New posts

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
I invite anyone to not just "dislike" my or any of the property rights or CU claims posts in the previous 2 months. Lets have a civil discourse on what is disliked or any of the CU or property rights issues discussed in the last 2 months. You choose first then I choose 1. Suggest it has to be a civil discourse with credible information that can be verified with facts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mike Jones

Beach Fanatic
Dec 24, 2008
338
181
Why do you think you know my "aim" and that it is to "get banned"? What have I done to get banned for in your informed opinion?


Wow. BFOs have "invaded" South Walton and SoWal!? That's not conciliatory. Is inflammatory and seems like attack on people's motive. Then BFOs "are not welcome here unless they can't post respectfully and without attacking people." But you just attacked by accusing BFOs of "invading" too? Seems BMBV has a point.
Are you including this list of CU advocates that have attacked BFOs too? #493 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy .

What issue would you like to stick to and respond to respectfully? How about if without CU South Walton will be a ghost town?
Or an outspoken repetitive CU claim that BMB owners quiet title of "public" (private) beach?
I am referring to the piling on persons by name. Two in particular. One of whom is not here to defend himself. Personal attacks. Against the rules. Attacking issues or even a fro8is totally different. The invasion is on this forum. Anyone can see it.
And I don't think calling you a snowflake is a personal attack.
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
I am referring to the piling on persons by name. Two in particular. One of whom is not here to defend himself. Personal attacks. Against the rules. Attacking issues or even a fro8is totally different. The invasion is on this forum. Anyone can see it.
And I don't think calling you a snowflake is a personal attack.
"Piling on"? Invite anyone you know to come an defend their public forum or social media positions and statements if they feel "attacked" by credible facts or present alternative credible facts. I know of no one who is shy about using social media and speaking in a public forum that could not have a civil discourse in an open forum. Is there anyone who can not present credible facts to support their CU positions that feels piled up on?
Define how BFO "invaded" and what "snowflake" means because your definitions and intent escapes me and I'm guessing I'm not the only one who can't see it. Seems more like an attack on BFOs and not the issues. Educate us please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

EZ4144

Beach Lover
Aug 6, 2005
194
107
"Piling on"? Invite anyone you know to come an defend their public forum or social media positions and statements if they feel "attacked" by credible facts or present alternative credible facts. I know of no one who is shy about using social media and speaking in a public forum that could not have a civil discourse in an open forum. Is there anyone who can not present credible facts to support their CU positions that feels piled up on?
Define how BFO "invaded" and what "snowflake" means because your definitions and intent escapes me and I'm guessing I'm not the only one who can't see it. Seems more like an attack on BFOs and not the issues. Educate us please.
:nuts:
 

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,289
375
I am referring to the piling on persons by name. Two in particular. One of whom is not here to defend himself. Personal attacks. Against the rules. Attacking issues or even a fro8is totally different. The invasion is on this forum. Anyone can see it.
And I don't think calling you a snowflake is a personal attack.
You are joking, right? And I mean all your statements.

So Mr. Jones, take the high road. What do you think we should we do to steer this travesty toward a quicker solution than waiting 10 years for the court to decide? Do you agree with FBFA’s stance regarding NO COMPROMISE?
 

FactorFiction

Beach Fanatic
Feb 18, 2016
494
409
Just for discussion sake, if BFO were willing to share the beach using the County's proposed "sole uses", but still retained the right to exclude if people would not abide by those sole uses and/or disturbed the quiet enjoyment of the owner and/or others on their property, could supporters of CU live with that? Part of the reason that the CU ordinance failed miserably was due to lack of understanding of the rules by virtually everyone (including code enforcement) and a lack of enforcement or ineffective enforcement due to not wanting to upset the tourists and lack of staffing. Two to three people per shift cannot cover the whole beach in any kind of timely fashion. The County could have avoided all of this IMO if they had established a set of rules that were similar to the sole uses across the entire beach and then truly enforced those sole uses. If CU advocates are willing to accept sole uses on privately owned beaches, would they accept it for ALL beaches? Based on the number of tents, canopies, newfangled sun shelters of varying kinds, gigantic coolers, blow up furniture, toys, and whatever else people can think of to drag down to the beach, I have difficulty believing that people will ever accept that they can't reserve and occupy the beach in whatever manner they see fit. Maybe THAT is why BFO are fighting to protect their rights rather than the widespread belief that they just don't want anybody on their beaches.
 

Dave Rauschkolb

Beach Fanatic
Jul 13, 2005
1,006
790
Santa Rosa Beach
I ask again, is this really about behavior on the beaches? Or, is it about private property rights zealots pushing to exclude people from the beaches? Records are records; they can’t be altered or influenced. Has anyone looked back over the last 10 years to see how many complaints have occurred to the sheriff’s department or code enforcement from beachfront owners about behavior on the beaches? I know the answer. Do you?
 
New posts