Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Discussion in 'Local Government and Groups' started by Reggie Gaskins, Apr 25, 2019.

  1. miznotebook

    miznotebook Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    898
    Likes Received:
    452
    Location:
    Stone's throw from Inlet Bch
    Got some additional info. I had misunderstood about the captioning, they are planning to do some sort of captioning to help the hearing impaired participate, but apparently they do not plan to record or live stream the meeting. Speakers will be Carolynn Zonia, a candidate for Walton County District 5, and Phil Ehr, a candidate for Congress. Karen McGee of the Walton County Democratic Women's Club will moderate.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  2. mputnal

    mputnal Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,091
    Likes Received:
    184
    FBB lets say BFO's win the lawsuit because a Judge agrees with you regarding the facts. Then what? Are you going to chain off your property to the wet sand? Put up NO TRESPASSING or KEEP OUT signs? Maybe build walls out of concrete? What are you going to do when someone trespasses? You know people will keep coming and spreading out down the beach. Do you think that people will be orderly and stay out? Will you charge a fee and let people use your beach? If you are a realist then you know that human behavior will lead to people resenting BFO's who do not share their beaches. I'm just wondering if you have thought this through? All the facts in the world will not stop the reality of more and more people coming. Neither all the facts in the world nor all the money in the world will not stop hurricanes from coming. You need your community in my opinion to support you when conflicts and disasters come. Will it really give you that much satisfaction to be right? Will it really give you that much satisfaction to own your private beach? If so then there will be a cost and I don't think it will involve money.
     
  3. Auburn Fan

    Auburn Fan Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Auburn
    FALSE narrative, cotton candy slogan:
    "It's not about left and right, it's about right and wrong. It's wrong to exclude the public from any of America's beaches."
    Today
    on Twitter
    on a Socialist account



    Straight up TRUTH:
    It's not about left and right, it's about right and wrong. It's wrong to exclude the rights of private property ownership (including the freedom to manage crowd density on ones' own property), from any citizen of the US public.
    In fact. It's downright illegal.
    In addition to being morally wrong.
    Sept 25, 1789
    on a document governing a republic nation
    US Constitution, Amend. V, Sec. 5

    Do you care about protecting your property rights?
    Don't fall for this dangerously twisted propaganda, aimed at reversing our county's culture.
     
  4. Dave Rauschkolb

    Dave Rauschkolb Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    934
    Likes Received:
    629
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach

    Oh, so glad to see you care, but you left out the rest of the tweet. Straight up truth.

    66372245_475693319923105_983185840177938432_o.jpg
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2019
  5. BlueMtnBeachVagrant

    BlueMtnBeachVagrant Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,253
    Likes Received:
    169
    mputnal,
    I think you might be fretting a little too much about how BFOs will fare. I respect your tone but feel compelled to “slice and dice” your post, just a little.

    I don’t think you’ll find any chains in our neck of the woods at Blue Mountain Beach Regional Access. There’s no reason for that to change if CU loses in court.

    No Trespassing signs are obviously required to inform the public that parts of the beach are private property. Otherwise they assume it’s all public because most genuinely don’t know what’s public and what’s private.

    No comment needed.

    If and when CU is defeated, the sheriff will have no choice but to press charges if filed, especially against people like Daniel Uhlfelder who intentionally trespass, ignoring the no trespassing signs.

    .
    So far for us, the public has been pretty respectful regarding the signs and all.

    . Well now you’re digressing a bit into one of the previous topics regarding compromise (of course not one CU proponent made any significant comment (yay or nay and why). There’s no need to compromise if the court case ultimately goes against CU.

    Now I did get a good laugh from that one regarding BFOs being resented. Honestly, I think it’s way too late for that discussion.

    Agreed (double negatives aside).

    Funny how so many people think the BFOs were helped after Hurricanes Ivan and Dennis. Sand, sea walls, walkovers, balcony repairs, etc. were all paid OUT OF POCKET where most of the damage occurred. Didn’t receive any help with any of that. I know it’s a matter of time before we become the next Mexico Beach and that’s what insurance is for. Again, to expect any real “help” from the county is a bit naive. I just ask that they stay out of our way as much as possible during a recovery.

    Just a grammatical correction - we already own the property.

