Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Discussion in 'Local Government and Groups' started by Reggie Gaskins, Apr 25, 2019.

  1. Bob Wells

    Bob Wells Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,120
    Likes Received:
    796
    And if opponents would just wait for the court case to be settled one way or the other, but that would defeat the purpose of the thread.
     
  2. mputnal

    mputnal Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    246
    Yes, the purpose of this thread was to rile up BPO's and maybe pick up a few non BPO's with political rhetoric but the method had a major flaw. The method started with a full tank of energy and it was burned up quickly with too much duplication, repetition and negativity. IMO their method actually worked against their purpose. I think their biggest flaw is that people actually benefit from being social and community oriented and when they sense that the message is leading them away from those values they get off the bus. Speaking for myself, I got on the bus, asked a few questions, the answers made me realize that the bus ain't going where they said it was going and got off pretty quickly. I think most readers of this thread did the same thing. I will give the ghost posters some credit for the entertainment value. I am sure that Perry Mason would be proud :)
     
  3. Reggie Gaskins

    Reggie Gaskins Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    94
    Location:
    Blue Mountain Beach
    Thank you Walton County. I posted this heart felt message 170 days ago that crossed THE line in the sand (get it?). It’s sole purpose was to give voice to a perspective and set of facts that was being aggressively censored from your view. It’s done much more than that.

    It’s generated a record 500 views per day (~85,000), 10 replies per day (1,740), and gave concerned citizens a public forum to discuss the true facts of the issue. I couldn’t be more impressed with some of the voices contributing with historical and factual legal education that is deviously kept from public view elsewhere. I’ve learned a lot from these very smart folk.

    I do not understand however, Why selective retitling of this post and continued editing still must take place arbitrarily, seemingly to control the message.

    The author and friends are very happy to note, however;

    1) The public and social media staged noise have not crossed the behavior line quite so much lately, been relatively quiet with only one or two radical voices no longer being encouraged by a previously uninformed mass following.
    2) The citizens have been exposed to more and more true facts of the matter, and realize sentiments like this original post’s, are held by both sides, a mutual desire for harmony, not forced conflict.
    3) The lawsuit against the citizens was apparently a big, VERY costly mistake, having little chance of meeting the strict legal requirements necessary to remove private property rights.
    4) BPO’s are indeed people too, neighbors who want our collective beaches to be PROTECTED and enjoyed by ALL, but not abused and destroyed by a FREE FOR ALL.
    5) A 2019 record tourist season with NO inevitable threats to the economy or chaos on the beaches. But in fact a season of millions of visitors living out South Walton dreamy commercials and NOT being eaten alive by evil, greedy, malicious BPO’s.

    So thanks for the input. Thanks for the open minds. And sorry for the continued conspiracy theories and propaganda that still dilute the valuable adult discussion taking place here. But in reality, the entertainment value of the alarmist, activist, radicalist, agitatorist, blasphemist, narcissist, egotist, conspiracy theorist, antagonist, social terrorist contributions makes it fun, no?

    And remember, we’re all in this together and capable of doing what we’ve always done as soon as the lawsuits and public attacks can stop - and that’s get along peacefully, together, on our beaches. But regardless of who wins, this fight over CU Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019
  4. Dave Rauschkolb

    Dave Rauschkolb Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    673
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach
    They will never reveal themselves (the anonymous posters/posers in this thread). This entire threads real purpose is meant to be a repository of their views, their narratives and propaganda much like the handful of blogs that are out there in Internet land. #46Followers. Some of these anonymous posters/posers are the very same persons with multiple identities here to try to add “voices“ to the “Get off my beach“ narrative. They are trying here to bait customary use supporters into saying things that fit their narrative and, I would guess, to document it for some imagined legal purpose. It’s pretty obvious the way the posters are presenting that in some way they think that by posting this stuff it will be useful documentation for building a case for some future lawsuit; good luck with that. All the repetitive meticulous documentation, all the references, the footnotes the screenshots of CU supporters comments, the doxxing of CU supporters. Trying to paint their own good neighbors as a mob of unruly private property stealin’, socialist agitatin’ monsters. Good luck with that.

