New posts

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
Let me see if I got this right: The BFO's could save themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars each, and save the taxpayers of Walton County MILLIONS of dollars by simply withdrawing their countersuits, and letting the judicial system, that was established by HB631, run it's course. And all this waste of money is because of Bad Beach Behavior. And the most prominent proponents of continuing customary use have pledged to establish a robust system of preventing Bad Beach Behavior, but that ain't good enough for you. Sounds like this isn't about Bad Beach Behavior...
Here's what you got wrong; not right. Walton Commissioners filed as Plaintiffs, litigation against 4,600+ Defendant private beachfront owners and have the burden of proof; not Defendent beachfront owners. It was Walton Commissioners choice; not private property owners choice. There are NO beachfront owner CU countersuits. Can you support this statement of fact? If not your credibility suffers. I was not aware Walton Commissioner's litigated against all 4,600+ beachfront owners because of "Bad Beach Behavior". Can you quote from the Walton Commissioner's and Theriaque complaint that fact? If not your hypothesis Bad Behavior is why Walton claims CU on private property is not credible. It is about Constitutional property rights all American property owners have.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
It’s worth it.
Easy when it's not your personal money and easy when you have no real-property skin in the game. If the 650+ beachfront owners prevail; tell Walton tax payers you thought it was worth it. Would you be willing to kick in $20,000 to reimburse tax payers if BFO prevail? I'm guessing you are not willing to put you own money at risk; just tax payer's millions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Poppaj

SoWal Insider
Oct 9, 2015
9,200
4,494
Easy when it's not your personal money and easy when you have no real-property skin in the game. If the 650+ beachfront owners prevail; tell Walton tax payers you thought it was worth it. Would you be willing to kick in $20,000 to reimburse tax payers if BFO prevail?
Sounds like the BFO’s are the ones afraid of the courts.
 

Poppaj

SoWal Insider
Oct 9, 2015
9,200
4,494
I simply view the situation like a sidewalk being a public right of way. BFO’s sound like they want the public to walk in the street when in front of their homes. It doesn’t matter to me who has title as long as the public has use of a moderate amount of dry sand.
 

Lake View Too

SoWal Insider
Nov 16, 2008
7,266
3,867
Eastern Lake
The BFO's are willing to spend their money on trying to assert a property right that they have known they never had from the first time they set eyes on this beach. Customary use existed from before they were born. They started their campaign for privatization over a decade ago. It's that simple. The county is doing what is right and just for the constituents of this county, for the economic strength of this county, and for the broader beach community in general. It's that simple.
 

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,289
375
@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.
So @Bob Wells, are you saying we (BFOs) can’t or shouldn’t allow the public to “walk the beach (traverse), swim, fish, surface, collect shells, take pictures, etc ” because HB631? Has ANYBODY here on SoWal objected to those activities IN THE PAST? On the other hand, BFOs want to retain full control of their private sand in case these tourists are unruly or they decide to compete for prime beach location against owners and paying guests of said private property.

Not sure what “surface” means, so that might have to be excluded. :)

The days of “looking the other way” (30A Legacy) are regretfully gone because of overcrowding, FBFA and CU proponents’ self-entitlement attitudes and now that that the county deciding to file suit to confiscate private property without compensation.

That said, as I have said all along the courts will have to decide.
Yes you have said that on SEVERAL occasions....about as many times as I’ve brought up Daniel Uhlfelder’s Nazi card. Nobody can legitimately argue either point.

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?
So didn’t Mike Huckabee present one? And wasn’t it dismissed in its entirety by Mr. and Mrs. NO COMPROMISE?
 
Last edited:

Lake View Too

SoWal Insider
Nov 16, 2008
7,266
3,867
Eastern Lake
:So didn’t Mike Huckabee present one? And wasn’t it dismissed in its entirety by Mr. and Mrs. NO COMPROMISE?

Please refresh my memory of Mike (I'm not directly involved) Huckabee's compromise. Didn't it involve money?
 
Last edited:

Stone Cold J

Beach Lover
Jun 6, 2019
150
171
SRB
I believe HR631 has made #1 out of reach. It states that this matter has to be adjudicated in a court of law.

If forced occupation of private property against the will of the owner is removed from the ordnance (removing part about chairs & umbrellas on deeded private property) then option 1 is fully compliant with HB631 and no law suit required.

If not, then this entire lawsuit is ONLY about forced occupation of private property against the will of the owner and everything else is thrown around just to cause confusion. Of course everyone wants the right to walk the entire beach, fish, surf, and build sandcastles. Who wouldn't? We already have that.

It has been ancient custom to have permission to use private property and if a person used it without permission, and was asked to move, they moved. If a person was not asked to move, they stayed. If they knew an area that they were "not welcomed", then they did not go there. It was that way when Mr. Allen and a few others owned most of that beach area and stayed that way after the parcels were split and sold to new owners who built homes. It was an honored privilege to sit on somebody's property and was respected. It was also only a few people with minimal equipment. It is different when 100's of people "demand" that same "privilege" at the same time and at no costs. It is only very recent that the "public" has felt entitled to day camp or park anywhere and ignored requests to move, even when the request to move is made by the Sheriff. I don't think anyone has an issue finding a peaceful place to sit (unless they are purposely trying to cause a disruption) except between Memorial Day and Labor Day. During those times the DTC even pays the park fee so people can go the state park as a courtesy of the county. Of course what happens when we get 6 million visitors a year? What about 8 million visitors a year? What is the limit before destroy our unique ecosystem?

I can see where imminent domain might be used to force "access" to a public beach that has access blocked by private owner, like the California case where Vinod Khosla was sued to allow access, but the public was never allowed to day camp on his property and he was able to charge for parking and access. Access is very different than "day camping" against the will of the property owner. The property owner is the one that determines the rules to use the property. Doesn't matter if it is Florida that owns the property (state park has entry fees and maximum occupation limits depending on available resources and conditions, etc), or the County (county park / public beach has limited hours, parking limits, chair vendor rules, etc), or a private owner (use of property if permitted).

We need to preserve our unique ecosystem. That is why (including many of the readers here) were so excited in 1992 when the community came together to make sure the 1,637 acres and 3-1/2 miles beach at Topsail were protected and not developed.

It was never "customary" for forced occupation of private property in Walton County, nor is it reasonable to remove private property right from the owner, nor is this free from dispute if the county is spending millions of dollars on a lawsuit to try and take away these rights. This has nothing to do with sharing. This is about who has the right to determine who can use private property, the owner or the county.
Let's spend millions preserve our unique ecosystem instead of on lawyers.
 

Lake View Too

SoWal Insider
Nov 16, 2008
7,266
3,867
Eastern Lake
From my understanding, H631 conflicted with our previously written customary use ordinance, so it was re-written to comply with 631, and was passed unanimously by the BCC, and was immediately challenged in court by several BFO's. The county was then forced to countersue those BFO's to get a judgement on this issue. I may not be quite sure of my terminology, but that is my general understanding. Whether the 5300 or 6100 BFO's are defendants of a lawsuit by the County, or are launching countersuits, or both, is still a little bit fuzzy to me. There are a bunch of "instigators and agitators" who launched this thread, and the amount of disinformation is mind-numbing.
 
New posts