    Seems to me you could just as easily flip this question on CU proponents. Instead of CU satisfaction of taking private property without compensation, why not negotiate with the legal fees saved and an increased TDC tax to pay for beach parcels. Everybody wins.

    My thinking is this won’t ever happen simply because CU people in charge of things (commissioners, county manager, county attorney, etc., won’t risk the negative light that will shine down on them if they were to back pedal a bit.
     
  6. BlueMtnBeachVagrant

    BlueMtnBeachVagrant Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,253
    Likes Received:
    169
    Dave R,
    You’ve already brought up that poll that means absolutely nothing on the legal and Constitutional stage. You hope that this idiotic poll will appeal to the emotions of your followers by helping them feel more noble than they deserve by following your antics. And somehow bringing it up again invalidates Auburn Fan’s post? Good grief!
     
  7. FactorFiction

    FactorFiction Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2016
    Messages:
    473
    Likes Received:
    166
    Well, peeps, the BFOs that I know who were willing to share are not feeling too generous after the July 4th illegal fireworks displays all over private properties (and public, too). CU advocates need to do some serious work on encouraging respectful behavior from the public. While some of the bigger stuff was cleaned up, there were thousands of small pieces of plastic and cardboard to pick up. Inexcusable.
     
  8. Stone Cold J

    Stone Cold J Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2019
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    51
    Location:
    SRB
    I can see where people might be confused on the question itself.

    For the Questions: Do you believe owners of Florida beachfront property should or should not have the authority to ban the public from using the dry sand area above the normal high tide line that adjoins their property?

    I would answer "Should Not" the way the question is worded. Maybe the wording is why so many people answered the way they did. Constitutional property rights are only extended to property owners that have a legally deeded title to that property. In this case it looks like the question is asking about property "adjoining" or "next door" to the deeded property and not owned by the property owner. A beachfront property owner would not have the right to tell someone to leave a neighbor’s property (unless asked by the neighbor to convey that message), but a private property owner WOULD have the right to tell someone to leave his own property. That is independent of where the property is located. Similar to the lawsuit won by the Surfriders in California. The public has the right to surf, swim, sunbathe, build sandcastles, etc on Martin Beach, BUT they are NOT ALLOWED to day camp (beach equipment) on the private property adjoining Martin Beach. The public is only allowed to use the portion owned by the State of California. Private property rights are the same (right of exclusion) if the property is owned by the State, County, individual. or even the US Military. Trespassing on military property is not recommended, and the military owns a considerable amount of property in Florida. The (Surfriders) in the California lawsuit did however win the right to "unblock" access to Martin Beach (public beach) that was land blocked by Mr. Khosla. I wonder if Surfriders will mount a lawsuit to "unblock" access to public beach behind gated communities?


    So here are a few questions. Can you provide honest and real answers with legal reasons and not sarcastic answers based solely on emotion or entitlement?

    1. Do private property owners have the right to ask people to leave who trespass on their legally deeded private property?

    2. Do Florida property owners have less constitutional property rights than other US citizens?

    3. Does a property owner have fewer constitutional rights if their property is considered desirable by others?
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  9. mputnal

    mputnal Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,091
    Likes Received:
    184
    FBB thank you for answering my questions. I understand now that you indeed will not compromise on your principles. IMHO I believe that you represent more of a libertarian ideal than a realistic one. I agree with so many things that you believe except those libertarian principles. You don't want or need the help of this community. I believe I understand why the commissioners had no other choice. If/when the court rules in your favor the CU (maybe they will change the name to something else) activist will double overnight. I agree with you that their tactics leave room for improvement but don't hold your breath on that one. Good luck to you!
     
  10. Auburn Fan

    Auburn Fan Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Auburn
    Wow! Did you see the article just posted on the Walton County Wave? Check it out.
     
  11. Stone Cold J

    Stone Cold J Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2019
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    51
    Location:
    SRB
    I think many property owners might be willing to return to Ancient Customary Use, 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).

