You got that right, especially when he brought up the Nazi analogy. But it should be for everyone else who has any sense of decency. Some things I don’t dismiss as easily as others might.
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.
There are things actual Nazis have said (and done) that you should be able to forgive. Or at least overlook. To continually bring it up says more about you than him.
Vindictiveness, vitriol and vendettas. And more mischaracterizations and lies than I can count. I stand by every word I’ve said. Adios again.
After following a very long thread below, it becomes obvious. Attacking and suing private property owners isn't going to work. Nor or they the problem, they're being scapegoated. Attacking CU activists isn't going to work. Nor are they the solution, too narrow issue focused and combative with personal agendas, creating additional problems.
So, let's look, What are the problems?
1). There are exponentially more new visitors to limited amount of beach
2). County has failed to purchase public beach to keep up with TDC promotion/demand
3). The available public beaches are blocked by commercial chairs
4). There is little to no communication to visitors on available public access and beach
5). There is conflicting information being published and broadcast to all audiences
6). Private beach owners are increasingly exercising their right of exclusion
That's it, nothing more, nothing less.
1). Can't do anything about #1, horse has left the barn.
2). Spend the $50 million they are about to spend suing citizens, on purchasing public beach parcels. Problem solved.
3). BCC is pretending to address. Need an immediate and total ban on unoccupied chairs on public beaches, yesterday. Problem solved
4). Spend TDC available cash on mandatory 1 page trifold: maps, beach rules, and public service info to be distributed at each rental. Include turtle info while at it.
5). Focus on these easy and immediate solutions. Promote the positive action publicly. Demonstrate public leadership for a change. The immediate improvement and elimination of the problem will mute the noisemakers. The Beach Property Owners will relax as the attackers go away. We get back enjoying why we're here. This problem goes away.
6). Once the attacks and noise go away, and the videos and defamation stops, the signs and ropes go back into storage. Just like before.
It really IS THAT SIMPLE. We just don't have the capable local leaders to drive it. It's time that maybe some of our distinguishedand credible national business leaders who have homes here might lend a hand by driving this coalition? I can think of a few.
So, let's look, What are the problems?
1). There are exponentially more new visitors to limited amount of beach
2). County has failed to purchase public beach to keep up with TDC promotion/demand
3). The available public beaches are blocked by commercial chairs
4). There is little to no communication to visitors on available public access and beach
5). There is conflicting information being published and broadcast to all audiences
6). Private beach owners are increasingly exercising their right of exclusion
That's it, nothing more, nothing less.
1). Can't do anything about #1, horse has left the barn.
2). Spend the $50 million they are about to spend suing citizens, on purchasing public beach parcels. Problem solved.
3). BCC is pretending to address. Need an immediate and total ban on unoccupied chairs on public beaches, yesterday. Problem solved
4). Spend TDC available cash on mandatory 1 page trifold: maps, beach rules, and public service info to be distributed at each rental. Include turtle info while at it.
5). Focus on these easy and immediate solutions. Promote the positive action publicly. Demonstrate public leadership for a change. The immediate improvement and elimination of the problem will mute the noisemakers. The Beach Property Owners will relax as the attackers go away. We get back enjoying why we're here. This problem goes away.
6). Once the attacks and noise go away, and the videos and defamation stops, the signs and ropes go back into storage. Just like before.
It really IS THAT SIMPLE. We just don't have the capable local leaders to drive it. It's time that maybe some of our distinguishedand credible national business leaders who have homes here might lend a hand by driving this coalition? I can think of a few.
7). BFO's out bidding the county to block additional public beach.
8). Everyone building monster houses to increase occupancy for rentals.
9). Code enforcement.
10). Sense of entitlement and lack of respect by all.
11). Lack of adequate infrastruture.
The TDC is only part of the problem. Nobody is required to rent out their house. Nobody is required to advertise as being able to sleep 20.
BFO's need to take some ownership to blocking the county including beach clean up as a legal maneuver.