    Those in favor of Public Beaches are grounded and just as committed to freeing our beaches as the private beach folks are to chaining them. And the bottom line is there are plenty of those like us that will line up in every coastal community in America and if it’s not me it’ll be someone else and if it’s not them it’ll be someone else and if it’s not them it’ll be someone else. So if they think people are going to be intimidated to stop working to keep our beaches free and open to the public in coastal communities all across our nation, good luck with that.

    And finally, Anonymous Reggie's fantasy that this is some sort of amazing thread is ridiculous. Yes, big numbers of posts but as I have said, anyone can look at the engagement and it is the same 20, give or take a few, minus those banned for doxxing and personal attacks, people talking in circles; easy to document using the simple tools provided on SoWal. It's all there. Run the Data Reggie, and prove me wrong. Same people on both sides posting and viewing.

    The bottom line is that we are all neighbors on opposite sides of an issue that will be decided in Court or by lawmakers. Some of the back and forth dialogue has been interesting but nothing will be decided here and what has been posted here will have no useful purpose other than a history of the dialog of the conflict of the CU issue. The way HB631 is set up this drama will play out in many many coastal communities in Florida. HB631 placed the Commissioners in a box and the only way to proceed for Customary Use was to follow the procedures set forth in the statute. BFOs supported the bill then didn't want the Commission to follow through. It's an inconvenient truth for the anonymous folks here but that's the way it is.

    At any rate the truth is, Excluding people from our centuries of shared beaches and calling them trespassers will destroy our 30A Legacy.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019
  5. FloridaBeachBum

    FloridaBeachBum Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    101
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach
    #1744. “They will never reveal themselves.” And this is but one reason why besides the fake police report, staged trespasses on private property, CU active shooter videos, and anti-social media CU BPO-attacks. Mike Huckabee’s role in pushing controversial beach access law

    “This entire threads real purpose” ... is meant to shine the light of facts and truth on the CU believers intentional false narratives. Economic south Walton CU ghost towns, quiet title of private property was ever public, that dry sand private property is worthless or not taxed, that Vizcaya was ever public beach, there is any Seaside 30A LLC beachfront owner, that private property owners have stopped TDC driving on the beach when the State of Florida has prevented TDC from driving on MILES of “public” beaches, to name but only a few.

    “They are trying here to bait customary use supporters into saying things that fit their narrative and, I would guess, to document it for some imagined legal purpose. It’s pretty obvious the way the posters are presenting with all the documentation that in some way they think that by posting this stuff it will be useful documentation for building a case for some future lawsuit I would guess; good luck with that.” Why? Another baseless not-credible CU conspiracy theory. The Walton Commissioners’ CU case is already in court. BPO posts illustrate why vocal CU believers baseless conspiracies and narrative are false so BPO can know the difference between Fact and fiction.

    ‘Those in favor of Public Beaches [but WHY? Besides I believe or to incite others with no facts] are grounded and just as committed to freeing our beaches as the private beach folks are to chaining them.”
    Chaining them? How can a private property owner “chain” property rights they have had, have today, is recognized by the Sherriff, unless someone is trying to “take” it from them?

    "The bottom line is that we are all neighbors on opposite sides of an issue that will be decided in Court or by lawmakers. Some of the back and forth dialogue has been interesting but nothing will be decided here and what has been posted here will have no useful purpose other than a history of the dialog of the conflict of the CU issue."

    Then STOP the intentional, uninformed, CU misinformation, and BPO name calling and BPOs will not feel the need to counter the consistent CU misinformation.
     
  6. BlueMtnBeachVagrant

    BlueMtnBeachVagrant Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    189
    HB631 simply reiterated what our Constitution already states in regards to government trying to confiscate private property - that it can only be done with DUE PROCESS. To argue otherwise is being intellectually dishonest.

    IMO, the commissioners who passed the original Customary Use Ordinance with no due process violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

    All of this done because of pressure from The People (and you)..... to shred a core value of the U.S. Constitution: private property rights.

    Dave, I fully understand why you hate HB631. However, you should be taking up your gripes with the super majority of Florida legislators who passed it and the Constitution which requires due process and not blame beach front owners.

    Somehow I think you know your cause doesn’t stand a chance with customary use being tried in court (where it belongs) and not by The People. And that’s what really irks you about HB631.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019
  7. jodiFL

    jodiFL Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,476
    Likes Received:
    543
    Location:
    SOWAL,FL
    Guess those BFOs with pre-2016 ordinances are just SOL. They "lost" their right to use "their beach" when they re-worded HB631 to exclude them. Wonder why all these lawyers arent lining up in those counties to "support private property rights" ??
     
  8. bob1

    bob1 Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    68
    Why isn't the county required to include beach situation in advertising?
     
  9. Reggie Gaskins

    Reggie Gaskins Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    94
    Location:
    Blue Mountain Beach
    Thx, I forgot. The same 10-20 viewers on this thread are the same “only a handful, aka10-12” BPO’s that we were led to believe would challenge a lawsuit against them. But now in reality, thousands are defending themselves. But sure, we’ll go with that 10-20 fantasy if it makes some of us sleep better. I’m cool with that.

    (Back of Restaurant napkin math....500 views per day/12 people = 42 views per day EACH, for 170 days. If each of the 12 BPO’s is awake for 15 hrs/day, that’s about 3x per hour EACH during every waking hour, EVERY DAY)
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019
  10. mputnal

    mputnal Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    246
    Thank you Dave for being the bigger person with your positive message. It is okay to disagree with people but the methods that the power brokers bring to this community is worse than negative. The anti-social nature of those that oppose public beaches for all humans and forever is shameful. They know it and have no choice but to hide their faces from the community. I seriously tried to give them a chance to offer a different tone but they can't do it. It is not in their nature. The offer still stands for them to come to a social event and discuss possible solutions that would be good for all people and not just a few. Maybe I am more of an idealist than I should be but I always have hope that people can see through themselves into a much bigger and brighter world of beautiful resources and beautiful people. Of course we all have room to improve ourselves but you must first have awareness. All we have to go on is the words they type and I sense no such awareness from them. They behave like they have a mandate to attack people and minimize another opinion otherwise why would they hide behind fake names.
     
  11. FloridaBeachBum

    FloridaBeachBum Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    101
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach
    #1747. Guess those BFOs with pre-2016 ordinances are just SOL. They "lost" their right to use "their beach" when they re-worded HB631 to exclude them. Wonder why all these lawyers arent lining up in those counties to "support private property rights" ??

    jodiFL and bob1, as CU believers why do you use pseudonyms? Do pseudonyms determine your belief credibility or do the verifiable facts you post?

    jodiFL, your question suggests you know more or know something about CU litigation we all do not or you do not know much about any other CU ordinance(s).

    a. Of Florida’s 67 counties which county(s) had CU ordinance(s) prior to January 1, 2016?
    b. Did the lower courts affirm the ordinance(s) PRIOR to ordnance(s) going into effect or did the county(s) declare CU without BPO due process first?
    c. Were any of the CU ordinance(s) appealed to the higher courts, which courts, and what were the rulings?
    d. What are the county(s) specific recreational CU uses in the ordinance(s)?
    e. Do/did the ordinance(s) apply to all private beach properties in that/those county(s)?
    f. In any Florida CU litigation is driving public vehicles on private beach property ruled ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute? If yes, would is it reasonable that the automobile is “ancient” according to old English custom common law?
    g. If SCOTUS found ancient English common law of public customary use of private property with title to the MHWL unConstitutional would the previous ordnance(s) be valid or invalid?

    This BPO can answer these simple questions, can any CU believer, and post them here?
     