    I don't think many (if any) property owners (beach front or non beach front) would be willing to renounce their property rights (in particular the right of exclusion) and give those rights to the BCC. There may be a concern by some of the free for all and chaos that could occur under the exclusive BCC control of property rights. What about non-beach front private properties owners down the street from a restaurant? What if the BCC allowed people to park on their property at no cost (but the property owner would need to fix ruts and pick up trash), or even allow the restaurant to set up extra tables and chairs on their private property, because the restaurant was too crowded for the property they owned, and the county needs the "tourists money" and the restaurant owner wants to expand? Is the BCC allowed to TAKE property rights against the will of ANY property owner? What if the county just paved over that property owners front yard to make parking for the restaurant or a beach access? Would that "reasonable"? This is not the same as "Eminent Domain" but "Taking". The BCC has filed a lawsuit to "take property rights" from beach front property owners. If successful they will expand it to other property owners. Why would they stop? What about taking property to build a new ball park? Of course they would also need to take more property for parking and concession stands. It is for the good of the many and a poll shows most people want free land for a ball park.

    If someone is not willing to renounce their private property rights and give them to the BCC for exclusive management, some of properties which have been in the family for generations, then that is a sign of "not willing to compromise on principles"?

    I also think you are right that the "CU fight" (formally known as beach nourishment plan to remove property rights) will be reinvented as a constitutional push to remove property rights from a selected targeted population of owners (aka beach front property owners) or maybe as a push "Incorporate 30A" (so they can create new laws to take over beach front property)? Either way this looks like it is going to be long and expensive in terms of money, legacy, and potential further destruction of our sensitive ecosystem.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  12. FloridaBeachBum

    FloridaBeachBum Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    Messages:
    429
    Likes Received:
    89
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach
    Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
    I wonder what the poll results would be if the question was;
    Do you believe owners of beachfront private property with legal title to the mean high water line have the Constitutional right all private property owners have to private enjoyment of their property?
    or Do you think it is acceptable to for the public to occupy private beachfront property with legal title to the mean high water line if the property owner does not invite the public and want exclusive enjoyment of their property for themselves that they pay property taxes on?
    Polls are for politicians. Not individual protected Constitutional rights. That's
     
  13. BlueMtnBeachVagrant

    BlueMtnBeachVagrant Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,253
    Likes Received:
    169
    Your post has been haunting me a bit. And that is one always sees surveys of all kinds as well as “over-analyzed” results of these surveys.

    But now after seeing the Mason Dixon survey that Dave R keeps posting everywhere, it truly is an eye opening attempt to sway even more of the masses with a VERY MISLEADING question. And that’s the concern...that people who are experts in the science of polls know exactly how to phrase a question in order to influence the results they desire.

    “Do you believe owners of Florida beachfront property should or should not have the authority to ban the public from using the dry sand area above the normal high tide line that adjoins their property?”

    Sounds like a simple question on the surface. As most of us know here in SoWal, one can own beachfront property and either own or not own the sandy part of the beach.

    The above question is undoubtedly phrased in a way that implies the beachfront owner does not own the beach when the “dry sand area” “adjoins their property”.

    For anyone to be throwing out this type of poll as having any real credence is being intellectually dishonest. And I’m being very kind right now, very kind.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2019
  14. Poppaj

    Poppaj Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    3,466
    Likes Received:
    465
    Let’s abandon CU and go straight to a constitutionally mandated solution which is eminent domain.
     
  15. BlueMtnBeachVagrant

    BlueMtnBeachVagrant Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,253
    Likes Received:
    169
    Do you mean the one where Suzanne Harris may be about to win yet another lawsuit against the county regarding CU and Edgewater Condominiums? Special executive BCC meeting taking place today regarding all of that, BTW.

    Article
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2019
  16. mputnal

    mputnal Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,091
    Likes Received:
    184
    Poppaj if CU loses in court wouldn't the State then have no choice but to protect the economics of tourism by turning to eminent domain for beach property? If the State allows BFO's to manage the beach front then the beach eventually becomes private. How would that work for tourism? Of course BFO's could then individually fight for compensation. After my exchange with FBB and others I believe that BFO's are interested in two things: Privatizing the beach or compensation for loss of privatizing the beach. They are definitely not much interested in community per their own statements. I believe that will likely be what happens if CU loses. Hmm what is the "best use" of beach front property? Chair rentals? Sunbathing?
     
