Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[Lake View Too]

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? 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 money to find out in court.

It's funny... every single post from you and your bunch mentions Money. You plead that you are being victimized. You are being taxed to death. Etc. It's not about money. I will repeat what I said earlier. Enjoying the beach is a spiritual experience. And you and your buddies and your lawyers and your signs and your chains are truly ripping the soul out of this community. You may get your Money but I can assure you that you will never outlive the animosity you have created.

 

[FloridaBeachBum]

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.

Who determines what the term "greater good" is? Is that a legal term in the US or FL Constitution or the Florida Burt Harris Act?
What BFO legal rights have been claimed that they never really had? Don't just name the rights, give some facts why BFOs never had them. Otherwise not credible statement.

I've only brought up taxes and the costs of Commissioners' litigation for all tax payers. Maybe you should start with the Commissioners about causing and creating animosity. Anti-social media incited by CU misinformation doesn't help either.

"You plead that you are being victimized." Where? "You are being taxed to death. Etc." Where? Not very credible statements. Emotional reactions but not credible.
"It's not about money." Agree it's about Constitutionally protected private property rights.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

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.

Yes, I bolded the above quote for emphasis.

Spot on!!!

Yet that's all one hears from FBFA and other CU proponents. And of course the county CU attorney already knows this is not a valid reason so he absolutely has to rely solely on proving the actual customary use, and NOT any economic impact (good or bad).

Take at look at this page on FBFA website. Considering that any economic reasons are absolutely not part of the validation of customary use, see how they try to appeal the emotional aspect that many people will be hurt economically (you know, DEVASTATED):

What's the Bottom Line?
Loss of CU could devastate local rental, retail,
and food service markets and negatively
impact property values.​

Of course they're obliged to add, "We want to ensure that all beachgoers are able to enjoy this resource respectfully and with equality for generations to come" after the first statement above under their What's the Bottom Line. But as many of us have already claimed on this thread, this is about MONEY that the county, developers, restauranteers, real estate industry, property management companies and others so deeply desire (sorry again @Lake View Too).

My bet is FBFA will change their website shortly....at least switch their priorities.

And this "economic benefit" is professed ad nauseam by just about everybody supporting customary use, politicians and activists alike along with the general public who don't understand what customary use really means (assuming it's constitutional).

I watched a FBFA's meeting (click here) where they discuss customary use AND economic impact. The economic aspect discussion starts at 9:10 (if you want to fast forward). BTW this video also has the infamous beach picture from the nut job regarding Vizcaya's Beach ("was public, now private" malarkey). And boy does DR latch on to that.

Gosh I love the slide at 22:32, "So, who can I trust for accurate info?" And then FBFA's website is answered under that. Genuinely got a good chuckle out of that. Maybe they should have included SoWal.com . There's been more accurate info here presented by others than in most any so called journalistic articles and especially more than from FBFA and their Facebook page.

Then there's a FBFA video where someone from the real estate industry speaks to the FBFA group....yeah you've guessed it. I'll save that for another day/post.

 

[kayti elliott]

"The greater good" seems to be defined by the CU activists (zealots) who are more righteous than ordinary citizens who have a different opinion.

 

[bob bob]

"The greater good" seems to be defined by the CU activists (zealots) who are more righteous than ordinary citizens who have a different opinion.

Calm down Francis.

 

[FloridaBeachBum]

To paraphrase Mark Twain, pseudonym of American humorist, novelist and social critic Samuel Clemens; who’s remarks should be ignored(?) because Clemen’s used an “anonymous” name, The reports of Walton County economic customary use “Ghost Town” are greatly exaggerated.

Latest South Walton TDC tourist bed tax TDT Report. Nothing but growth. Credibility of impending economic doom is not backed by facts. Walton “Ghost Town” CU voodoo economics or CU agenda fear mongering?

Walton County spring tourism numbers up 17.85%

Before April 1, 2017 BFOs had all leagly recognized bundle of proeprty rights since the 1800s US land grants. Walton contested CU ordinance started April 1, 2017. FS 163.035 started July1, 2018. The tourist demand does not seem to be "impacted" regardless of the antisocial media posts to the contrary. Even after the 2010 Deep Horizon true disaster Walton tourism returned quickly and grew faster than ever.

