Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[FloridaBeachBum]

I just wish you would stop talking about Money. I'm sorry you don't want to see that enjoying the beach is a spiritual thing.

Paying taxes is also a "spiritual thing" for many. I have heard all the curse words, and maybe said a few, about Walton property taxes too.
I commune with and enjoy the beach and the sea every time I'm on our beachfront, that our family has owned for many decades, before Seaside, and try to forget about Commissioner's inept governance, disrespectful public beach behavior, and anit-social media lies and shaming just because someone is a beachfront owner who believes in private property rights.

Then just this weekend 2 people from 30A parked in the ROW, walked down our driveway, across our home's deck and stairs to access the beach, because they thought no one was home. Their startled response when I informed them they were on private property - sorry; not! And proceeded to walk down our beach walkway to our beach and I ensured they departed the property. Should have called the Sheriff. Should have taken video and shamed them on social media. Those are the realities those with no real-property skin in the game do not understand. Oh well back to nature. Just saw a pod of dolphins swim by as did the people walking the public foreshore.

 

[Reggie Gaskins]

So it appears that Reggie Gaskins was permanently banned from SoWal after driving this thread into the stratosphere. Would admins please comment? That way, we can better avoid whatever transgression of which Reggie was somehow guilty.

In the meantime, it appears the law and facts are getting in the way of some of the CU slogans, providing more daylight regarding property rights and the Constitution. I've even heard there are rumblings of backroom plans to somehow back off of the aggressive lawsuits against property owners. It seems the Comprimise word is being tested across the network for those trying to salvage something out of this mess. Anyone have the intel?

 

[Auburn Fan]

Again, the fifth amendment to the Constitution says private property can be taken for public use if there is just compensation.

For utilitarian use. Not so sure about recreational-use. I think I read somewhere there's been some court decisions already on this type of eminent domain. Thank you for your mention of constitutional law.

 

[Lake View Too]

For utilitarian use. Not so sure about recreational-use. I think I read somewhere there's been some court decisions already on this type of eminent domain. Thank you for your mention of constitutional law.

It’s not just a recreational issue. It impacts the economy and property values.

 

[30A Skunkape]

What is the timetable for the challenge to the CU suits being ruled on?

 

[Lake View Too]

I dunno. It seems like most of it has been done in the dark, but what do I know.

 

[Auburn Fan]

It’s not just a recreational issue. It impacts the economy and property values.

Does the Fifth Amendment protect you against another person's commercial use of your private property?

Surely you do understand that's what this is all about, right?

 

[Lake View Too]

Eminent domain is taking and compensating certain property rights of certain properties for the greater good. Some BFO's are claiming rights they never really had. That's what the lawsuits are about to decide.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Again, the fifth amendment to the Constitution says private property can be taken for public use if there is just compensation.

Therein lies the next battlefield, IMHO. Of course the county will attempt to take the stand that so many CU proponents have taken - that “the beach has no value because......”. More malarkey. I imagine the county will throw everything they have both legally and financially down the throats individual homeowners and try to force them into submission. The county would then have no interest in beach property that’s not easily accessible such as Watersound.

Beach nourishment failed, CU is failing (IMHO) and imminent domain is the final step unless the county truly compromises and allows BFOs the ability to help the public by allowing public vending on private property. That “compensation/ compromise” just might make the public on private beach pill a little easier to swallow.

 

[FloridaBeachBum]

It’s not just a recreational issue. It impacts the economy and property values.

You state CU impacts the economy and property values but you do not present data or facts of why you believe that or how CU will impact the economy and property values if it does? How do you know if and what economic impacts will be? You just believe it to be so? Will SoWal become a “ghost town” economically without CU of private property?

Either way, unfortunately for public customary use of private property advocates, the archaic English doctrine is a legal doctrine; not a economic doctrine. There is NO legal criteria of custom that considers the economic or property values of the beachfront private property or surrounding property or properties.

Either the Plaintiff can satisfy the many CU criteria or not. If ALL the criteria can NOT be proved by the evidence in court, or conversely even if one custom (1) criterion can be proven false, the claim of public customary use of private property should be rejected - and the American Defendant BFOs may be owed legal and attorney fees.

That’s also assuming the archaic English common law doctrine of custom is not found to be unConstitutional first. That motion is in front of Judge Green now.

The Commissioners could have tried public prescriptive easement (although that did not end well for Tona-Rama). Commissioners could have asked for private owner dedications but that’s a non starter. Could have first tried eminent domain condemnation litigation but that’s more money than even inept Commissioners and Walton tax payers can afford. Commissioners could have intervened in the 5? private property quiet title cases; but haven’t - I'm guessing because there is no chance for the Commissioners to prevail. Commissioners could have tried to negotiate with BFOs but given the non-transparency and BFO mistrust after the Commissioners’ 2016 beach fortification fiasco, that was rejected by BFOs 1,124 out of 1,193 (94.2%), I wouldn’t negotiate squat with the any of the past or present Commissioners. So Commissioners choose to litigate an ancient English common law doctrine of custom that does not consider the economic impact, either good or bad. It's only tax payer millions to find out in court.