Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Reggie, I want to believe that your "life's work is people and the community" but my instinct is telling me that you are on a political mission. If that were true then why hide your name? You seem very confident that you are an authority. You have an opportunity here to prove me wrong but you will have to use a real name. I only trust what I can verify.

Yes sand is made from a natural resource and people are inspired by it. Of course it is different because it is connected to the resource where life began. It is a limited resource which you helped to limit by buying and building on a sand dune. As you say, "it is your right" to purchase part of the resource and then exclude it from The People. Without knowing who you are I do not trust you to have the power to exclude people from the sandy beaches and then campaign to limit future development. Maybe laws work that way but life does not.

If you have been reading my post I think you would know that I am familiar with supply and demand economics. You would know that I believe that supply and demand are affected by a monopolization of resources in a very negative way. The very definition of wealth is an accumulation of resources. Wealth accumulates resources and then limits or in this case "excludes" access to those resources. Sound familiar?

Wealth accumulates resources and then limits or excludes the resource. Does that sound like a free market? I believe the biggest mistake by the county was to give wealth a ticket to a desirable resource. Maybe they trusted you to share the resource and that is where I put some blame on the county. Trusting wealth with the community was apparently a bad idea. You have proven this over and over with your desire to refuse compromise on the right to exclude. Listen, I want you to prove me wrong but you have a hard time even using the word "share" so I am not holding my breath!

Yes, you are part of a movement that uses power and fear to control others. It's not evil but you don't really care about The People. It's just apathy and we all suffer from it at times. My only message is that The People need to have hope and we will not find it in your message!

 

Who I am doesn’t matter. I’m an authority as much as anyone can be by decades upon decades of experience, work, and research. I’m not a member of any political party. I’ve been involved with many community initiatives on both sides of the preverbal aisle. Diving into my identity will only distract us from a solution. It’s not about me.

I’m all for sharing the beaches, always have been, practice it myself. But don’t confuse someone’s property and their right to decide how to use it with some lofty idea of a “limited resource”. ALL property is a “limited resource”. What I am NOT agreeing to is you or any other public mass to tell anyone how they must use their property.

We are in different camps on property law. I’m cool with that. I get it. But your view of resources and property don’t align with the laws of the land. Until they do, start looking for a solution that can work in the real world with human laws and human limitations of compromise.

Like you, this dilemma doesn’t affect my life. But I clearly see what’s coming if we have a public free for all along 30A beaches. I just happen to have a voice and vested family history here that might be useful in stopping the radical CU movement from Destroying Our 30A Legacy.

 

If you are human then what you are and who you are matter. For all I know you are artificial intelligence! Just kidding

Your "experience, work and research" is not enough information to give you the authority you desire to exclude people from the beach and then campaign for limited development. If you want to be a trusted "authority" you will have to use your real name.

I am not confused on property rights. I respect your "desire" to exclude me from the sandy beach behind your building. How do you conclude that I am telling you what to do with your property? CU is an expression of The People's desire to have hope. I think hope is an emotion. You are wrong to conclude that anyone is telling you what to do with your property. All I can think of is that you have disconnected from your community.

I am pretty certain you are confused about limited resources. On one hand you say it is your right to buy and build on a desirable limited resource which limits and damages that resource or put another way it is an over development of the resource and then you say the County is at fault for allowing continued over-development of a limited resource. I guess you want to eat from the pie and then complain that the pie is being eaten.

The laws of the land. Our legislative body of government is supposed to be representative of The People. Our Supreme Court concluded that money (aka power) is The People. Is it not obvious that our representative democracy is in trouble? Should wealth be able to influence our law making legislative branch of government? I hold out some hope that wealth will give something back but the arguments made on this thread is not promising. You use the word "take". I use the word "give". We should both use the word "share"!

 

Good grief, @mputnal. Having accepted that you’re paragraphically challenged, it’s now obvious to me that your views are hypocritical at best and definitely socialistic with a sprinkle of paranoia. You give yourself a way out of everything trying to take both sides. If you just simply accept who you really are, it would make discussions with you a lot more to the point.

