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.
It would appear the title of this thread is dead on arrival based on the recent posts. And, of course, most people think the only solution is via CUnCOURT anyway.
The compromises I suggested was a simple attempt to increase (bridge) access to the beach via private property until this CU mess gets settled one way or the other in court. If CU ultimately prevails, no harm, no foul. If CU ultimately fails, the county will have to get serious about purchasing private beach for public use, including parking. And it will be more expensive at that time.
But some can’t see past their own nose, wanting it all or nothing.
So now, I change my mind about supporting the concept of allowing the public to use the back part of our beach. It’s pretty obvious that it would be just another one of those no good deed goes unpunished. And I’m probably being a bit naive thinking that anyone would actually “appreciate” the effort.
The compromises I suggested was a simple attempt to increase (bridge) access to the beach via private property until this CU mess gets settled one way or the other in court. If CU ultimately prevails, no harm, no foul. If CU ultimately fails, the county will have to get serious about purchasing private beach for public use, including parking. And it will be more expensive at that time.
But some can’t see past their own nose, wanting it all or nothing.
So now, I change my mind about supporting the concept of allowing the public to use the back part of our beach. It’s pretty obvious that it would be just another one of those no good deed goes unpunished. And I’m probably being a bit naive thinking that anyone would actually “appreciate” the effort.
How would you collect from people using your Beach? And would you give them a wristband?
Okay each time there seems to be a willingness to compromise (or at least have a decent conversation) someone (FBB this time) throws a wrench into the works. FBB I tend to agree with you on the property rights part of this argument but I strongly disagree with you on the humanity (greater good) part of this. You seem to be wrapped up tight on your and other property owners rights to own the beach. You could very well when this battle but in my opinion it will be the beginning of the end of your peace in enjoying this beautiful resource because I believe you to be a decent human. Peace and happiness is the goal right? There are good reasons "why" it is important to not just see this from your legal rights perspective. You pay property taxes and I get it, you believe that our Constitution is worth living and dying for and I get that but what I don't get is why you have such limited concern about what happens in a world that only cares about money and power and your version of being "right". Money to own a slice of a beautiful natural resource, build and obstruct views of that resource, possibly damage that resource and finally to chain off that resource because people do not always behave (hopefully that is a small percentage). Power to enforce your legal rights (most people have zero access to power). So if you were to understand what it is like for most people to not have money and power then you might could understand why CU supporters get all fired up and say things they shouldn't. Again, I agree with you about all the name calling tactics which are shameful and wrong and the hypocrisy that comes from that side which is wrong but you need to have some thick skin here and remember you wake up every morning to a view that 99% percent of us do not have. Of course some CU supporters also have money and power and it becomes a battle of who is right I guess but there is also power in numbers and you only have about 1% of those numbers. You can argue the math, you can argue that you earned that 1%, you can argue that you are legally right but you can not argue that you wake up every morning and fall asleep every night in paradise. IMHO you have a great opportunity here to show your generosity and drop the lawsuit knowing that you have won the battle of prosperity and goodness. Walton County should show their gratitude and in fairness give you a set of rules of beach behavior that people must follow or be removed from the beach. I have one question for both sides: why not settle this thing now before it is too late for peace and happiness...
The root of the problem is too many people in a sensitive ecosystem. Beach behavior is a symptom of the sense of entitlement and overcrowding. The rate of destruction of the 30A ecosystem will actually ACCELERATE if the BCC somehow manages to remove constitutional private property rights and turn our beaches into a free for all.
The main questions is how to control density management and who is allowed to control density management? The private property owners may feel if they have purchased deeded property then they have a right to control density management (in other words right of exclusion). The BCC may feel they want NO restrictions on density management (as indicated by the current beach ordinances). A sub set of density management includes parking, behavior, and beach equipment (some areas may have restrictions on beach equipment) but the very first issue that needs to be addressed is density management.
mputnal - It is the BCC (PLANTIFF) that is the suing the property owners (DEFENDANTS). It is the PLANTIFF that must drop the lawsuit. The DEFENDANTS did file a motion to have the motion dismissed but that has not been ruled on yet. (Doc #789 of over 900 documents filed on the Clerk of Court web site case #2018CA0547).
Even if the lawsuit is dropped we still must address density management to slow down the destruction of our 30A ecosystem.
Last edited:
Yes, I agree about the problem with density, infrastructure and behavior and there needs to be an intelligent management of such. We need good leaders. Not lawsuits. Our community is at stake. I am concerned that we get so caught up in being "right" that we lose sight of community. Maybe we should go back to the basics of exactly what "community" means. It seems as if both sides just want to be right then it becomes more about principles and ideals. If community means something then both sides will need to compromise. I think it should be more about community and less about principles or ideals. The issues aren't ridiculous but to ignore the bitterness that will fester in our community because both sides are hell bent on being right then well that is ridiculous! Both sides will need to compromise and settle the lawsuit. Plantiff please compromise and settle with the defendant! Defendant please compromise and settle with the plantiff! Please do it now...
The public would have had access to the back part of the beach. The county would have compensated with reduced taxes while in effect. No wristband necessary. And importantly, the whole “deal” could be cancelled at any time if it didn’t work out (enforcement).
mputnal, thank you very much for your post.
In the "Ole Days" if someone used private property, they either rented the house on that property, or only a few people used the private property without any beach equipment (as shown in the early photos of beach use). IF they were asked to leave they did. But for the MOST PART, if there were only a few people, with minimal beach equipment (no day camping), and they were respectful, they were not asked to leave the property and everyone got along.
BUT the property owner had the right to ask people to move (right of exclusion) and they moved if asked. THAT IS ANCIENT CUSTOMARY USE ON 30A.
Now we have lawyers being asked to moved off private property by uniformed police officers and they refuse, and then post videos to encourage others to ignore the officers. So much for the Florida Lawyer Oath of Admission to respect officers. This is very recent entitlement use and NOTHING to do with ancient customary use.
Now we have 4 million tourists and an ecosystem that is under rapid destruction. We absolutely can NOT wait 10 years.
This is a crisis and we are destroying 30A. EVEN IF the lawsuit is dropped, if we don't make some radical changes to density management then 30A will be destroyed.
I totally agree with you. We need REAL leaders on the BCC to step up that have the long term 30A ecosystem as the primary objective and not the short term gain of a few people that will result in 30A destruction.
Let’s be honest here about “community”. Most everything south of 98 caters to tourists and the dollars they bring. There’s not much sense of community down here IMHO when your neighbors change on a weekly basis. And I don’t think our beach town is unique in that regard.
I think we lost much of our “Legacy” years ago when the TDC became wildly successful in overmarketing the area, exerting more and more pressure via imcreased off beach development on a finite resource, the beach. And now private property owners are pushing back with the only thing they have, private property rights as most can’t vote since they don’t live here. You know, taxation without representation.