The more I read these posts the more I am convinced that both sides of the CU/Property Rights issue are too politicized. It is more about the principles involved in your beliefs than it is about your community. Of course it is not surprising that people are self motivated because it is human but the extent to which both sides are willing to damage the greater good (humanity) is very revealing. The agenda is to prove how RIGHT you are to have your opinion or belief AND to discredit/disrespect the other side. We no longer have great leaders in our communities that understand why it is vital to bridge divisions between competing interests. I have literally gone back and forth on the issue about what is RIGHT not about what I think right should be on this subject. The only fact that I believe to be correct here is that we have a problem of behavior in this community. BFO's are not behaving well IMHO. CU activists are not behaving well IMHO. Beach goers are not behaving well IMHO. Local government needed a good leader to bridge this divide but it didn't happen. I am not saying that that local government is not capable but for whatever reason they got it wrong and now we have an expensive lawsuit. This really should have been about our community and the problems that we have but it now has escalated ad nauseum into principle. Kind of like our politics...
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.
Sweep that "one" what? That Scenic Sotheby's SRB office did not "really" mean ECAR leadership should remain neutral on CU of private property the Commissioners discussed as far back as 2007; that many think has been the most divisive South Walton political issue ever?
Do not even get me started on the legal evidentiary admissibility of the CU "affidavits". Even if there are a million affidavits.
"Technical requirements for a sworn statement are critical but often not met. The mere signing of a statement in the presence of a notary, or a notary’s placement of an “acknowledgment” on a statement, does not constitute a sworn statement or affidavit."
I do not think you have to be an attorney to recognize the legal admissibility factual problems with the CU "affidavits".
Last edited by a moderator:
FBB I believe that you are sincere in wanting to have a conversation. Am I Right? If so then please allow me to take a stab at your question. Of course my perspective will be different than yours because I do not own beach front property. So my answer is: As long as I am respectful to other humans I have a human right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That is the only reason we have a Constitution! The legal intention of the US Constitution is to serve that purpose. The truth of the matter is that many beach front property owners built structures that block the view of a natural resource that everyone has a right to whether it is with the sense of human sight or touch. Our legal system allowed you do block the views and possibly damage that resource for the rest of us so you now have the "opportunity" to relax your legal right to keep people off your property. If I were you I would argue that it is not about keeping people out but rather if the local government had the right to "take" your property and give it to people who do not pay taxes on the property and sometimes do not respect you or the property. The fact that people do not behave respectfully is obviously confirmed in this forum and is also a truth. It seems like we have two competing truths in terms of "rights". Human rights versus Legal rights. If you believe only in legal rights then you are missing a bigger truth. You do not have to participate in the bigger truth but I believe it is the right thing to do and "settle" the lawsuit with local government. I want to believe that we have good people in local government and they will also do the right thing. Okay I can hear the laughter but what other choices do you have? If you win this battle you may lose the war. I hope you understand that I respect your property rights and I am just trying to have a conversation about how to solve problems with respect and truth. I agree with you that some CU activist have lost sight of respect and truth but you are doing the same thing with the purpose of life. When communities fall apart over things like this it is the be the beginning of the end of truth!
I knew Sotheby’s was international but it now has a Bethlehem branch?
Daniel Uhlfelder along with Dave Rauschkolb IS Florida Beaches For All.
Yes, it is.
What’s worse - intentional mistruths or the silence when called out on them?
The constant bullying is worse than silence. I'm sure thoughtful people know better than to engage with bullies.
As part of the large majorities on both sides of this issue let me remind all that the vocal minority are not representative of the majorities' views. Most beachfront owners want to share the beach as long as people are respectful of the environment and rules. Most beach lovers want to enjoy the beach in peace and leave it in good shape and not bother anyone.
As part of the large majorities on both sides of this issue let me remind all that the vocal minority are not representative of the majorities' views. Most beachfront owners want to share the beach as long as people are respectful of the environment and rules. Most beach lovers want to enjoy the beach in peace and leave it in good shape and not bother anyone.
And another lie from someone who calls everyone else a liar. Mr. Uhlfelder is our legal counsel; that is all he has ever been regarding his association with Florida Beaches For All. We appreciate his time and dedication in working towards guaranteeing our beaches may be used by all people, excluding no one.
Assuming your premise is correct, if I were the chairman of an organization whose dedicated legal counsel acts in a manner that publicly jeopardizes the reputation of that organization, I would immediately fire him/her.
Or that chairman can have it both ways....hypocrisy.
You never denied that Daniel Uhlfelder intentionally harassed private property owners nor have you condemned his use of the Nazi / BFO analogy.
Interesting comment considering that “most beachfront owners” have filed motion to intervene. It may have “used” to seem that way but when someone feels entitled to come to your party, well, you stop inviting them.