You would think some national groups like ACLU or surf rider would step up.Serious question:
If fighting for public beach use is a national issue, why does Walton County have to foot the bill?
Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
- Thread starter Reggie Gaskins
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Could it be this is a rhetorical question and Walton County isn’t footing the bill for the entire nation?Serious question:
If fighting for public beach use is a national issue, why does Walton County have to foot the bill?
I always like to use the words people use and go from there. I suppose it goes to intent, what the intent was versus what folks think it was. In the end the Senator says it must be brought before the Courts. The Governor, imo, seemed to regret signing the bill but of course with his history of close races for Governor, my opinion was he was hedging his bets to ensure he was able to defeat Senator Nelson. Just my take, you are more than welcome to disagree.
I would like to define two terms.
1. Ancient Customary Use as related to Walton County Florida - Defined as the right to transverse the coastline, swim, fish, take family photos on the entire 26 miles of 30A coastline and the right to use beach equipment on County Property (during approved hours) or State Property (with a permit) or Private Property (if no objection by the Private Property Owner).
2. Entitlement Use as related to Walton County – Defined as the rights of tourists, or locals, to use chairs, umbrellas, and other beach equipment against the will of the Property Owner (AKA Day Camping).
Note that Property Owner in item #2 could be the County (use of Public beach or parking outside of posted hours), or the State of Florida (use of State Parks without a permit or against the rules of the park), or Private Property Owners (use of property against the will of the owner). This is not about sharing County, State, or Private Property with tourists or locals. Item #2 is about use of property AGAINST the will of the property owner.
The issue of the County lawsuit is all about item #2 (Entitlement Use) and nothing about item #1 (Ancient CU). If Entitlement Use is dropped from the County Ordinance, then there is no lawsuit because there is not violation of private property rights.
The BCC has never approved, or even assumed, an Entitlement Use Ordinances prior to 2016, so this is a very recent issue by the BCC.
Even previous law enforcement agencies did not assume Entitlement use existed. In July of 2002 Mark Austin used a public access walkover to get to a stretch of Dune Allen beach and the property owner at the time, William Houser, objected to Austin's presence on "his" private property called police, who gave Austin a summons for trespassing. Although the current Sherriff has decided he is temporarily not going to enforce trespassing laws while this is in court, that doesn’t mean the private property deeded boundaries have changed or that somehow Entitlement Use is approved.
Two of the current BCC members were not on the board that decided to try and remove constitutional property rights (right of exclusion) and the BCC may have been acting with assumptions that only a few property owners would object. I am asking for Bill Chapman, Danny Glidewell, Melanie Nipper, Trey Nick, and Tony Anderson to take a new Vote to determine if they should proceed with Entitlement Use or even Vote on a budget for how much public funds to use sue Private Property Owners for Entitlement Rights? How about a Vote to alter the language of the Ordinance which could save us MILLIONS OF DOLLARS by inserting the words "WITH PERMISSION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER" to the beach ordinance referencing private property. That would potentially resolve this issue and then property owners can decided on a parcel by parcel basis if they open up their property on an unlimited basis without restriction, during particular hours, or even with some type of maximum limit on the number of tourists on their property. As far as I can tell through BCC minutes and other postings this was never discussed or even asked of the property owners. Why jump straight to a lawsuit that has already exceeded a combined expense over $1MM and has nearly 900 court documents already filed without even trying to work out something?
Are the FBFA founders, their companies, or people associated with FBFA receiving some of the funds they raised through T-Shirt sales, donations, and Go-Fund Me accounts or are they 100% volunteer organization with no paid compensation? If they are receiving any compensation then that could be seen as a personal advantage to those individuals to keep this in court as long as possible no matter what it costs in tax payers dollars. The FBFA has indicated this could be in court for 10 years and cost $50 Million Dollars, and that could be a conservative estimate. That could explain the FBFA "No Compromise" rally cry.
How we end up working together, or continuing to work against each other to create further division in Walton County on this very issue will impact our future and the 30A Legacy.
1. Ancient Customary Use as related to Walton County Florida - Defined as the right to transverse the coastline, swim, fish, take family photos on the entire 26 miles of 30A coastline and the right to use beach equipment on County Property (during approved hours) or State Property (with a permit) or Private Property (if no objection by the Private Property Owner).
2. Entitlement Use as related to Walton County – Defined as the rights of tourists, or locals, to use chairs, umbrellas, and other beach equipment against the will of the Property Owner (AKA Day Camping).
Note that Property Owner in item #2 could be the County (use of Public beach or parking outside of posted hours), or the State of Florida (use of State Parks without a permit or against the rules of the park), or Private Property Owners (use of property against the will of the owner). This is not about sharing County, State, or Private Property with tourists or locals. Item #2 is about use of property AGAINST the will of the property owner.
The issue of the County lawsuit is all about item #2 (Entitlement Use) and nothing about item #1 (Ancient CU). If Entitlement Use is dropped from the County Ordinance, then there is no lawsuit because there is not violation of private property rights.
