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.
Not that I really care about who is anon or not, as that is so middle school. But there is a valid point when one side posts anon but calls out people on tho other side by their real name. That's chickenshit. And then their is the obvious fact that most of the anti public beach people on here all seem to speak alike, use the same words, and post in spurts together. Pretty obvious it is one or 2 people posting under multiple names. And no BMBV I am not including you as a sock puppet and I think you're too old to know what one is or how to be one.
BTW the case law I referred to when answering AF's question is real, is the truth and involved my family. If you are searching in Leon and Walton Counties you will not find the court case that I refer to. My opinions are mine alone but that court case is a fact. Another fact: as much as you think you know law you have NO idea how a Judge will decide a case like this. The elements of property law are complex and the legal arguments very important. Facts do not always add up like we think they should. BPO's should be aware of this.
Do they have customary use in places like Martha's Vineyard and Newport, Rhode Island?
Private Beaches at Martha's Vineyard (interesting read even though it's 12 years old). We certainly don't have the following two "issues" - both sides are now loud and legally armed:
"... For almost two-thirds of Martha’s Vineyard’s beaches are legally, if not always in practice, closed to the public. And on no subject is the influence of hush money more apparent.
“I’m warning you in advance,” said Dan Waters when I rang him to say I was doing a story on beach access, and to ask for a copy of his poem, “you will pay the consequences. You’re breaking that rule [of silence] by writing this article.” "
AND BFO property lines only extend to the MHWL not 1650 feet out beyond that:
"But before we get to that, a little history about private beaches. It all goes back to colonial times. A 1647 law, intended to encourage property owners to invest in wharves and boat yards, gave them ownership of beaches adjoining their land. Not just to the dune line or even to the high-water mark, but to the low-water mark, or to any tidally exposed land out to 1,650 feet beyond the high-tide mark."
Succinct observation on author's part:
"The private-beach law has been contentious ever since, it seems, people decided bathing in the sea was quite fun. And there is no question most Islanders – indeed, most residents in the state – think it appalling. Except, of course, those who have access to a private beach. Like babies and monopolies, private beaches seem dreadful things until you have one of your own."
A customary-ish taking (for just walking) was overturned because Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said compensation was required:
"One of the most delightful stories about private beach access concerns former President of the Massachusetts Senate William Bulger, who took it upon himself almost thirty years ago to change the law, after having himself been ousted from a private beach. For fifteen years, from 1976, he filed bills annually, simply trying to get walking – not sunbathing or picnicking or nude frolicking, just walking – added to the list of things people could do. In 1991, he finally succeeded; the law was changed to give the public the general right to walk along wet sand areas between dawn and dusk.
But it was a quixotic victory. The state Supreme Judicial Court quickly determined property owners would have to be compensated for the loss of market value incurred by having the hoi polloi on their property."
I'll save you the trouble of looking up hoi polloi...."the masses, the common people, the populace, the public, the people, the multitude, the rank and file, the lower orders, the crowd, the commonality, the commonalty, the commons, the third estate, the plebeians...". Again I'm just the messenger.
Not even sure that eminent domain is an answer based on below:
"Bulger replied with another piece of legislation, requiring the Department of Environmental Management to select a piece of property to be taken by eminent domain, as a test case. Nothing ever happened. Bulger later declared the whole saga the biggest disappointment of his political career."
Value of beach access - and once again, I'm just the messenger folks. You should read the full context in the article to understand the setup:
" “If you bought a beach key as an investment you’d be doing spectacularly well,” said our lawyer, “considering that twenty-five years ago they probably cost $5,000, and now they’re worth $350,000 plus.” "
Hopefully this will liven up the thread with some thought provoking posts instead of knee jerk personal attacks. I think we should all be past that by now.
"... For almost two-thirds of Martha’s Vineyard’s beaches are legally, if not always in practice, closed to the public. And on no subject is the influence of hush money more apparent.
“I’m warning you in advance,” said Dan Waters when I rang him to say I was doing a story on beach access, and to ask for a copy of his poem, “you will pay the consequences. You’re breaking that rule [of silence] by writing this article.” "
AND BFO property lines only extend to the MHWL not 1650 feet out beyond that:
"But before we get to that, a little history about private beaches. It all goes back to colonial times. A 1647 law, intended to encourage property owners to invest in wharves and boat yards, gave them ownership of beaches adjoining their land. Not just to the dune line or even to the high-water mark, but to the low-water mark, or to any tidally exposed land out to 1,650 feet beyond the high-tide mark."