  12. Suzanne Harris

    Suzanne Harris Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    89
    I do think I know anyone named Stone Cold therefore do not voice your opinion about me or what I think or don’t think. I do think this lawsuit will take 7 years or more and will cost millions of dollars. I do believe the county let this get completely out of control. They can get control of vendors and that will be a good start.

    Dave has not told me anything to convince me of anything. I have a mind of my own and you should know that by now .
     
  13. Jim Tucker

    Jim Tucker Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    230
    :box:
     
  14. Stone Cold J

    Stone Cold J Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2019
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    88
    Location:
    SRB
    Suzanne, you are correct, I don't know you. If you will read again what I wrote, you will see I specifically did not write anything of your opinion or what you think or do not think. I could never presume to know your mind. But if my choice of words gave that impression, please accept my sincere apology. My comment was merely based on what Dave has previously posted on social media. I appreciate your posts, comments, letters to the editors, and your efforts to make SOWAL a better place.

    So is the general feeling by CU supports to spend $50,000,000 BEFORE anyone (including the BCC, County Lawyer, Mr No Compromise at any costs, or any other CU supporter, can answer how removal of property rights (right of exclusion) without compensation is somehow ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute as claimed in the lawsuit?

    This is a claim the BCC has never made in any ordinance prior to 2016. As referenced before, a COURT CASE IN 2009 against the county was ruled Edgewater beachfront property has been historically at all time for the exclusive, private use of Edgewater’s owners and guests. What makes Edgewater rights previously recognized in a court of law by the County, but now being sued by the BCC to remove those same rights, any different than the private property next door to Edgewater?

    If the BCC has always had full use of private property, why did the BCC previously purchase property to make it public beach? If there is a lawsuit that is going to cost $50,000,000, doesn’t that mean it is under dispute? Is it reasonable to remove property rights without compensation against a minority of private property owner in Walton County? If successful, why not extend that removal to other private property owners in Walton County to use their land for public parking, shuttle stops, and public restrooms without compensation? If some kids have been playing baseball on a piece of land, why not use the same logic and build a sports stadium on that land without compensation to the owner?

    Saying the county should wait to spend $50,000,000 before they answer the question (eventually Judge Green must be told how this is ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute) is similar to spending millions of dollars on a property for the new TDC building, way above appraisal, only to find out AFTER spending the money that the building won’t meet their purpose and must be torn down or sold for scrap. Shouldn’t the BCC (or ANYONE) at least answer some basic questions BEFORE risking $50,000,0000? How do you think the Supreme Court will rule on this case of the BCC trying removing property rights without compensation as ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute?
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2019
  15. mputnal

    mputnal Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    246
    Stone Cold, your group manipulates words, facts and the truth in order to manipulate people. The fact is this is a beach community that takes pride in our resources which include people (not exclude). If you were really part of this community you would understand but you are far removed from us. Of course we make mistakes but we need each other to solve these problems. It is called putting a face to the problems. You offer us nothing really because we are not ignorant about our problems of beach density and vending and infrastructure etc. Your solution is to follow one principle because the ends justify the means. It solves hardly any of our problems. You repeat this one principle over and over and over because you know that many BFO's take pride and value in community. The County has made many mistakes in our community but IMO this lawsuit to determine if our beaches are public or private is not one of them. There are many principles at play in LLH. Your solution is to abandon all principles but one that will certainly benefit those you work for and hurts thousands of others. Stop trying to talk for anyone but yourself.
     
  16. BlueMtnBeachVagrant

    BlueMtnBeachVagrant Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    189
    Do the people on Walton County Ideas for Visioning and Quality of Life really buy this perpetuated mistruth? Nobody including Dave, denounced it.

    Poster on Facebook from 5 days ago:
    Walton county should do eminent domain on any land south of the CCL. Beachfront owner should be paid the small fee they paid to quiet their title and no more.

    Dave Rauschkolb’s response:
    yes, I believe Eminent domain is their endgame but I completely agree if that is the case no more than $400 a parcel for what it cost to quiet title.

    REDICULOUS!