Ropes, chains, signs, vendors and bad behavior (all parties) were an accelerent.
Code enforcement needs to be fortified.
Without bad and reactionary behavior we probably wouldn't be in this mess. Can't regulate this.
Inadequate parking and access. If you are strolling the beach, how are you suppose to know what is private vs. public? Some public is virtually land locked.
You can make your way down a public access and take a few steps to the side and boom, you are now considerered a trespasser.
Rental companies and realtors need take ownership of being part of the problem as well.
The bottom line is cash flow. Not to get off topic but this is relevent. The area (public and private sector) needs revenue outside of tourism and housing/construction.
8). Everyone building monster houses to increase occupancy for rentals.
9). Code enforcement.
10). Sense of entitlement and lack of respect by all.
11). Lack of adequate infrastruture.
The TDC is only part of the problem. Nobody is required to rent out their house. Nobody is required to advertise as being able to sleep 20.
BFO's need to take some ownership to blocking the county including beach clean up as a legal maneuver.
Ropes, chains, signs, vendors and bad behavior (all parties) were an accelerent.
Code enforcement needs to be fortified.
Without bad and reactionary behavior we probably wouldn't be in this mess. Can't regulate this.
Inadequate parking and access. If you are strolling the beach, how are you suppose to know what is private vs. public? Some public is virtually land locked.
You can make your way down a public access and take a few steps to the side and boom, you are now considerered a trespasser.
Rental companies and realtors need take ownership of being part of the problem as well.
The bottom line is cash flow. Not to get off topic but this is relevent. The area (public and private sector) needs revenue outside of tourism and housing/construction.
Great points Sowal Al and LC Bane.
Something happened in a recent US Supreme Court decision that may just accelerate a "final" decision sooner rather than later on CU. And, IMO, it does not bode well for the county and it's non-BFO residents and visitors. Basically, the ruling says that now property owners do not have to first go through the respective state courts and then go to federal courts regarding property cases. Property owners can now go directly to federal court. (You can be sure that BFOs and their attorneys are discussing this)
Supreme Court Overturns Precedent In Property Rights Case. A Sign Of Things To Come?
Excerpt:
On Friday, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the first of those decisions, a 1985 ruling that required property owners to take their complaints to the state courts first. Instead, the court majority said Knick and other property owners seeking compensation for limits on their property rights may go directly to federal court.
"We now conclude that the state litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden" on a property owner's claim that his or her land has been effectively taken for public benefit without the government paying just compensation, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.
So to your point 2, Sowal Al, about saving the $50MM and using the funds to BUY beachfront. I totally agree. Its not too late for the county to try and strike a deal with BFOs. It could be something simple like 10-20 (this will be negotiated) feet from the wet sand may be used by the public only. No commercial vending. County can (and wont) deal with the vendors on public beaches another day.
IMO if the county continues to push for all or nothing, we may very well end up with nothing backed up by a federal court ruling....
For the record, I am not a BFO and use public beach accesses frequently. When I walk my dog on the beach, he is always on a leash, and I pick up after him. I am not afraid to confront dog owners who let their dogs run wild and don't pick up after them.
Something happened in a recent US Supreme Court decision that may just accelerate a "final" decision sooner rather than later on CU. And, IMO, it does not bode well for the county and it's non-BFO residents and visitors. Basically, the ruling says that now property owners do not have to first go through the respective state courts and then go to federal courts regarding property cases. Property owners can now go directly to federal court. (You can be sure that BFOs and their attorneys are discussing this)
Supreme Court Overturns Precedent In Property Rights Case. A Sign Of Things To Come?
Excerpt:
On Friday, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the first of those decisions, a 1985 ruling that required property owners to take their complaints to the state courts first. Instead, the court majority said Knick and other property owners seeking compensation for limits on their property rights may go directly to federal court.
"We now conclude that the state litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden" on a property owner's claim that his or her land has been effectively taken for public benefit without the government paying just compensation, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.
