been since 1776.] But once you start talking property rights and exclusion you have lost me. [22 You lost me in 2016 with your “Your Sand, is My Sand” ditty and forced public “shared” position.] Any takers?

If you have comments, used the post [number in the bracket].

[17] "Beach Spreading" which is already a symptom of the shared "Tragedy of the [Beach] Commons". Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia
No one and especially not the public takes better care of real property than an owner who has an economic interest in the property.

What is common to many is taken least care of, for all men have greater regard for what is their own than for what they possess in common with others. — Aristotle
An Introduction to The Tragedy Of The Commons

"You buy next to a cow pasture, get used to the cows. The beaches have always been SHARED and should be regardless of growth; anywhere, any beach and any community."
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

"I say if you buy a home right next to a cow pasture...well, then get used to the cows. Buyer beware. Pretty simple."
Question for Customary Use supporters - Public density across the beaches?
Access and use, convenience advantages & solutions for housekeeping on our beach
Not if the cows (Dave Rauschkolb's word) are on my private property. I'd call the Sheriff - if he would enforce the law."
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
Beach spreading is problem at many public beaches in other states. The photos in these articles are what Walton public customary use of private property may look like.
"Tragedy of the [Beach] Commons"

New York, New Jersey<<
Fox News
'Beach spreading' banned in New Jersey shore town: 'People weren’t using common sense and decency'

New York Times
Reining In Beach-Spreading, Not to Be Confused With Manspreading

New York Post
https://nypost.com/2017/08/09/new-jersey-town-targets-beach-spreading/

Shorebeat
Lavallette Bans Smoking, 'Beach Spreading' from the Sand

Philadelphia<<
Philly Inquirer
In Sea Isle, 'beach-spreading' is the new 'manspreading,' and nobody is saying sorry

Philadelphia Magazine
The Best Thing That Happened This Week: The Beginning of the End for Beach Spreading
No, you do not have the right to build your own beachfront Shangri-La out of canvas and poles.
Welcome | Philadelphia Magazine

Washington DC <<
The Washington Times
Officials look at banning ‘beach spreading’ tent networks
 

FactorFiction

Beach Fanatic
Feb 18, 2016
494
409
This is long, but so be it. Read it or don't. Your choice.

1) I'm confused. Is Reggie banned or not? He is not showing up as banned. If he is, I'd like to know why so that I know what to avoid. I have met Reggie once and he is not James Lince.

2) I keep reading and hearing what beachfront owners think or are trying to do from NON-beachfront owners and CU leadership. Have any of you who are in favor of CU actually asked the the beachfront owners any questions instead of making assumptions and cooking up conspiracy theories? I have and not one of them has told me what I keep reading and furthermore not one of the ones I have talked to "kicks" people off the beach who are respectful and minimalists (towel, chair, umbrella) who are there to enjoy the beach. The respectful ones bring minimal "stuff", set up when they arrive, enjoy the beach, and then take their "stuff", including their trash with them when they leave.

3) Some people keep claiming that there are a handful of people causing all these problems and driving the private property bus. That's BS. There are over 600 owners of parcels who have intervened against CU, representing approximately 4500 owners who have legal right to use those 600+ parcels. Check the list the County sent out. Check the court records. This is publicly available information.

4) I have personally witnessed several cyber campaigns against BFOs that were cyberbullying at its finest. While some in the CU leadership group may not have "started" or staged targeting incidents, they have "liked" posts and comments made by others. Only on a few occasions have the leaders tried to reign in their followers who engage in all kinds of name calling and ill wishes toward BFOs. Some of the leadership, who shall remain nameless, have absolutely participated in instigating issues with BFOs or representatives of the BPOs. To say they haven't is intellectually dishonest.

5) The Hurricane Storm Damage Reduction Project (sometimes thought of as beach re/nourishment) project was soundly defeated for several reasons, not the least of which was the color and feel/quality of the sand. Don't believe me, instead go to PC and walk on the sand. Compare the color and the feel. Our sand is extraordinary. There are thousands of beaches with sand, but ours is truly unique in its color and feel. One of the very early projects got same quality sand because it came from the Destin Pass area and nearby vicinity. There isn't enough of that anymore for big projects. Certain CU leaders wholeheartedly disagreed with putting inferior sand on the beaches and recognized that it would wash out, which it has (check out Miramar Beach area where the west Walton project was done). Now, some of those same people are willing to sacrifice our rare and unique sand because they don't like that Walton County allowed all the development we have today with private ownership?