    After a bit of thought, I am more than convinced that Dave simply has it in with beach front owners. The true rediculousness of his posts does nothing to further his cause other than drive a wedge further into this already divisive topic.

    The above example from Rauschkolb is just one of many which accomplishes nothing but casts ALL BFOs in a negative light.

    I really didn’t know how clairvoyant Reggie’s initial post was until I saw and continue to see the crazy attacks on private property owners using the CU battle flag.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2019
  17. Dave Rauschkolb

    Dave Rauschkolb Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    673
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach

    I think you said it First. Malarkey! I don't attack Beachfront owners, only the notion of private beaches. I do stand up to the handful of those specific beachfront owners, non-beachfront owners who act like they are, and lawyers and political operatives who have driven a wedge in our community by excluding the public from our centuries shared beaches.
     
  18. BlueMtnBeachVagrant

    BlueMtnBeachVagrant Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    189
    Dave,

    IMHO, customary use is to you more of a popularity contest than a civil / legal debate. As I’ve seen multiple times, you do absolutely nothing to dispel this quiet title myth - rather you encourage it. And this quiet title fantasy is just one of your many mistruths (including supposed public beach turning private at Vizcaya) that you perpetuate all in the name of winning the “hearts and minds” of those who are truly ignorant (understandably in some cases) of the facts. And it provides fake ammunition for your followers to help spread the “gospel”.

    Hell, I (and everyone here on SoWal) would be really pissed off if any public beach was sold off as private. But of course, as you very well know, that’s not the case.

    I have full confidence in your ability to understand human psychology and to your credit, you (and Daniel Uhlfelder) have done an effective job in making beach front private property owners appear to be less than desirable members of this community in the eyes of your followers and those who don’t know any better.

    I’m ok with customary use supporters’ belief in general, though I obviously disagree - but I’m compelled to call out the ones that fabricate and propagate negative alternate realities that take personal aim at beach front private property owners. And here you and I are.

    You are a “leader” in our community, a successful entrepreneur, a family man, even a surfer dude. Why do you have to continue to stain your reputation by all the creative mistruths? You helped initiate the original customary use law suit by helping convince 5 commissioners to ignore required DUE PROCESS and pass the original CU ordinance and then when that failed, to initiate the customary lawsuit such as it is. You were effective. And now it’s in court where it belongs.

    Take the high road and just “Let It Be”. Quit with the propaganda, here and on Facebook. Maybe our so called BFO closet lawyers (your nemesis) will back off as I think they have already effectively made their case against CU and then you won’t lose sleep trying to figure out who they are. All bets are off if others come out with the same line of attacks.

    And please don’t call your compromise a compromise when there’s no compromise.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2019
  19. kayti elliott

    kayti elliott Beach Lover

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2014
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    Freeport
    Centuries? How many centuries have you been sharing the beach with others?
     
  20. mputnal

    mputnal Beach Fanatic

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    246
    BMBV I thought I would just let you know that we public beach supporters are unified because we believe in a universal truth. I would explain this truth to you but you have sold your conscience to a materialistic existence of privatized beach ownership and would never understand. No judgement here. Just facts.

    Maybe I should try to explain to you. The concept is very simple: I see the beach as a natural beauty with a power within itself greater than any one or more humans. The power of the beach resource in terms of hope and happiness is something that you will unfortunately never feel because if you did you would not support private beaches. Again, this is not a judgement because many of us humans have become materialistic (including myself) but this issue has made me think about what "the beach" means to me and how I would feel about if I had the power to exclude people from her natural beauty and power. It is so easy to justify our materialism of beach ownership as "earned" when you believe it is legal to own such a powerful resource. I have discovered that justification and entitlement are linked together to form a significant barrier to empathy. I am very concerned about the way these people you support in this forum have disconnected from people. Don't drink from their well of entitlements. Yes this lawsuit is expensive but worth every penny from my perspective if it stops this attack on not just the beach but the attack on the value of people in general. There are other reasons to support public beaches but this is a primary reason for me. Let me know when you are ready for the many other reasons :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • List

Share This Page