- Jun 20, 2005
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.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.
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?
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.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.