The BCC has never approved, or even assumed, an Entitlement Use Ordinances prior to 2016, so this is a very recent issue by the BCC.
Even previous law enforcement agencies did not assume Entitlement use existed. In July of 2002 Mark Austin used a public access walkover to get to a stretch of Dune Allen beach and the property owner at the time, William Houser, objected to Austin's presence on "his" private property called police, who gave Austin a summons for trespassing. Although the current Sherriff has decided he is temporarily not going to enforce trespassing laws while this is in court, that doesn’t mean the private property deeded boundaries have changed or that somehow Entitlement Use is approved.
Two of the current BCC members were not on the board that decided to try and remove constitutional property rights (right of exclusion) and the BCC may have been acting with assumptions that only a few property owners would object. I am asking for Bill Chapman, Danny Glidewell, Melanie Nipper, Trey Nick, and Tony Anderson to take a new Vote to determine if they should proceed with Entitlement Use or even Vote on a budget for how much public funds to use sue Private Property Owners for Entitlement Rights? How about a Vote to alter the language of the Ordinance which could save us MILLIONS OF DOLLARS by inserting the words "WITH PERMISSION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER" to the beach ordinance referencing private property. That would potentially resolve this issue and then property owners can decided on a parcel by parcel basis if they open up their property on an unlimited basis without restriction, during particular hours, or even with some type of maximum limit on the number of tourists on their property. As far as I can tell through BCC minutes and other postings this was never discussed or even asked of the property owners. Why jump straight to a lawsuit that has already exceeded a combined expense over $1MM and has nearly 900 court documents already filed without even trying to work out something?
Are the FBFA founders, their companies, or people associated with FBFA receiving some of the funds they raised through T-Shirt sales, donations, and Go-Fund Me accounts or are they 100% volunteer organization with no paid compensation? If they are receiving any compensation then that could be seen as a personal advantage to those individuals to keep this in court as long as possible no matter what it costs in tax payers dollars. The FBFA has indicated this could be in court for 10 years and cost $50 Million Dollars, and that could be a conservative estimate. That could explain the FBFA "No Compromise" rally cry.
How we end up working together, or continuing to work against each other to create further division in Walton County on this very issue will impact our future and the 30A Legacy.
Bob, not clear what your intent or point was. “You remember when Governor Scott did this (this what? E-O 18-202?) and what Senator Passidomo had to say?” (say about E-O? or HB631?). Additional comment below. [1]
Regardless. If you read the words of the E-O and FS163.035 (HB631) and don’t read anything into the HB631 words, that you want to hear, or don’t want to hear, it seems clear what the intent of HB631 was. To codify Constitutional 5th and 14th Amendment due process private property rights . To prevent any other politically elected FL commissioners from doing what no other FL county had done before, and what Walton commissioners stupidly did, by trying to circumvent a Constitutional taking. [2]
The E-O intent affirmed and clarified public access to Government owned beaches; because all the other FL beaches are protected by the Constitutional due process and private property right of fair market compensation if governments want to take private property for pubic use. [3]
I don’t think the Governor regretted codifying the legal due-process Constitutional right that private property owners deserve. [4][5]
You are welcome to disagree as well but would you explain why if you do?
------------------------------------
[1] When asked to clarify your question; “I suppose it goes to intent (who’s), what the intent (which? E-O or HB631?) was versus what folks think it (E-O? or HB631?) was.” Seem to be confounding the Scott’s E-O and Passadomo’s HB631 and unsure what your point was.
[2] By hiring $425/hour legal consultants to tell Commissioners what they wanted to hear, not listen to the 3 minutes property owners and their representatives were given to object to the (legal?) customary use “evidence”, then unilaterally declare an archaic aristocratic English common law doctrine of custom on private property. Hardly Constitutional legal due process.
HB 631 correctly (1) prevents local governments from using police powers to unilaterally declare public customary use on private property and (2) placed elected government official’s legal claim of public customary use in a disciplined due-process legal setting with the government claimant as the Plaintiff with the burden of proof to show ALL historical English criteria of custom is superior to the Constitutional private property protections.
[3] It was a midterm election year and the progressive antisocial media went into high gear but against all odds the conservative Republican Senate candidate prevailed over a career incumbent Democratic politician. If no one substitute “all” beaches for “public beaches”; you don’t have to be an trained attorney to understand the words of the E-O. What was the intent of the E-O? Does it matter? The E-O is not law and can’t change law (FS163.035). It was as confusing as you wanted to make the E-O out to be; especially if you didn’t understand the words or wanted to incite the masses to fit a CU agenda.
[4] Granted the E-O didn’t not change what already was; the public should have access to all public beaches and HB631 did not change that either. The E-O nor HB 631 change the property title or the Walton Constitution private property rights BFOs have had since 1776 and have today.