  17. Kurt Lischka

    Kurt Lischka Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Messages:
    12,457,079
    Likes Received:
    1,214,390
    Location:
    SoWal
    Threads merged. Please keep it respectful and on topic.
     
  18. Reggie Gaskins

    Reggie Gaskins Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Blue Mountain Beach
    So, I’m back from hunting wild boar in the Outback. I see that my original post title has been changed. Didn’t know that happened in an honest environment? Hmmmmm... The intent of that very descriptive title was to to drive discussion and raise an eyebrow. To make y’all think outside the normal banter.

    “Customary Use will Destroy Our 30A Legacy”
    The initial post described in detail that thought line.
    It generated record views and replies. Now admins merged my two posts.

    Why do these tracks generate such noise?
    Because regardless of who wins, the fight itself, the very aggressive CU political campaign, and now the defense of property rights from ambush videos and misinformation, is tearing our wonderful community apart. Long time friends, club members, church members, neighbors, are judging each other by one yardstick; Your Stand on CU. A pathetic result of over zealous political ambitions. SERIOUSLY? Aren’t we better than that?

    CU is NOT a thing. It’s NOT worth destroying our way of life here. It is definitely NOT a solution that will work in SoWal for all reasons you’ve read here.
    People, rise up above the gutter There are 3 problems:

    - Bad and inept leadership at county level
    - Too many tourists for current public beach network
    - Beach chair vendor problem of blocking beach

    There are many feasible solutions that make sense.
    Let’s address common sense solutions and fiscally responsible options. CU is waaaaaaay down the list on possible fixes. Why destroy our community on a Hail Mary socialist taking of private property, causing permanent harm to our community, when adults could step in in solve for X?

    Somehow, the worst possible solution, this pipe dream of CU, got traction in social media in an echo chamber of censored propaganda. And yes admins, that description is quite accurate based on definitions of those words! Why are we focused on a political pipe dream that can’t win, even if it wins, get it? And if you read the tea leaves, the CU thing is unraveling at many levels.

    See You on the beach. Hopefully without having to guess on which side of this charade you stand. Maybe we can get back to talking about number of turtle nests, or headliners for next Songwriter Festival, maybe even which bridge will be out this winter. But for God’s Sake, give this dying CU side show a rest....
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2019
  19. FloridaBeachBum

    FloridaBeachBum Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    Messages:
    429
    Likes Received:
    89
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach
    mputnal, BMBV had a good reply to the dramatic conclusions to #1002 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
    "Are you going to chain off your property to the wet sand? Put up NO TRESPASSING or KEEP OUT signs? Maybe build walls out of concrete?"

    What percentage of the 1,193 BFOs parcels in the past decades and since 2016 have posted signs (as is their Constitutional First Amendment right to do), chained off property (which is regulated except where a court has permitted), or enforced their right to private enjoyment?
    FactorFiction has made the point multiple times and asked the questions on many occasions with no credible CU response.
    Customary Use of SoWal Beaches: Contact Governor Scott
    Federal Lawsuit Could Bar Public from Beaches and Recreation Areas
    Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
    Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
    Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

    "Neither all the facts in the world nor all the money in the world will not stop hurricanes from coming."
    How many hurricanes have there been in Walton since 1941? Walton beaches recover after time and are not much different today. That's the risk BFOs take, pay insurance for, and 30A BFOs will pay for recovery just like past decades.

    "human behavior will lead to people resenting BFO's who do not share their beaches." If respect for property rights replaced resentment; most of us will all get along like before 2016.
    Education of property rights and appropriate behavior with prompt consistent law enforcement will change "human behavior".
    Why have you not asked; Will it really give Commissioners and CU believers satisfaction to be right?
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jul 10, 2019
  20. Kurt Lischka

    Kurt Lischka Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Messages:
    12,457,079
    Likes Received:
    1,214,390
    Location:
    SoWal
    This is a passionate discussion and we need to keep it respectful without personal attacks. If you don't understand the difference between jabs and attacks then you will not enjoy our forum.

    Thread titles are sometimes edited when they are all caps, confusing, too long, etc. They aren't intentionally edited to skew one way or the other. I changed the title to make it more inviting for to all to participate. I'm not even sure what a 30A Legacy is, or means, and may change it again to an even simpler "Customary Use Discussion".
     

Share This Page