- Jul 25, 2008
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.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...
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.It’s worth it.
Sounds like the BFO’s are the ones afraid of the courts.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?
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.
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.That said, as I have said all along the courts will have to decide.
So didn’t Mike Huckabee present one? And wasn’t it dismissed in its entirety by Mr. and Mrs. NO COMPROMISE?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.