Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

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

  1. mputnal

    mputnal Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    954
    Likes Received:
    176
    What I have learned is that BPO's are only interested in winning this lawsuit and the CU supporters are only interested in keeping all beaches open to the public. At this point there seems to be NO room for compromise. This lawsuit will certainly be appealed by either side. So, please tell me how BPO's win anything until after the appeals that will take years?
     
  2. Stone Cold J

    Stone Cold J Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2019
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    SRB
    mputnal, the BPO's don't win regardless. Neither do the non-BPO's win regardless.

    The BPO's get to keep their property rights (Right of Exclusion) which they have had for hundreds of years which is protected by the USA and Florida Constitution. So they don't win, they just don't lose the rights they have already own.

    Even if the case is dropped tomorrow tax payers of Walton County have lost millions of dollars and decade old relationships have been destroyed.

    The only people who "Win" are the power brokers, who are making numerous other moves while everyone is distracted by "CU", and of course the lawyers are making millions of dollars.

    This is classic misdirection by the power brokers. The court is not going to overturn Property Rights. What else is going on! What big residential developments and business expansions are being pushed? What is everyone missing by looking the wrong direction?
     
  3. mputnal

    mputnal Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    954
    Likes Received:
    176
    Agreed about the "power" brokers. Power comes from wealth and The People are "looking the wrong direction" because that is what politics and extremism does. If BPO's have been sharing their beach in the past BUT now want to exclude people from their beach then why would BPO's not understand why The People or The Community would be upset? All of the new buildings on the beach are huge residential developments which was okay when pulling permits from the county? Don't you see we should NOT be okay with losing the view of the water and the sunset which are being blocked by those huge residential or commercial buildings AND any part of the beach. I really feel like the BPO position is unfair and unequal. We are not talking about ALL private property just those beach properties that were shared in the past. Legal rights are not the only measure of what is fair and equal. Is there any room at all for a BPO to give consideration to fair and equal or good will BEFORE the court decision?
     
  4. Stone Cold J

    Stone Cold J Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2019
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    SRB
    mputal, first, there are 1194 different parcels that are being sued by the BCC. Each parcel has a different story and is owned by thousands of different people. Some of these parcels are now owned by the grandkids of property that has been in the family for generations so you could be dealing with 20 individuals or more on just on one parcel. There is no "BPO" that can speak for everyone, just like there is no "non-BPO that can speak for everyone".

    Some BPO's have shared their property to small numbers of locals and still do. Some rent their property to tourists and use the beach for only their family or guests. Some have been so harassed that they don't want anyone on their private property. Some have never wanted to shared their property (both BPO and Non-BPO) for generations. Some don't care. None of that changed (except for the group getting so harassed that they no longer want to permit guests is getting larger). What did change a couple years ago is people feeling ENTITLED to use deeded property AGAINST the will of the property owner. ENTITLEMENT USE was never ancient, reasonable, without interruption, or free from dispute. Innocent people are getting played and still don't have their eyes open.

    There is NO property owner (BPO or Non-BPO) that would ever give up the right of exclusion of deeded private property. This is the same as force occupation of private property against the will of the owner and is not going to happen, doesn't matter if the property is owned by individuals, the County, the State of Florida, or the Military. Property ownership has rights and one of them is the right of exclusion. Always has been that way and until the constitution is changed, always will be.

    Each property owner is free to make their own decision. There is no "group BPO" decision.

    Our county has been run in the shadows by the Power Brokers for generations and they made millions of dollars with shady deals and pay offs behind closed doors. Hopefully, with social media, holding the BCC accountable, and with information available on sites like this, we can stop this crap.

    Look out for the misdirection. What are they trying to do? This is not about BPO's or people who want to see the sunset, or people who want to the protect the turtles. This is about shady deals behind closed doors. Watch out for the power brokers. Something else is going on besides "CU". Judge Green is not going to overturn the constitution, and if he does, the US Supreme Court is not going to agree.....
     
  5. Reggie Gaskins

    Reggie Gaskins Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    61
    Location:
    Blue Mountain Beach
    First of all, thank you for continued discussion and search for solution. That was the vision when we started this. There is a big miss here. Everyone wants to START with CU. that's not reality. The BPO's didn't wake up one morning and decide to put up signs. They were first attacked by entitled trespassers. Then they were financially attacked/sued by the county. All the while, being grouped/labeled/besmirched and doxed on social media, where they were censored from having any voice. Still are. They are backed into a corner in a fight they don't want. The houses were already there for decades. Their beach property has been private for decades. And yet, we all got along for decades. Yes, with many BPO's sensibly allocating responsible beach use on their property. Until the overcrowding was turbocharged by agitators, therefore dividing the community.