[5] Key 2018 Governor Executive Order statements (of fact);
“Florida Constitution provides that the title to [all 825 miles of foreshore] beaches below the mean high water line is held by the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, in trust for all the people”
“HB 631 as enacted by the Florida Legislature does not privatize or close access to any public beach in Florida”
“it is critical that there be no room for confusion regarding access to public beaches in Florida”
“all agencies headed by an official ... not to adopt any rule restricting public access to any Florida beach that has an established recreational customary use” [Did not and does not include private owned beachfront in 33 other FL coastal counties (67 total FL counties).]
FDEP and Parks “ensure that access to Florida's public beaches is not restricted so that families and visitors can continue to enjoy our world-class public beaches”
“I hereby urge all ... county and municipal governments, to refrain from adopting any ordinance or rule that would restrict or eliminate access to Florida's public beaches.”
“I hereby urge all State Attorneys ... to take appropriate actions to ensure that the ability of the public to access Florida's public beaches”
Last edited by a moderator:
Suppose I am giving you my opinion, like everyone else. I have come to a conclusion just because you have a certain belief it is not incumbent upon me to believe that way too. At the same time, expression of my opinion is not my intent to sway you from yours. I have not laid out a legal precedent to inform anyone as you have, ad nauseam, and as I have said, I am more than willing to wait for the courts to rule. I will be more than willing to accept its verdict even though I won't pretend it will be over, whichever way Judge Green rules. So to conclude this, I believe that customary use exist, I believe it will cost money to prove it, I believe my tax dollars will be used to litigate it, I think it sucks that there is a division within our community. Just my opinion.
I believe that we are stuck in idealism which is mired in political agenda. Teresa I hear you but disagree with you. Again. Not even our Supreme Court is removed from politics. Take the politics out and we are left with what do you want and are you willing to compromise. I can feel the response from both sides: "I want to be right!" Divisiveness is built into a two party political system and agenda will always be a factor . Emotion is a big part of human behavior and will always be a factor. So, here we are trying to solve problems with agenda and emotion. The more ideal and political we are, the less unity we will have in our communities. I hear both sides of this issue and understand why both sides believe they are right but I am certain that the 30A Legacy suffers when we lose our ability to compromise. It would be all peaches and cream if the court was quick to decide the issue and the side that loses "accepts" the court decision but we have become a society that no longer accepts. Just look at our Presidential elections. So what is my point? First, we as a society have to stop letting politics divide us. Second, we have to be respectful to each other. Third, we must compromise in a democracy. If your emotion and idealism gets the best of you then you are part of the problem. If you are disrespectful then you are even a bigger part of the problem. I would like for the beaches to be open and public for all people but people do not behave and there has to be rules (government). Our local government tried to solve the problem and failed because they did not find compromise. Probably not their fault because people no longer want compromise. They just want to be right...They just want what they want and when they want it...
OK. Ditto on opinions (glad to see Rauschkolb is still reading with his "Like" of your post. Still no answers to previous simple wrong or rights questions.)
You brought up the question "You remember when Governor Scott did this and what Senator Passidomo had to say? " and Fort Myers News-Press post. Then followed up an unclear statement about the Governor's or Senator's intent.
No one has implied you or anyone else must believe anything, I gave may opinion and explained why with variable information. Like it or not, take it or leave it. At least I can explain why with factual information; not because someone on social media said it.
But if you or the Commissioners do believe in something, that will cost Walton taxpayers many millions of dollars in litigation, can you or the Commissioners explain why?
You and the Commissioners do not have to explain anything but the credibility of your belief suffers. If you explain your belief, others who have not formed a belief or opinion have more information with facts, than baseless opinions.
So far I haven't heard anything but - I just believe. Not why the old English legal doctrine of customary use is superior to Constitutionally protected property rights.
Do the Commissioners have a CU case or not? If you or the Commissioners are going to take the advise of a $425 an hour attorney; what do you think the attorney is going to say? No, Commissioners you do not have a case? He gets $425/hr to litigate CU, win or lose, and nothing if he says Commissioners have no case. Just my opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
We hear you but I respectfully disagree. There are some principles, many embodied in the American Constitution, that in the 1700s English subjects thought an American Revolution was worth fighting and dying for - not just go to a court over or compromise. Private property rights and due process of law are key principles of the US Founding Fathers and authors of the Constitution. Why should BFOs compromise Constitutional principles (rights) because Commissioners and social media Believe an old English legal doctrine of public customary use is superior to those Constitutional principles? "Can't we all get along" (by compromising Constitutional principles) won't change that. Just explaining why me and many BFOs believe in the Constitution. You don't have to like it, or not like it.
Last edited by a moderator:
@Bob Wells is very thoughtful and articulate. He is like most locals and Beach lovers. We desire to enjoy the beach as we always have and respect the environment and property rights.
You and your cohort on this forum are obvious in your contemp and self righteousness. Your constant axe grinding against a couple of outspoken Customary Use activists shows your true colors. It's obvious your feelings are hurt and you are lashing out but it just makes you look bad. And cowardly.