Thanks to the Walton Commissoner's TDC marketing we have more tourist and not enough infrastructure. Maybe Commissioners should stop marketing! Walton TDC 2020 budget request is $29,406,684. Commissioners will soon vote on raising the tax to 5%. Who benefits most from the tourist tax marketing? Beach-side business? Then let the beach-side business pay for the marketing and reduce the tourist tax so that money goes into the local economy to grow real jobs; not government bureaucracy.
The TDC can maintain the public beaches for $5,000,000 I'd guess or if TDC is required to market with the tax how about public education about acceptable beach behavior and respect private property rights.

 

[FactorFiction]

I haven't met a single beachfront owner who wants their beach taken by imminent domain. This isn't about money to any I've met. The two main things I've heard from them is that they want to retain the RIGHT to exclude and get help when there are behavior problems and they want density controlled since the County/TDC continues to try and draw more and more people here in spite of the known issues. Just because someone has the RIGHT to exclude doesn't mean they use it.

Another thing I keep reading in social media is that owners knew the beach was public (or at least entirely open to the public) when they bought. I know a number of people, both beachfront and inland who have pined for the days when they bought or moved here, when they could "walk along the shoreline for miles and not see a soul." If that's the case, someone tell me how they could possibly have known that everyone was allowed to set up on their beaches?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I haven't met a single beachfront owner who wants their beach taken by imminent domain. This isn't about money to any I've met. The two main things I've heard from them is that they want to retain the RIGHT to exclude and get help when there are behavior problems and they want density controlled since the County/TDC continues to try and draw more and more people here in spite of the known issues. Just because someone has the RIGHT to exclude doesn't mean they use it.

ABSOLUTELY AND POSITIVELY THE CASE! But if the county decides to pursue this imminent domain route for whatever reason, they will throw tons of legal money to try and squash individual private property owners into submission. Looks like a pattern to me.

Another thing I keep reading in social media is that owners knew the beach was public (or at least entirely open to the public) when they bought. I know a number of people, both beachfront and inland who have pined for the days when they bought or moved here, when they could "walk along the shoreline for miles and not see a soul." If that's the case, someone tell me how they could possibly have known that everyone was allowed to set up on their beaches?

Again, another BULLSEYE! I basically said the same thing in a previous post when I mentioned that “back then” all we saw was an occasional sand walker.

Never did anybody walk hundreds of feet from the public access to set up on our beach back when we first bought the beachfront property.

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

Someone's feeling are hurt so It was removed for copyright concerns following a claim of authorship and libel allegation. Everyone is welcome to post on our free and open forum as long as simple rules are followed.

Dave or anyone else is welcome to start another thread about the issue without posting the blog screenshot in question without the author's approval.

A screenshot of a twitter post made by the Author is not libel by any stretch of the imagination. Reposting a post from twitter on this forum is no different than retweeting a twitter post. The Author did not like that his ridiculous post he posted on twitter which by the way is clearly in the "town square" was being used to educate rental owners of a legitimate concern. They later backpedaled and called it "satire" when really they were testing the waters on a stupid, despicable theory that non-beachfront owners owed back payments to beachfront owners for the past use of "their" beaches. The libel threat, yes threat was lodged to SoWal to stop the spreading of this ridiculous original post by the Author. No libel at all. I reposted the same post on twitter with no libel threat at all. I reposted it a few more times for good measure.

 

[FloridaBeachBum]

The libel threat, yes threat was lodged to SoWal to stop the spreading of this ridiculous original post by the Author. No libel at all. I reposted the same post on twitter with no libel threat at all. I reposted it a few more times for good measure.

Stay on point here Dave Rauschkolb. Let's not distract from the premise of the thread. No idea what Twitter screenshot you're referring to anyway.

Besides I thought; " I harbor no ill will towards Mr. Lince and am appreciative that this chapter appears to be closed. " post#221.

Why don't you repost any copyrighted material on your business page or personal web site, if you have one, instead of anti-social media.
I'd like to see what happens with your taunting then. Anti-social media is so productive.

I'm guessing you'll reply with something profound and factual like; "He started it ..." or go pound sand. But I hope I'm wrong and you'll post something on point and credible.

Why have you not disputed anything about Vizcaya private beach property or quiet title stole public beaches, or any of the other property right facts on this thread with your on alternative CU facts?