    I urge EVERYONE to read the last few posts by Stone Cold J. The summary and current state analysis are crystal clear, and accurate.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2019
  6. L.C. Bane

    L.C. Bane Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2017
    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    65
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach
    So twisted. BFO worked with legislators to pass HB631 and are now bitching about it.

    You have entered the twilight zone.
     
  7. mputnal

    mputnal Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    954
    Likes Received:
    176
    If I were a BPO I would not Identify myself as the victim. You already have a lot of what you want. So that is your first mistake. The second mistake is to blame the county. You were given permits to build on sand dunes and block views. The third mistake is to believe that The People will not push back on your right to exclude people on the beach. You may win little battles in court but you will lose the court of public opinion no matter how right you are. I would quit blaming The People!
     
  8. Dave Rauschkolb

    Dave Rauschkolb Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    893
    Likes Received:
    621
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach

    The "entitled" twilight zone. "I've got mine, I got here first and we can't let anyone else in" and yes...they got the bill passed then fought for "compromise" candidates so the BCC would not follow through on the procedures set forth in HB631. They can't have it both ways. What did they expect the BCC to do? Roll over? Nope. 5 to Zero. Anyway, the tourists are not going away and trying to tell them not to come here is a true twilight zone fantasy.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 22, 2019
  9. Dave Rauschkolb

    Dave Rauschkolb Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    893
    Likes Received:
    621
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach
    The only compromise I can see is eliminate vending on public, county owned beaches, not as a consolation to make private beaches an easer pill to swallow but to rightly keep the public county owned beaches available for people to set up wherever they wish. Then, work with the BCC and Beachfront owners to set tighter restrictions on the dry sand within 500 to 800 feet of those county owned beach accesses on either side. No tents, no large gatherings, no night parties...only ghost crab chasing with the kids at night. But the dry sand in those areas with restrictions are open to the public to use within the law with strict enforcement and a hot line for beachfront owners to get quick results if anyone gets out of line. Beyond 500 to 800 feet, fewer restrictions because no one walks with all their stuff that far. The "interior" beachfront owners complain the least because people just don't walk long distances dragging their stuff. I truly believe this could set the clock back. Restore the garbage pickup AND "leave no trace" and eliminate the private property, no trespassing signs. Signage would be needed to set the rules plainly and clearly. I truly believe the lawsuits could go away with something like this that addresses the behavior with rules and enforcement. Do a pilot program and try it.
     
  10. Dawn

    Dawn Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    210
    Excellent - and use red flash lights on the beach for the kids.

    And by the way PARENTS!!! Crabs and other beach critters are not there for your kids to hunt down, torture and kill. That appears to be the instinct. Teach them better - to respect all life and protect nature.
     
  11. Stone Cold J

    Stone Cold J Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2019
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    SRB
    Vendor chair policy on public property is completely independent of USA and Florida Private Property Rights.

    This is not a “compromise”. The Vendor Chair Policy is something that is causing problems and something that people from different view points all agree needs to be changed. The BCC fully controls Chair Vendor Policy on County owned property and the policy is within the full legal, lawful control of the BCC. A revised Vendor Chair Policy does not violate any Florida or Federal Laws.

    A revised Vendor Chair Policy is a step in the right direction, but we still need to figure out how to REDUCE the number of tourists so we don't continue to destroy our unique ecosystem
     
  12. mputnal

    mputnal Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    954
    Likes Received:
    176
    Okay I admit up front I am now in the twilight zone: If I were a BPO...I would get over my hurt feelings and stop calling anyone a socialist or worse and listen to what Dave proposed. There are only a few in this forum that attack other people but keep in mind that we ALL will defend with emotion because we are human. Dave's proposal: It is fair. It is reasonable. It makes common sense. Sometimes we all behave selfishly but we must check that at the door of community. "Strict rules of behavior with a hotline for BPO's to get quick results". If I were a BPO I would see that statement as a way toward compromise. Winning the lawsuit will not do anything for me as a BPO but make the whole thing worse for me. If FBB or anyone "disagrees" with that then there is something else going on within their purpose or intent. Exclusion is a dirty word to The People especially when I (as a BPO) already have exclusive views and access. Human behavior is what it is so manage it with strict rules. If I were a BPO I would not be calling "The People" dirty words...and I would think before I disagree!
     
  13. James Bentwood

    James Bentwood Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,073
    Likes Received:
    166
    It appears the goal for some is to make the beach as unappealing as possible. Reduce the number of people on the beach by being nasty.
     
  14. mputnal

    mputnal Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    954
    Likes Received:
    176
    I would not want to be a BFO if the court overturns the BCC. Why is that not obvious? I am not wealthy and I am not poor. I do not want something for nothing. I just want to be able to move about the beach in my purpose of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while being respectful to the resource and other people. Does this not speak for the 99%? Take that away from me and I will not be happy. Trying to shame me into feeling "entitled" is not smart because I will defend. Others may take a more offensive approach in fighting unfairness, exclusion and inequality. This is not anything other than reality (say that several times or until it sinks in) and I will never understand why one value (property right to exclude people from the beach) is the battle cry for the BPO's. The feeling of superiority in any form is trouble. I may never understand why the exclusive views and sunsets at other people's expense is not enough. In wealth and power there is never enough...
     
  15. Reggie Gaskins

    Reggie Gaskins Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    61
    Location:
    Blue Mountain Beach
    I completely understand your position. I do. Please hear this in a calm, professorial tone, no disrespect or malice intended here, it’s right out of our textbooks...

    With all due respect, say THIS several times or until it sinks in:

    Not You, nor the “community”, nor the 99%, nor Dave, nor FBFA, nor Daniel, get to decide what an individual must do with his/her property, period.

    It is precisely acting with 100% entitlement by demanding personal use of someone else’s yard, regardless of whether it is sand or grass. Your happiness is indeed in the best interest of the collective community, but only to the extent that one wishes to prioritize collective community over independence. Your sense that you somehow get to decide the fate of someone else’s property misses the reality that you have no such right.

    You will better succeed in your quest for compromise if you quit starting by arrogantly deciding the fate of someone else’s property as a “first” step. Stop giving away what is not yours to give.

    And as far as the BPO’s wanting to “win” the lawsuit:
    They were sued by the very folks who caused the problem. They are not wealthy as a group. They are being burdened with tens of thousands of dollars EACH in legal bills to protect their family investment. Put yourself in that position. Why in God’s name would anyone assume they should just lose against such a vile attack that for some, will significantly diminish their family’s very financial security?

    Try and look at it through that lens. Just for a minute.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  16. Stone Cold J

    Stone Cold J Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2019
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    SRB
    People can move up and down the entire coastline. They can fish, swim, build sandcastles, watch sunsets, take family pictures. Not under questions. What is under question is the ability to day camp (set up chairs, umbrellas, and other beach equipment) on deeded property against the will of the property owner. Does not matter if the owner is the State of Florida, the County, the Military, or an individual. That also does not mean that a BPO is not going to permit people to set up beach equipment on their property. Each BPO (and non-BPO) can make their own decision on who and who not, and most importantly, how many people, are allowed on their property. The property right of the owner to determine who can and cannot be on their property is protected by the constitution. I don't think a BPO is going to give up their property rights and allow unlimited forced occupation on their deeded property against their will just because people want it. Unlimited tourists placing beach equipment on private deeded property against the will of the property owner does not pass ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute test which the county has based their lawsuit. Just like non-BPO are going to give up their property rights and be forced to allow tourists to park in every driveway in Walton County.

    People can not just storm area 51 because they feel entitled. And the county cannot take away property rights of a certain group of people because other people want those rights. I do understand you don't like that the county has permitted homes to be build which blocks the view of the water as you drive 30A. Hopefully we can keep the ordinances that does not permit homes and buildings more than 4 stories.

    4 million tourists are destroying our unique ecosystem. Why are we destroying our coastal dune lakes for the sake of businessmen that want to bring in MORE tourists so they can make more money expanding their businesses, people making deals behind closed doors changing wetland classification so they can make millions more on real estate, developers making deals to increase housing density, which will increase run off that is going to do even more Bay damage.

    This is not about being "rude" so we reduce below 4 million tourists. It is about limiting the number of visitors that the infrastructure can accommodate without destroying our unique ecosystem.
     
