New posts

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
Just wondered what made the Passidomo interesting enough to comment now? It's been posted for a while.

Another interesting read from the FL House Sponsor almost a year ago.
Edwards-Walpole defends HB 631. By State Rep. Katie Edwards-Walpole [2018 FL House sponsor of HB 631]. Jul 28, 2018.

The temperature is rising and it’s not just the hot Florida sun. A new law, that I sponsored during the 2018 Legislative Session and that went into effect on July 1, 2018, aims to introduce a balanced process for resolving the legal issue of whether customary use exists on privately owned beachfront property in Florida. Much to my disappointment, this law has been misunderstood by both proponents and opponents alike, causing temperatures to rise and disputes to ensue.

The law, simply put, was intended to protect private property rights from local government political pressures to adopt ordinances outside of a legal review of evidence relating to customary use and to protect government from literally hundreds of individual lawsuits challenging whether those customary use ordinances were legal. Importantly, the law preserves local governments’ ability to accommodate for customary use, meaning beachgoers may still have the ability to use the beaches as they did before.

Yet, some have viewed this as a restriction on their right to access the beach, and have deliberately trespassed on private, beachfront property and incited owners to themselves act in ways which leave many scratching their heads.

Let me be clear about what the law does and was intended to do. The legislation says that the decision on whether or not a government can invoke customary use on someone’s private property goes to a neutral third-party, which is the court system. Until the law was passed, a government entity made up of a handful of people, like local county commissioners, could unilaterally decide to declare a right of use over private property for public use. That is the same as a taking and was inevitably going to result in years of costly litigation, likely to not end well for local governments.

Moreover, there is a misconception that after a private beach has been re-nourished using public funds that it will remain private and won’t be open to the public for use and enjoyment. This argument is nothing more than a red herring. The fact is, once the beach undergoes re-nourishment it becomes public [seaward of the Erosion Control Line (ECL), based on the local MHWL] and beachgoers are welcome to use it as such.

As the sponsor of this legislation, I will say I have watched some of the news reports of conflict and confusion over this law. I encourage property owners and beachgoers alike to work together and understand that this bill is not about making beaches private or disrupting your day in the sand. Again, this bill only adds a vital step affording [private property owner] due process, which is a foundational element of the U.S. Constitution. Emphasis added.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Poppaj

SoWal Insider
Oct 9, 2015
8,727
4,021
Just wondered what made the Passidomo interesting enough to comment now? It's been posted for a while.

Another interesting read from the FL House Sponsor from almost a year ago.
Edwards-Walpole defends HB 631. By State Rep. Katie Edwards-Walpole [2018 FL House sponsor of HB 631]. Jul 28, 2018.

The temperature is rising and it’s not just the hot Florida sun. A new law, that I sponsored during the 2018 Legislative Session and that went into effect on July 1, 2018, aims to introduce a balanced process for resolving the legal issue of whether customary use exists on privately owned beachfront property in Florida. Much to my disappointment, this law has been misunderstood by both proponents and opponents alike, causing temperatures to rise and disputes to ensue.

The law, simply put, was intended to protect private property rights from local government political pressures to adopt ordinances outside of a legal review of evidence relating to customary use and to protect government from literally hundreds of individual lawsuits challenging whether those customary use ordinances were legal. Importantly, the law preserves local governments’ ability to accommodate for customary use, meaning beachgoers may still have the ability to use the beaches as they did before.

Yet, some have viewed this as a restriction on their right to access the beach, and have deliberately trespassed on private, beachfront property and incited owners to themselves act in ways which leave many scratching their heads.

Let me be clear about what the law does and was intended to do. The legislation says that the decision on whether or not a government can invoke customary use on someone’s private property goes to a neutral third-party, which is the court system. Until the law was passed, a government entity made up of a handful of people, like local county commissioners, could unilaterally decide to declare a right of use over private property for public use. That is the same as a taking and was inevitably going to result in years of costly litigation, likely to not end well for local governments.

Moreover, there is a misconception that after a private beach has been re-nourished using public funds that it will remain private and won’t be open to the public for use and enjoyment. This argument is nothing more than a red herring. The fact is, once the beach undergoes re-nourishment it becomes public [seaward of the Erosion Control Line (ECL), based on the local MHWL] and beachgoers are welcome to use it as such.

As the sponsor of this legislation, I will say I have watched some of the news reports of conflict and confusion over this law. I encourage property owners and beachgoers alike to work together and understand that this bill is not about making beaches private or disrupting your day in the sand. Again, this bill only adds a vital step affording [private property owner] due process, which is a foundational element of the U.S. Constitution. Emphasis added.
I guess it’s a foundational element If you consider the last sentence of the 5th amendment to be foundational. Sounds more like an afterthought.
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
I guess it’s a foundational element If you consider the last sentence of the 5th amendment to be foundational. Sounds more like an afterthought.
The 5th Amendment is only one sentence with 3 semicolon clauses. Unclear what you mean by "last sentence" and what sounds like an after thought? Government taking "Without just compensation" is an after thought of the Constitution authors?

State Rep. Katie Edwards-Walpole does not refer to the 5th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is also about due process.
The Constitution states only one command twice. Due Process

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

14th Amendment Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Poppaj

SoWal Insider
Oct 9, 2015
8,727
4,021
The 5th Amendment is only one sentence with 3 semicolon clauses. Unclear what you mean by "last sentence" and what sounds like an after thought? Government taking "Without just compensation" is an after thought of the Constitution authors?

State Rep. Katie Edwards-Walpole does not refer to the 5th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is also about due process.
The Constitution states only one command twice. Due Process

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

14th Amendment Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Afterthought as in “hey guys, we should have included this with that first document.” Next time you build a house tell your architect you want to place some “foundational elements” on the 5th and 14th floors.
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach

Attachments

  • FL Gov Scott EO-18-202.pdf
    723.7 KB · Views: 51
New posts