Succinct observation on author's part:
"The private-beach law has been contentious ever since, it seems, people decided bathing in the sea was quite fun. And there is no question most Islanders – indeed, most residents in the state – think it appalling. Except, of course, those who have access to a private beach. Like babies and monopolies, private beaches seem dreadful things until you have one of your own."
A customary-ish taking (for just walking) was overturned because Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said compensation was required:
"One of the most delightful stories about private beach access concerns former President of the Massachusetts Senate William Bulger, who took it upon himself almost thirty years ago to change the law, after having himself been ousted from a private beach. For fifteen years, from 1976, he filed bills annually, simply trying to get walking – not sunbathing or picnicking or nude frolicking, just walking – added to the list of things people could do. In 1991, he finally succeeded; the law was changed to give the public the general right to walk along wet sand areas between dawn and dusk.
But it was a quixotic victory. The state Supreme Judicial Court quickly determined property owners would have to be compensated for the loss of market value incurred by having the hoi polloi on their property."
I'll save you the trouble of looking up hoi polloi...."the masses, the common people, the populace, the public, the people, the multitude, the rank and file, the lower orders, the crowd, the commonality, the commonalty, the commons, the third estate, the plebeians...". Again I'm just the messenger.
Not even sure that eminent domain is an answer based on below:
"Bulger replied with another piece of legislation, requiring the Department of Environmental Management to select a piece of property to be taken by eminent domain, as a test case. Nothing ever happened. Bulger later declared the whole saga the biggest disappointment of his political career."
Value of beach access - and once again, I'm just the messenger folks. You should read the full context in the article to understand the setup:
" “If you bought a beach key as an investment you’d be doing spectacularly well,” said our lawyer, “considering that twenty-five years ago they probably cost $5,000, and now they’re worth $350,000 plus.” "
Hopefully this will liven up the thread with some thought provoking posts instead of knee jerk personal attacks. I think we should all be past that by now.
Last edited:
I do no believe the Judge will rule on property rights vs customary use. Even if it were I don't believe it to be a slam dunk for public exclusion. It seems to me that a Judge will consider the criteria by which the county approves beach development. It is very likely that the county lawyers will link the beach development approval process with easements for public beach use. The agreement with St. Joe may be sufficient evidence to make this connection. I believe the Judge will rule that Deeds will need to be modified to include the public use easements. Just an opinion.
I also believe that the beaches at Martha's Vineyard are substantially different than Florida beaches in terms of public use. I doubt sunbathing with the much lower air temperatures is hardly considered a use. Borrowing from the power brokers (and maybe Perry Mason): I object: Irrelevant nonsense or Emotional nonsense or Baseless opinion etc. etc. etc.
If I were a BPO I would compromise on beach exclusion and just go count your money for distraction when the beach is crowded with loser common people of which I am a member. Come on lighten up...you asked for thought "provoking"
I also believe that the beaches at Martha's Vineyard are substantially different than Florida beaches in terms of public use. I doubt sunbathing with the much lower air temperatures is hardly considered a use. Borrowing from the power brokers (and maybe Perry Mason): I object: Irrelevant nonsense or Emotional nonsense or Baseless opinion etc. etc. etc.
If I were a BPO I would compromise on beach exclusion and just go count your money for distraction when the beach is crowded with loser common people of which I am a member. Come on lighten up...you asked for thought "provoking"
I'll count my $350,000 after you buy my "beach key" otherwise I won't have to endure you, the crowds and the rest of the hoi polloi . I can live with that number. Deal?
BTW, isn't that quite a valuation based on your idea that it's too cool to sunbathe in Martha's Vineyard during the summer? Too cool? Really?
Last edited:
Okay lets negotiate. I will give you the right to take $350,000.00 worth of beach sand from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Using your "number" that would be about one five gallon bucket full of sand. To sweeten the deal I will throw in the bucket!
Taking sand is illegal.
I have to laugh at all this, especially the BS that Martha's Vineyard is substantially different from the beaches here. By law, what difference does it make? The fact is that in places like Martha's Vineyard, where only the elite are allowed on the beaches, the "elite" are quite different than the "capitalist pigs" who want to bar all the good people from enjoying "The People's Beach". The elite ritzy New England foks are the super rich who only claim to be socialists.