Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[Dave Rauschkolb]

I never saw his plan .

Is it really behavior that caused the CU vs Private beach issue?
Discussion in 'Local Government and Groups' started by Dave Rauschkolb, Jun 6, 2019.

1. The tragedy here is that a handful of influential politicians, beachfront owners and lawyers first stopped beach nourishment then stopped Customary Use through House Bill631. As a result, our beach community has been altered with extremely negative consequences.
   
   There is no escaping the fact that property values near the beaches are higher because of their close proximity to the beach. Beachfront owners pay for the view and convenience of having the water steps from their homes. Homes closer but not on the beach have little less value because of the convenience of having the water and beach a short walk from their homes. Homes that require a short drive are less valuable for that reason and homes that require a longer drive are worth less.
   
   So, two values, both quality of life and financial values are tied directly to the shared beach and those homes closest to the beach. Shared is the operative word and beach is THE place that determines value on all levels. That is to say balance and shared value for all is optimal for everyone who is invested in our community. Beachfront owners have the advantage of view and the closest proximity.
   
   Beachfront owners have prominently stated the cause of all this is bad behavior on the our beaches. So, if the real issue is behavior let's work together to reign in the behavior, set some new more impactful rules and begin sharing the beaches again; all of the beaches again from dune line to water line.
   
   If that is the compromise then that is the only compromise I can see. Fix the behavior and share the beaches. But once you start talking property rights and applying them to a beach and excluding people from that beach you have lost me. You all have been asking for compromise. If the behavior really is the problem let's address it, take down the signs and reset and restore the balance for the betterment of our community. Any takers?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

From Dave Rauschkolb:
“So, if the real issue is behavior let's work together to reign in the behavior, set some rules and begin sharing the beaches again; all of the beaches again from dune line to water line. If that is the compromise then that is the only compromise I can see. Fix the behavior and share the beaches. I am full of ideas.”
Maybe full of something else.

Dave says the above here
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

And Dave DOUBLE DOWNS here
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

And then Dave TRIPLE DOWNS HERE
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

Compromise? You’ve got to be joking!! Simply “reign in bad behavior” and take over private property with absolutely no compensation??

If anyone thinks that Dave Rauschkolb or Daniel Uhlfelder ever seriously looked for a strategy to “compromise” this terrible situation brought on by the BCC and CU proponents, well...never mind. They’ve repeatedly stated they will not accept compromise, i.e. Mr. and Mrs. No Compromise.

CUnCOURT

Edit...I just saw Dave’s previous post AFTER I worked on this post. Well at least he’s consistent.

Aw, what the heck.....
And then Dave QUADRUPLE DOWNS HERE
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

 

[Jim Tucker]

I have not seen his plan. I know Dave well and I like him.

His plan is outlined here:
Access and use, convenience advantages & solutions for housekeeping on our beach

 

[Auburn Fan]

His plan is outlined here:
Access and use, convenience advantages & solutions for housekeeping on our beach

Definition of a compromise: settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

Suzanne was right.
Dave didn't offer any compromise.

 

[Auburn Fan]

Jim, that was just description of how Dave would like to control the use of the beach if he had control. (Along with the cotton candy lengthy description of why his affluent neighborhood is justified in blocking the public's access to God's beautiful shoreline.)

Dave is not an elected official. He is not even in the position of offering a compromise. Rauschkolb merely represents a powerful multi-million dollar corporation who stands to gain significantly if the floodgates of beach use are opened.... As long as it's not his neighborhood.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

His plan is outlined here:
Access and use, convenience advantages & solutions for housekeeping on our beach

I read the referenced post a 3rd time and still don’t see any compromise at all - only a reference to cows and cow pastures (and by inference, the “BS” associated with the cow pastures) and beach ambassadors. Otherwise Dave Rauschkolb desires that the public, whose numbers continue to grow and grow thanks to TDC marketing and resulting off beach development, is allowed full access to private property without any compensation whatsoever.

And he also admits, he’s “protected” at Watersound because of inconvenient access to their beach.

I just don’t get how people can profess one thing and live another.

com·pro·mise
/ˈkämprəˌmīz/
noun

1. an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
   
   

 

[EZ4144]

I read the referenced post a 3rd time and still don’t see any compromise at all - only a reference to cows and cow pastures (and by inference, the “BS” associated with the cow pastures) and beach ambassadors. Otherwise Dave Rauschkolb desires that the public, whose numbers continue to grow and grow thanks to TDC marketing and resulting off beach development, is allowed full access to private property without any compensation whatsoever.

And he also admits, he’s “protected” at Watersound because of inconvenient access to their beach.

I just don’t get how people can profess one thing and live another.

com·pro·mise
/ˈkämprəˌmīz/
noun

1. an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
   

I live in SoWal and desire open beaches. But they're not. And a lot of them are inconvenient.

 

[Reggie Gaskins]

Our old guys club has been watching this thread develop from the sidelines.

Here's the 3 questions we keep asking. So maybe someone can answer them with some honest answers.

How is an entitlement mentality of the public being promised someone else's private property, for free, NOT Socialism?

Why does no one point out that this guy, who lives and works on restricted private beaches, with his picture all over the place, publishes all of this creative writing that is all based on totally false premise, fantasies, nothing factual at all about it, entirely wishful thinking?

How does the obvious propaganda and dishonest behavior by 4 or 5 little agitators on social media not result in swift legal recourse and stiff penalties for malicious activist misdeeds?

Us old guys would appreciate real answers, not the childish replies we keep seeing here.

 

[Auburn Fan]

I live in SoWal and desire open beaches. But they're not. And a lot of them are inconvenient.

Inconvenient?

Here's one thought:

Perhaps you should talk to Rauschkolb about campaigning for Surf Rider to sue Watersound for eminent domain to open up a public street transecting that neighborhood so the public has access to that gorgeous beach that is calling the public's name.
Surfrider is all over breaking up enclaves for the super rich.
No parking you say? No problem. Uber is the answer of the future day-tripping day-camper.
And by the way, day-trippers won't be contributing to the lucrative bed tax that helps pay for the exponentially growing county services required to manage the hordes of additional tourists that are growing worldwide.

Heres another (sarcastic) thought:

"Oh hey, yeah, let's just sue thousands of homeowners, costing each of them thousands of dollars to defend the rights that came with their property when they bought it, because there's a group of us, stirred up by some emotional keyboard warriors, who now fear that we might be inconvenienced when we want to go sunbathe."

 

[Jimmy T]

Saw an article in the news this morning that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that property owners can go directly to federal court with claims that state and local regulations effectively deprive landowners of the use of their property.

Curious if it has any implications for the CU battle.