 

Good grief, BlueMtnBeachVagrant can't we do something about the name? Please explain how my views are hypocritical but yours is not. You bought a sand dune which is a limited resource. You requested permits from The People to build a building which limits the limited resource and the permits were granted. For a while you shared the beach resource with The People. But now you don't want to share the limited resource with The People. Now you complain about how the resource is limited even though you helped limit it. To top off the hypocrisy you now condemn The People for handing out more permits to do the same thing you did! And don't forget the part where you claim The People are just a bunch of takers! That is a lot of H word going on over there at your beach.

Please explain what you mean by "socialistic". Is it like medicare or social security? Is it like insurance where everyone helps pay for catastrophic events that happen to others? Are you sure you want to demonize this word because it is already a part of our society?

It seems obvious that those who hide their name may have some issues with identity. All I can say is between the two of us one of us hides their name and the other does not.

 

Oh I left off the paranoia part. I think chicken little would feel safe over on your beach where you have exclusive views of the sky

 

Your griping should be directed at past, present and future WCC's. The FACT that the County sold the land, benefited from that sale, and provided all the rights of ownership to the buyers, is undeniable and unchallenged by UC supporters legally.

The BFO's have done everything right and by the book. Your opinion is yours to keep, but it won't change anything on the legal side of this equation.

 

I used to love spending time on the beach in South Walton but that was another time. I'm amazed that people want to come to such a hectic crowded place. I'll be glad when the matter is finally settled. While I don't have an interest in it, I tend to side with property owners.

 

Expect the Supreme Court of the USA to rule that selling the beach was illegal. All the way back.

 

It will be interesting to follow the arguments all the way to the Supreme Court. My instincts say that EZ4144 has an excellent point!

A conservative ruling might be that the State owns the land and the County was at error in recording the Deed. I could also see a conservative ruling where Customary Use has precedent.

The bottom line is that we don't know what the rulings will be AND it will take a long time before we do. So my point is that the BPO and the County should mediate this and come to a workable compromise. If the BPO refuses then they risk losing in both the court of law and absolutely and certainly in the court of public opinion. If it were me I would not take that risk and use this short window of opportunity to get the County to agree to everything on their list EXCEPT the right to exclude respectful beach users. Respectful could be defined as no loud music, no vulgar language, no smoking, no tents, no fires, no overcrowding and maybe even a reserved beach space for the BPO. Why would this not be acceptable to the BFO? The answer lies in their posts in this thread: they want absolute Power! They don't need or want compensation but they do desire that power. I don't really blame it on anything other than it is a natural human trait. It is certainly not evil. The debate on who is qualified to rule goes back to the very beginning of our Constitution where Jefferson and Hamilton went back and forth on the issue. I believe Wealth desires power over what they consider is their dominion. They are able to justify it all with an almost religious spirituality of being "chosen" to rule. I hope I am wrong and this plays out in a wonderful idealistic compromise but my instincts say that it will in fact go to the Supreme Court.

 

I started this thread with the following title:
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy.
60,000 views/1,300 posts later...

I knew it would be a provocative title to get the public to think about reality, not the propaganda. I wanted a real public discussion. We had a good run. Great discourse and tons of information came out that hadn’t seen the light of day because of local media politics and social media censorship.

Then the admins changed the title. Here we are now. Twilight zone.

To even begin to argue that the USSC could nullify tens of thousands of legally documented and processed title transfers, just because you want what someone else owns, is, well, ...... cute.

To demand that rightful owners of premium property must start negotiating by giving up control of that most valuable privately owned asset after an uber aggressive lawsuit threatens an unlawful taking by the opposing party is, well, ..... sublime.

I liked it better when Dave was here attacking me and refusing to ask questions. At least he was logical in his wrongness.

 

If the court confirms that beaches are public, what is actually "lost"? What "rights"? The right to exclude? That's twisted.

 

Now we have two blind people slapping each other on the back, agreeing on the color of the President’s hair.

If eeezeee wasn’t so serious, I’d say there was a great sense of humor lurking inside. Geeeze-ee, the right to exclude is one of the fundamental rights of owning private property. But eeezeee knows that. Just another desperate attempt to throw more “stuff” and see what sticks. But hey, at least there’s consistency.

Much too kind.

 

Not sure when you jumped on this train, but the BPO's have been willing from the beginning of this ridiculousness to discuss with the WCC's about a solution. But the WCC's have NEVER provided an idea or suggestion for a resolution. Wonder why? They seemingly don't want a "compromise" - they simply want this their way. The same can be said for the majority of the CU kool-aid drinking supporters.

Sort of reminds you of asking a democrat what a fair tax is for wage earners - they won't give an answer until they have all they want.

And if any attorney thinks the US Supreme Court will hear this case, then said attorney missed the first day of law school. It ain't happenin!

 

Eventually crowded beach use density must be addressed and managed. Which means at some point, some form of exclusion is necessary.

This lawsuit is actually about transferring the right of exclusion from the property owner to the county, regardless of whether the homeowner currently welcomes guests on his property or not.

I don't know a single BPO whom the county approached with an offer of any compromise before suing us all across the board. Thousands of owners.

 

RG, SV, etal, Not only are my instincts right about you being power brokers but now I a certain that you are not from around here at all. Why not prove me wrong? You can't! Your purpose is to keep the BPO's aligned and on board with the lawsuit. This thread had one purpose and it was never about the 30A legacy, community or anything else but that right to exclude. It was ALL about POWER!

RG, I agree with you about this being a Twilight Zone. When you stated that you were not affiliated with a political party then it confirmed to me that you are not who you say you are. Where are you from? What research did you do? Why do you fear community? Please prove me wrong because I wasted a lot of time trying to connect to your sense of community and sense of what makes us human (humanity)!

I now believe that most of the BPO's in sowal would probably prefer to address density, behavior and vending in a settlement. Exclusion is just not that important to people who listen to their conscience. People who care about their beach community know that what goes around comes around and that circle of life is more important than the principle of exclusion on this special and unique place we call the beach.

The power brokers have a mission. It has nothing to do with community. They are political agitators. If they were hired they should be fired because they are too obvious. Too uncompromising. Too much about ONE legal principle: exclusion. Nothing about the resource. It is all a big scam. They answer NO questions about conscience, humanity or identity. I call their method: artificial intelligence

I do try very hard to be fair and to not attack anyone personally. I admit that it is easier said than done. Whoever these power brokers are I probably would enjoy a beverage and conversation with them face to face. I do not think that I know everything and always willing to learn. I do not believe I have any power or right to judge anyone. Listen, If you believe that a Constitutional Right is divine inspiration then who am I to judge? All I know is that my instincts are telling me that these people are not who they say they are so listen to your conscience. I have seen a lot of smiles and heard a lot of laughter on the beach. It seems to be a unique place were we can heal from unfairness and hurt feelings. It is just common sense that this issue can end with a settlement that benefits everyone!

 

Dave, glad to see you again!

So, there's a snowball's chance in holy hell that your so called "compromise" will ever happen. You've been told a few times that there is no true compromise in your proposal because there is no compensation....it's all just a taking. And already expected good beach behavior is not what most would consider compensation.

I'm well aware that the core premise of your suggestion is to attempt to desperately place a small crack in the current solid legal defense of private property rights (your 500-800 feet garbage) in hopes that the private property rights will further erode over the years. Not gonna happen, ever.

As a businessman, what is it that has you so against compensation for taking private property? Because that's a compromise? If it's about money, then just raise the tax yet again. If it's about your pride, well that's just bad for everyone. The county is going in the right direction regarding the purchase of the golf acreage in Miramar Beach. Why stop there?

 

BMBV I get it. You don't care so much about the power to exclude you just want to be paid for sharing. It's all about capitalism right? Maybe you will get your wish. In eminent domain it comes down to determining "best use" of the property. Well it used to be a sand dune so maybe you can argue best use is hurricane protection. Or maybe it is chair and umbrella vending. Can't build on it because of the set backs. Seriously what do you think the beach is worth? I did not think you liked the socialistic approach of raising tax but if it gets you compensated maybe it would be okay. But just this time right?

 

Eminent domain? Sure, $400 a parcel, that’s what it cost to quiet title. And again, there’s nothing epic about this thread RG. Same finite group of people posting and viewing over and over and over again. Not too much unlike #44Followers. Goodbye