Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[bob bob]

Wow.
Never guessed you were the type to ridicule the elderly for your own amusement.
That's a new low.

Can we talk about a "reputation index"? Let me get my calculator. (I would call up Lake View Too, because he likes to calculate the ratios. But alas, he's been a "secret identity" on this forum over 10 years.)

And how interesting that you dare to say, "None want to be held accountable for what they say." Now reading that really made me smile in between my sips of coffee. Thank you for that delicious thought. You made my morning. Interesting words of yours, sir. Indeed.

What do you have to contribute to the solution, or do you like to be part of the problem? WAR EAGLE!!!

 

[Lake View Too]

ROLL TIDE!! Especially upon the beaches, so it all stays wet.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Ha Ha,..... "Malarkey"......you are showing your age. My grandfather used to say that.

Well heck. Guess I’ll have to start bringing up Uhlfelfer’s Nazi card again, now that you’re engaging me and trying to redicule me on a personal basis. It’s only fair, right?

Uhlfelder’s grandfather would be ashamed of his grandson for referring to him and using the atrocities committed by Nazis as an argument for customary use, IMHO.

And the fact that you haven’t condemned Uhlfelder’s reference (you’ve had plenty of chances) speaks volumes.

Simply put, the tactics you and FBFA use to peddle your agenda will “Destroy our 30A Legacy”. I think it’s already happened.

 

[Stone Cold J]

What do you have to contribute to the solution, or do you like to be part of the problem?

I am Pro CU and Pro Constitutional Property Rights and don’t think they are in conflict.

Solution #1. Separate the issues. Have the BCC implement new ordinance to protect public’s ability to walk the beach (traverse), swim, fish, surface, collect shells, take pictures, etc on all 26 miles of coastline. Leave out the bit about forced occupation of private property to allow people put chairs, umbrellas, etc on private property against the will of the owner. The ordinance should not be controversial if the BCC removes the forced occupation part. If people want to day camp then they should go to State Park or Public Beach or rent a home/condo that owns that property.

Solution #2. Drop the lawsuit against taking private property rights against the will of the owner, which many believe might violate constitutional property rights and eventually may be thrown out of court anyway. Use the money instead to protect our unique coastal ecosystem.

Solution #3. Spend ½ of the advertising budget on local infrastructure. Roads, restrooms, water treatment. The past advertising has been very effective, we already have more tourists than we can handle. Don’t bring any more tourists until they can be accommodated without destroying our unique ecosystem.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Solution?????
Any REAL solution would involve COMPROMISE.
And Mr. and Mrs. NO COMPROMISE have more than once stated they won’t accept that. At this point, I simcerely believe that many pro CU folks have to be taking a second look at the stance of their CU leaders. The fact that the question for a solution was asked just now is evidence.

 

[Bob Wells]

I am Pro CU and Pro Constitutional Property Rights and don’t think they are in conflict.

Solution #1. Separate the issues. Have the BCC implement new ordinance to protect public’s ability to walk the beach (traverse), swim, fish, surface, collect shells, take pictures, etc on all 26 miles of coastline. Leave out the bit about forced occupation of private property to allow people put chairs, umbrellas, etc on private property against the will of the owner. The ordinance should not be controversial if the BCC removes the forced occupation part. If people want to day camp then they should go to State Park or Public Beach or rent a home/condo that owns that property.

Solution #2. Drop the lawsuit against taking private property rights against the will of the owner, which many believe might violate constitutional property rights and eventually may be thrown out of court anyway. Use the money instead to protect our unique coastal ecosystem.

Solution #3. Spend ½ of the advertising budget on local infrastructure. Roads, restrooms, water treatment. The past advertising has been very effective, we already have more tourists than we can handle. Don’t bring any more tourists until they can be accommodated without destroying our unique ecosystem.

#3 is a problem. You will have to take up with the State.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

#3 is a problem. You will have to take up with the State.

Yeah, and then take up #1 and #2 with Mr. and Mrs. NO COMPROMISE.

 

[James Bentwood]

I am Pro CU and Pro Constitutional Property Rights and don’t think they are in conflict.

Solution #1. Separate the issues. Have the BCC implement new ordinance to protect public’s ability to walk the beach (traverse), swim, fish, surface, collect shells, take pictures, etc on all 26 miles of coastline. Leave out the bit about forced occupation of private property to allow people put chairs, umbrellas, etc on private property against the will of the owner. The ordinance should not be controversial if the BCC removes the forced occupation part. If people want to day camp then they should go to State Park or Public Beach or rent a home/condo that owns that property.

Solution #2. Drop the lawsuit against taking private property rights against the will of the owner, which many believe might violate constitutional property rights and eventually may be thrown out of court anyway. Use the money instead to protect our unique coastal ecosystem.

Solution #3. Spend ½ of the advertising budget on local infrastructure. Roads, restrooms, water treatment. The past advertising has been very effective, we already have more tourists than we can handle. Don’t bring any more tourists until they can be accommodated without destroying our unique ecosystem.

I like 3. but there are laws on how tourist tax can be spent. Although they are about to loosen it up a bit. Even so, your point is valid and we don't have to collect it OR spend it.

 

[Lake View Too]

I believe HR631 has made #1 out of reach. It states that this matter has to be adjudicated in a court of law.

 

[Bob Wells]

@BlueMtnBeachVagrant I believe the below quote is accurate. I also believe those who supported HB631 laid the path that had to be followed to contest it. That said, as I have said all along the courts will have to decide. For those who oppose customary use, it would seem reasonable that if a Compromise was going to be offered it would come from those who oppose it. Have I missed a compromise offer?

I believe HR631 has made #1 out of reach. It states that this matter has to be adjudicated in a court of law.