So to your point 2, Sowal Al, about saving the $50MM and using the funds to BUY beachfront. I totally agree. Its not too late for the county to try and strike a deal with BFOs. It could be something simple like 10-20 (this will be negotiated) feet from the wet sand may be used by the public only. No commercial vending. County can (and wont) deal with the vendors on public beaches another day.
IMO if the county continues to push for all or nothing, we may very well end up with nothing backed up by a federal court ruling....
For the record, I am not a BFO and use public beach accesses frequently. When I walk my dog on the beach, he is always on a leash, and I pick up after him. I am not afraid to confront dog owners who let their dogs run wild and don't pick up after them.
Last edited:
It will take a lot of public input for the BCC to look for solutions other than the lawsuit at this point, especially with the prevalent "no compromise" attitudes that prevail with the most vocal contingents. I believe that a beach share type program would have worked with enough education and enforcement, but neither of those occurred in a sufficient way during the CU Ordinance to convince anyone that a beach share program could actually be successful. When the County decides to make some hard decisions about beach vending and the growing problem of density, coupled with tent cities and beach spreading, we might have a chance of sharing again.
The court overturning precedent in that case could be just the tip of the iceberg and the property rights issue will be small potatoes if they decide they can overrule precedent in other cases (i.e. Roe vs.Wade and others). We have hundreds of years of precedent that could just be GONE in the blink of an eye because a few justices decide they know better than all those before them how the law should be decided/interpreted.Great points Sowal Al and LC Bane.
Something happened in a recent US Supreme Court decision that may just accelerate a "final" decision sooner rather than later on CU. And, IMO, it does not bode well for the county and it's non-BFO residents and visitors. Basically, the ruling says that now property owners do not have to first go through the respective state courts and then go to federal courts regarding property cases. Property owners can now go directly to federal court. (You can be sure that BFOs and their attorneys are discussing this)
Supreme Court Overturns Precedent In Property Rights Case. A Sign Of Things To Come?
Excerpt:
On Friday, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the first of those decisions, a 1985 ruling that required property owners to take their complaints to the state courts first. Instead, the court majority said Knick and other property owners seeking compensation for limits on their property rights may go directly to federal court.
"We now conclude that the state litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden" on a property owner's claim that his or her land has been effectively taken for public benefit without the government paying just compensation, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.
So to your point 2, Sowal Al, about saving the $50MM and using the funds to BUY beachfront. I totally agree. Its not too late for the county to try and strike a deal with BFOs. It could be something simple like 10-20 (this will be negotiated) feet from the wet sand may be used by the public only. No commercial vending. County can (and wont) deal with the vendors on public beaches another day.
IMO if the county continues to push for all or nothing, we may very well end up with nothing backed up by a federal court ruling....
For the record, I am not a BFO and use public beach accesses frequently. When I walk my dog on the beach, he is always on a leash, and I pick up after him. I am not afraid to confront dog owners who let their dogs run wild and don't pick up after them.
I disagree. It is too late for Commissioners to strike any deal with BFOs. The Commissioners CU MHW-Line in the sand has been drawn. Significant BFO CU legal fees have accumulated already. Me and many BFOs are angry about the antisocial media shaming, the Commissioners' war on property rights, and any deal - I do not trust them as far as I can throw them. The only "deal" for me and many BFOs is to respect private property rights BFOs have had since 1776 and have today and enforce the laws to the legal property boundaries. "It really is that simple." The public has 825 miles of Florida foreshore to share forever. Any public dry sand "easement", much less 10 or 20 feet from the water, is not a compromise for not litigation public CU of private property and a non-starter for many BFOs.
"I agree about one thing the Commissioners have politically boxed themselves into a corner, antisocial media have repeated over and over (intentionally?) false property rights and CU misinformation, the time to "compromise" is past, and the best solution at this time is for a court to determine if Walton BFO's private property rights are superior to an anarchic English common law public customary use of American private property or not; based on the evidence and law. Which does not include CU or no-CU effect on the local economy." #888 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
Last edited by a moderator: