Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

@Bob Wells , over 3 years ago, I threw out what I thought was a very good compromise based on what I observed taking place at the Blue Mountain Beach access. Coincidentally, you sort of just shot it down saying it was an old topic under a new thread without any constructive input.

Please take a look.....
Eliminate Beach Vending from Blue Mountain Regional Beach Access (and possibly others)

I genuinely believed everyone would benefit in that scenario - the essence of compromise:

Eliminate ALL beach vending on public accesses, especially the crowded ones where the adjacent private property owners are agreeable to partner with beach vendors to allow to rent setups on their private property.
and ALSO get to use private property.

Locals and others on a limited budget could use the more open public beach without having to compete against paying customers on public beach and the BFO gets to control their property while receiving compensation (sorry @Lake View Too, that does mean money).

It basically worked at Blue Mountain Beach except for the part where vendors are getting 50% of the public beach for their own profitable use and so the public part was (is) still very crowded. Could it work at other accesses? Not sure. But given a choice of constantly pushing back on public encroachment on private property vs. allowing the public access to private property for the price of a beach setup sounded like a pretty good compromise to me.

But it’s too late now......you know, Mr. and Mrs. NO COMPROMISE.

 

[Reggie Gaskins]

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.

Trying to catch up after 600 posts is definitely mind-numbing. I'm not as up to speed as you all. But trying to separate the facts on this one is becoming more clear to me. Can you help me Lake View Too?
Which "disinformation" facts did these "instigators and agitators" put forth? Just give me the two biggest ones. I want to research them for myself. Thanks!

 

[L.C. Bane]

Oh, but you flatter me. I'm not nearly as nice.

You sound very self aware. That's good.

 

[FloridaBeachBum]

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.

Your understanding is wrong. "H631 conflicted with our previously written customary use ordinance [wrong], so it [Walton CU ordinance] was re-written to comply with 631 [did not happen or provide your evidence]" There was NO "countersuite" or provide a reference to the "countersuite" please. Only Walton's litigation pursuant to FS163.035 that defines the legal due process for any local government to seek a judicial determination that all the criteria of customary use apply to 26 miles of private beachfront property.
You need to do your own homework and not listen to social media or your posts are not credible.

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

@Bob Wells , over 3 years ago, I threw out what I thought was a very good compromise based on what I observed taking place at the Blue Mountain Beach access. Coincidentally, you sort of just shot it down saying it was an old topic under a new thread without any constructive input.

Please take a look.....
Eliminate Beach Vending from Blue Mountain Regional Beach Access (and possibly others)

I genuinely believed everyone would benefit in that scenario - the essence of compromise:

Eliminate ALL beach vending on public accesses, especially the crowded ones where the adjacent private property owners are agreeable to partner with beach vendors to allow to rent setups on their private property.
and ALSO get to use private property.

Locals and others on a limited budget could use the more open public beach without having to compete against paying customers on public beach and the BFO gets to control their property while receiving compensation (sorry @Lake View Too, that does mean money).

It basically worked at Blue Mountain Beach except for the part where vendors are getting 50% of the public beach for their own profitable use and so the public part was (is) still very crowded. Could it work at other accesses? Not sure. But given a choice of constantly pushing back on public encroachment on private property vs. allowing the public access to private property for the price of a beach setup sounded like a pretty good compromise to me.

But it’s too late now......you know, Mr. and Mrs. NO COMPROMISE.

Now, something we finally agree on. There should be zero vending on county public beaches of Beach Chairs. Never should’ve happened and should stop as soon as the county comes to their senses. If they ever do. 100% there should be zero beach chair vending on County owned public beaches. If they absolutely cannot stop it then the only conditions that should be allowed would be if someone calls a company and the chairs are delivered where ever there is an open spot. No set ups until a call is made and the chairs are occupied.

 

[Lake View Too]

I got my information from talking to the county attorney and from attending Brad Drake's explanation. I'm not saying it's 100% accurate but I didn't get it from anonymous posters on SoWal.

 

[FloridaBeachBum]

If there is any question about leading CU position on the "C" word and opinion of Mike Huckabee's "Beach Share"; intended as starting point for discussions, but rejected out of hand by leading Watersound CU resident and Walton Commissioners. Legally not "our" CU beaches regardless how many times you say it. Have 1,192 the private property deeds to prove it in court.

Is There Another solution to the Customary Use Dispute?
SoWal Posted by Dave Rauschkolb on Facebook Aug 25 2018
Watch out for the "C" word coming to South Walton. This word first introduced by County Commission Candidate, Bill Fletcher. Seeking ways to "Compromise" regarding Customary Use of our Beaches.

There will soon be a group or groups offering compromises couched in an narrative saying: "let's all come together and be good neighbors and work this out" Mmmm, a seemingly sounding, reasonable platform.

We need to remember this. The beachfront owners and their lawyers determined, well executed plan is to take control of our beaches so they call the shots. Many or most obtained their beach through Quiet Title [proven false by the public records on this thread and other credible sites] in the very recent years like new resident, Mike Huckabee. When I met with former Arkansas Governor Huckabee last summer his "Beach Share" plan was predicated on the owners "giving permission" to beach goers using "their property" provided they behave correctly. This platform is fundementally flawed because the Beachfront owners are calling the shots on our beaches; our beaches we have used freely for centuries.

Their end game is to Control, big C, the beaches and to monetize them. Make them private and up the price goes. Then, perhaps try to sell them back to he County through eminent domain or just have much more valuable property because it is private. [Nice hypothesis; no evidence, all opinion.]

Yes, The "C" word will be creeping in and we need to be careful about creeping compromise.

Read this "Good Neighbor" narrative coming from a new 501c3 website called "Preserving South Walton"... "We believe that Coastal property owners should be allowed to have full control of their private land, but realize that South Walton also needs recreational areas that the tourists and locals can enjoy." And further......"We look to secure and/or gain access to properties for public use that limits the liability of the landholder, while still permitting access to others who would use that property responsibly. In doing this, we firmly believe that we can find an acceptable compromise between the proponents of customary use, and those property owners who are concerned about allowing the public access to their property."

Did you catch that? "allowing" public access.....to their [deeded private] property.

This is eerily, exactly the Huckabee plan couched in a slick, new package. "It's ours. Behave and we might can work something out" Same playbook, different cover.

So beware of Creeping Compromise because all it has ever been about is Control of our Beaches. I promise you. Any Compromise will Compromise our ancient, uninterrupted use of OUR treasured, shared beaches.

Just remember everyone, the beach, it's ours, it's always been ours and anything less....is a Compromise. So let's be good neighbors and work together to reinstate Customary Use.

I gotta hand it to our new Compromising good neighbors, Preserving South Walton...hey, nice logo!

I just have to ask though, is the fence halfway down or halfway up?

April 14, 2019 Jason Blakeney Executive editor of the Northwest Florida Daily News.
JASON BLAKENEY: Compromise before it's too late in Walton County

 

[FloridaBeachBum]

I got my information from talking to the county attorney and from attending Brad Drake's explanation. I'm not saying it's 100% accurate but I didn't get it from anonymous posters on SoWal.

Then the county attorney is wrong or you did not understand her and Brad Drake voted for HB631. "but I didn't get it from anonymous posters on SoWal." You should because what is posted is credible and verified with facts. You may not like the facts, you may not accept the facts; then do your own homework and present alternative verifiable facts or your posts credibility suffers.

 

[Lake View Too]

Then the county attorney is wrong or you did not understand her and Brad Drake voted for HB631. "but I didn't get it from anonymous posters on SoWal." You should because what is posted is factual and credible. You may not like the facts, you may not accept the facts; then do your own homework and present alternative verifiable facts or your posts credibility suffers.

I’m sure your lawyer is giving you correct information, or maybe he’s just in it for the money and might take a dive in the end.

 

[Stone Cold J]

and was immediately challenged in court by several BFO's.

It is confusing so I went to the Clerk of Court records, did a case search on Year 2018, Course Type Circuit Civil (CA), and Sequence #547 and there are over 850 court documents. The county filed on Dec 11, 2018 against 1194 properties listed in Exhibit A, although the county is listed as owner of some of those parcels so not sure if they are also suing themselves? Anyway, the documents do confirm that the County is the one doing the suing (Plaintiff) and the property owners are the ones being sued (defendants). There are no countersuits mentioned in any of those documents. I did find Doc 784 asking the Judge to dismiss the lawsuit but I can not find anywhere that the Judge responded.