  17. mputnal

    mputnal Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    954
    Likes Received:
    176
    Okay I think our lens have different coatings because I have already made the effort to do exactly that. Our perspective is different. Seems like there is no opportunity to compromise because The People will not accept the exclusion part of your belief or right in owning the resource (beach). Keep in mind we are talking about "beach" property NOT your yard. A yard is different than a beach. We are debating the issue of property rights versus human rights. Human rights demand fairness, equality and an even distribution of resources. I believe in Capitalism. I love my Country. Again and again I do not want something for nothing and I am not asking for that. I have "earned the right to enjoy the "beach" just as you. Yes just as you. Different lens or different coatings but we are different in perspective. FBB first made me aware of this difference. Before that I thought that we could see things from a common position of humanity. Humanity does not exist with your exclusive right to any part of the beach. I wish I were wrong but we will probably never see through the same lens. I will never have your existing and exclusive views of the water and magnificent colors of the sunset. NEVER. You can blame me for that but that does not solve your problem with public opinion. The bone I want is just to be able to walk up and down the beach without interruption and without signage telling me that I have not earned the "right" to do so. That is my perspective, my reality and my life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In my opinion you are going to force the State to take your property. It did not have to be that way. Anyway, good luck to you and I am sorry to all the BPO's that are not part of exclusion.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • List
  18. Stone Cold J

    Stone Cold J Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2019
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    SRB
    mputnal said:
    I do not want something for nothing. I just want to be able to move about the beach in my purpose of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while being respectful to the resource and other people.

    People can move up and down the entire coastline. They can fish, swim, build sandcastles, watch sunsets, take family pictures. Not under question. What is under question is the ability to day camp (set up chairs, umbrellas, and other beach equipment) on deeded property against the will of the property owner. It does not matter if the owner is the State of Florida, the County, the Military, or an individual. That does not mean that a BPO is not going to permit people to set up beach equipment on their property. Each BPO (and non-BPO) can make their own decision on who can and who can not, and most importantly how many people, are allowed on their property. The property right of the owner to determine who can and cannot be on their property is protected by the constitution. I don't think a BPO is going to give up their property rights and allow unlimited forced occupation on their deeded property against their will just because people want it. Unlimited tourists placing beach equipment on private deeded property against the will of the property owner does not pass ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute test which the county has based their lawsuit. Just like non-BPO are not going to give up their property rights and be forced to allow tourists to park in every driveway in Walton County.

    People can not just storm area 51 because they feel entitled. And the county cannot take away property rights of a certain group of people because other people want those rights. I do understand you don't like that the county has permitted homes to be build that blocks the view of the water as you drive 30A. Hopefully we can keep the ordinances that limits buildings to less than 4 stories.


    James Bentwood said:
    Reduce the number of people on the beach by being nasty.


    4 million tourists are destroying our unique ecosystem. Why are we destroying our coastal dune lakes for the sake of businessmen that want to bring in MORE tourists so they can make more money expanding their businesses, people making deals behind closed doors changing wetland classification so they can make millions more on real estate, developers making deals to increase housing density to make millions more, however the higher housing density and destroyed wetlands will also increase run off that is going to do even more Bay damage? Have we learned nothing from Driftwood?

    This is not about being "rude" so we "encourage people to go other places" which reduces tourists. It is about limiting the number of visitors that the infrastructure can accommodate without destroying our unique ecosystem. We should actually be working on how to retain and encourage tourists that add to our economy and have year round visitors instead of just during the summer. More full time residence and less tourists will also help improve our economy without the ecological destruction.

    Disneyland and State Parks and others all LIMIT the number of people that are allowed based on the infrastructure available. Some try to limit by increasing price to reduce demand and other just have a cut off on the number of people. Either way they are limited which is control over Density Management.
     
  19. mputnal

    mputnal Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    954
    Likes Received:
    176
    Reggie, I will not tell you what to do with your property EVER. All I am asking is that you do not tell me to stay off any part of the beach UNLESS I am being disrespectful. Our common ground is that neither of us should accept disrespectful behavior. To start with exclusive rights to the beach is arrogant and superior. You are either missing the point or are misdirecting. Which is it?
     
  20. Stone Cold J

    Stone Cold J Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2019
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    SRB
    ADMINS!

    I tried to edit post #1116 but could not. Finally started over in new post (#1118) and tried to delete #1116 but can not. Can you please delete #1116 (and this one).
     

Share This Page