Discussion in 'Local Government and Groups' started by Reggie Gaskins, Apr 25, 2019.
Maybe. And maybe the CU supporters will lighten up on their hate and hypocrisy pointed at the BFO's.
Are BFOs also expected to pick up trash that slobs leave behind if their back yard is ruled to be a public beach?
Now that's funny. Since Beachfront Owners lawyers in their infinite wisdom talked them into stopping trash pickup by the county on OUR beaches. The good County trash pickup folks can take care of that as they had for decades if you wish.
Dave Rauschkolb, that is only the first third of section (2). This is NOT an open ended limitation of liability as you posted. You inconveniently (purposely?) left out the qualifying remainder of the Statute 375.251. Your credibility suffers when you leave out facts you want us all to consider. Did FBFA attorney Daniel Uhlfelder give you legal advise to exclude the written agreement with the State?
Interesting the specific “recreational purposes” do not include any coastal dry beach activates.
(2)(b) “… makes available to any person an area primarily for the purposes of hunting, fishing, or wildlife viewing is entitled to the limitation on liability provided herein so long as the owner or lessee provides written notice of this provision to the person before or at the time of entry upon the area or posts notice of this provision conspicuously upon the area.”
I’m guessing CU believers are OK with 1,192 BPOs posting on their dry sand beach a large conspicuous sign with this legal notice. Right?
(5)(b) “Outdoor recreational purposes” includes, but is not limited to, hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, nature study, water skiing, motorcycling, and visiting historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites.
Seems clear the 2012 legislature had inland lands, riparian waters, and parks in mind. Did not have the littoral dry sand beach recreation in mind or you’d think they would have listed at least one beach activity; but I would guess CU believers argue the beach falls under the “… but is not limited to, … part. Only a judge can interpret the statute ambiguities.
Here is the current official Florida Statute Chap 375 Sec 251
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
Not the 2012 Senate Legislative page that has not been updated since 2012.
FBB, I do not see how the Judge will allow the liability issue as evidence until he rules on the lawsuit. Your group is desperate to encourage BFO's to stay in the lawsuit and you have a credibility issue. The only way you can overcome this lack of credibility is to be honest about who you are. That should make sense to most everyone in the community including BFO's and non BFO's. I don't care whether you do or not I am just explaining why it is important to have credibility.
Dave Rauschkolb, here's another fact you and vocal CU believers never talk about. The State Parks DO NOT permit Walton TDC trash vehicles on the miles of State beachfront property, as is the State's right and power to do as beachfront property owners. The TDC could pickup trash on either side, from the east and west, of private properties that also prohibit TDC vehicles but the State Parks vehicle prohibitions block access from the east or west and strand a few sections of beach that the TDC can not drive (and leave the beautiful tire tracks or drag marks) on. The TDC published a PDF beach trash map. The TDC can access the beach from the road at all 56 public beach accesses too - just like the tourist. The State of Florida blocks many times MORE Walton beachfront that the TDC can NOT drive on the the few BPOs. Can't smoke or have pets in Florida Parks either; but BPOs can't prohibit the public on their private property; unless they have uninterrupted quiet use and enjoyment protected by the Constitution and American courts.
mputnal instead of posting about pseudonyms and my credibility why do you not post about why my and other BPOs posted facts are wrong, or post your own CU facts backed up with the law of something other than I believe. Something other than talking about my "group", your "group" and class warfare conspiracies. Dead horse.
By the way, in my layman's opinion reading FS 163.035 and understanding of old English custom common law, liability has nothing to do with establishing CU, liability is not a CU criteria, and no liability evidence for the Judge to allow and be presented to the court. Maybe you can explain why BPO liability would be a factor in the CU litigation?
Do you suppose that there are beachfront property owners who actually aren't fighting customary use or do you just assume that since they do own beachfront property that they're bad people? You seem to be rich, so all rich people can't be bad, right?
Now there’s a good question to answer. There’s not one beachfront owner that I dislike or think is bad. There is one vocal private beach advocate that’s not actually a beachfront property owner who I’m not very fond of but he/she are not bad people. I actually respect them more because they speak for themselves as real people. I really don’t know them well enough to dislike them though. In fact, many many private beachfront owners are my very good friends and some of them agree with me and some of them don’t. And that’s the truth. One of your more vocal allies is a very very good friend of mine, She and I talk often on ways to solve this. And wealth has nothing to do with whether or not people are good or bad.
Here is another good question for you to answer, what evidence or arguments that removal of property rights is ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute?
FBB, if you read my posts you will know exactly why I think your facts are insufficient to the bigger picture of life. In other words those facts that you have repeated 100 times or more are missing something about what it means to have an awareness of something more important than exclusive private beach. I say your group because you support a fact without an identity. If I knew your name I would address as such and would be able to have a more civil conversation. I hope there will never be class warfare and I am just the messenger of how the unequal distribution of resources leads to civil discontent throughout history. The beach is a unique and very limited resource that give people hope and happiness. Reducing that resource for the pleasures of a few people is not smart. I do not think you are who you say you are but if you want to prove me wrong then it would be so simple for you to just tell us who you are. This particular horse will not die until you come clean or someone pulls the plug on this thread. I think this horse is an appaloosa. I've learned that they have a determined spirit...
That is an interesting considering that you are the leader of FBFA, who is a co-plaintiff suing her. Walton County has already legally acknowledged years ago in court Suzanne Harris's private property rights on the beach. Your organization's lawsuit against her is considered by many as frivolous, and the lawyers have responded accordingly.