6) Perhaps if Walton County had worked with BFO's before declaring CU and made sure to STAFF UP and ENFORCE their proposed (and adopted) ordinance, some or all of this could have been avoided. Vendors were and still are an issue, although there are finally steps being made in the right direction. Tents became a real problem, being used to reserve the beach in similar ways to vendors. Code enforcement was complaint driven rather than proactive. What do you think people thought if one group was told to take their tent down while another one on a different lot wasn't reported, so CE drove right by? Likewise for other infractions of the CU ordinance. I'm just happy for locals who have used the same beaches for years and been minimalists and respectful because THEY are not having trouble going to the beach. With 26 miles of beach, it is certainly interesting that there have only been a few places that conflicts have occurred, but rest assured that those few have been broadcast widely by people who seem to enjoy the division in this community so they can prove some sort of point.

Would people stop coming to our beaches if no setups of any kind were allowed without the people present to use them?
Would people stop coming to our beaches if no tents/canopies/sunshades except for Umbrellas 7 feet in diameter were permitted on our beaches?
Would people stop coming if they couldn't bring their family room to the beach, complete with gigantic blow up toys, music, tobacco and alcohol?
Would people stop coming if they actually could only do those things that are truly 50s, 60s, 70s uses?
Would people stop coming if there were some controls on density on the beach?

In spite of the rhetoric, there are plenty of BFOs who care. They aren't all about $$$. Try actually asking THEM what they think instead of listening to social media keyboard warriors. I have and it's enlightening.
 
Last edited:

Rachael Ashman McKee

Beach Lover
May 21, 2012
58
28
Seacrest
Beach spreading is problem at many public beaches in other states. The photos in these articles are what Walton public customary use of private property may look like.
"Tragedy of the [Beach] Commons"

New York, New Jersey<<
Fox News
'Beach spreading' banned in New Jersey shore town: 'People weren’t using common sense and decency'

New York Times
Reining In Beach-Spreading, Not to Be Confused With Manspreading

New York Post
https://nypost.com/2017/08/09/new-jersey-town-targets-beach-spreading/

Shorebeat
Lavallette Bans Smoking, 'Beach Spreading' from the Sand

Philadelphia<<
Philly Inquirer
In Sea Isle, 'beach-spreading' is the new 'manspreading,' and nobody is saying sorry

Philadelphia Magazine
The Best Thing That Happened This Week: The Beginning of the End for Beach Spreading
No, you do not have the right to build your own beachfront Shangri-La out of canvas and poles.
Welcome | Philadelphia Magazine

Washington DC <<
The Washington Times
Officials look at banning ‘beach spreading’ tent networks
Beach Spreading: and the county changed tent size from 8 feet to 10 feet, plus 50% to vendors. Why?
 

FactorFiction

Beach Fanatic
Feb 18, 2016
494
409
Beach Spreading: and the county changed tent size from 8 feet to 10 feet, plus 50% to vendors. Why?

Simple answer: People complained about the smaller tent size, which I believe was actually 6x6 feet. Basically, they were not available without ordering from Amazon or somewhere. Regarding the vendors, there has long been a reluctance to reign in vending. They are small business owners and this county is very sympathetic to small businesses regardless of what those businesses are. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but in the case of allowing 50% of PUBLIC beach, it doesn't seem wise. Hindsight being 20/20, it definitely wasn't wise.
 

FactorFiction

Beach Fanatic
Feb 18, 2016
494
409
You are kinder than I am. My thought was that it was another way to make public beaches smaller to further the discourse.

I attend meetings or watch them online. I'm just repeating what I heard. I try to give the County the benefit of the doubt; however, there are times I really scratch my head!:doh:
 

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,289
375
@FloridaBeachBum, your post #523 regarding Tona-Roma and all was VERY informative. Thank you for the time and effort to pull it together.

Personally, I think DR is laughing very nervously with his “Ha ha...” malarkey.

I believe CU will fail (there, I said it) and I think DR is starting to realize it as well.

The title of this thread will live on, one way or another, either because of all the animosity from the “public” toward private property owners if CU fails OR because we become a Destin or Panama City because of unleashed growth due to CU prevailing.

And I thought DR said he wasn’t responding to posters who don’t use their real name. What gives?

Regarding using real names....this from Teresa:
“In forums you don't have to use real names though many of us have changed our forum names to our real names over time. It's a personal choice. Lots of our original members are still called by their original forum names even in real life. All good peeps. Where's River Otter?”.

Apparently DR disagrees.
 
Last edited:
New posts