Your push to sue over 5000 people who own the 1194 parcels "at all costs" with "no compromise" has always lacked credibility. What did you tell Suzanne is the argument that removal of private property rights is ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute as the lawsuit claims?
Scj, your recent posts admits that you are not a BPO in Walton County which begs the questions who are you representing and why? Your credibility is now zero unless you can answer those questions.
My name, age, location, party affiliation, religious believes, occupation, and gender, have zero impact on the validity of the following top 10 statements with references:
1. A US Citizen cannot have property taken by a State (or Walton County) without due compensation nor without due process of law
Reference: 5th Amendment US Bill of Rights. “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. 14th Amendment US Bill of Rights. “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
2. An owner of Private Property in the State of Florida may not be forced to accept unlimited people with unlimited beach equipment against the will of the property owner.
Reference: State of Florida Property Bill of Rights posted on the Walton County Web Site (in particular #3):
“1. The right to acquire, possess, and protect your property”
“2. The right to use and enjoy your property”
“3. The right to exclude others from your property”
“4. The right to dispose of your property”
“5. The right to due process”
“6. The right to just compensation for property taken for a public purpose”
“7. The right to relief, or payment of compensation, when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of the state or a political entity unfairly affects your property”
3. The Walton County BCC attempted to remove Property Rights (right of Exclusion) without due process and without compensation for the first time in a 2016 Beach Ordinance. HB 631 documented a procedure which the must prove that the recreational use has been “ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute”.
Reference: Walton County BCC minutes and HB 631
4. Walton County filed a lawsuit against owners of 1194 parcels (thousands of people) to remove property rights (right of exclusion) that would allow unlimited people with unlimited beach equipment to use private property against the will of the property owner.
Reference: Formal Notice of Intent to affirm the existence of recreational customary uses on private property passed and adopted by the BCC Nov 3, 2018. “A customary use affirmation is sought only on the portion of the properties referenced in Exhibit “A” that consists of the dry sand area of the beach”. “The dry sand area of the beach is defined as the zone of unconsolidated material that extends landward from the mean high water line to the place where there is marked change in material or physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation, usually the effect limit of storms waves, whichever is more seaward”.
5. The sources of evidence the BBC lawsuit used to show recreational customary rights were ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute were allegedly been provided in Exhibit B, but NO EVIDENCE was provided that supports those claims..
Reference: Motion to Dismiss, Court Document #996 in case 2018CA547, filed by George Mead on August 16, 2019
6. Walton County acknowledged in a 2009 settlement that Edgewater beachfront property has been historically at all time for the exclusive, private use of Edgewater’s owners and guests. Edgewater has filed Motions to Dismiss and recover Attorney Fees.
Reference: Motion to Dismiss, Court Document #881 in case 2018CA547, filed by Kay Simpson on June 19, 2019 and Motion to Recover Attn Fees, Court Document #932 in case 2018CA547, filed by Kay Simpson on July 12, 2019.
7. No Public Beach property has ever been made Private Beach under Quiet Title as rumored by CU Advocates and FBFA. Vizcaya Beach was Private Property prior to the 2016 Beach Ordinance and HB 631 and did not change the status of the deeds or property boundaries as rumored by the graphics used at the FBFA meetings and FB.
Reference: Social Media Posts on Visioning FB Page, FBFA FB Page, and review of Walton County Property Records
8. Beach property is taxed as opposed to a contrary rumor by CU advocates and FBFA supporters which was proved to be false.
Reference: Social Media Posts on Visioning FB Page, FBFA FB Page, and review of Walton County Property Records
9. FBFA leaders and CU advocates used rally cry used to sue BPO to remove property rights “at all costs” and “no compromise”. FBFA lawyer indicated that the lawsuit could take 10 years and cost $50,000,000 or more.
Reference: Social Media Posts on Visioning FB Page, FBFA FB Page
10. BPO’s have doxed on Social Media, including threats of destruction of private property, violence and death, and had numerous Social Media posts deleted. Many BPO’s have banned from social media sites, some of who never made posts, but were deleted because who there were and not what they said.
Reference: Social Media Posts on Visioning FB Page, FBFA FB Page and other Social Media Sites
Scj, all you have to do is tell us (BPO's and non BPO's) who you are working for. I think we can figure out the why part. If you are going to make accusatory statements then you will have to back it up with the truth of why you are posting in a community forum. Again, if you want BPO's to believe you then you have to be willing to identify yourself. If you can't do that then your agenda is not to help this community heal from this emotional issue but rather something else entirely. If you care about civility and respect then yes it is a requirement for credibility and honor to back up your statements with an identity. I honestly do not care whether you do or not but I am sure that BPO's care because they are part of this community.
Scj, I will even give you an incentive to be more truthful about who you are working for. If you do this I will personally catch us a mess of fish, prepare and cook with sides AND have whatever beverage (if I can afford it) you desire. I feel like the community needs to heal with a more positive message. Everything you and I are now posting have been said hundreds of times and we ain't gettin anywares. Why not try a more community approach. Friends are better than enemies. I think BPO's would prefer a less negative association. I'm serious so how bout it?
Over a month ago:
Does that include the dirty word, COMPROMISE?
If the CU supporters would just stick to ALL of the facts, and not just their cherry-picked hyperbole, the discussion would be much better.
And certainly shorter.
Judge Green is not affected by anything said here on this forum. That is a fact!
Separate names with a comma.