Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[mputnal]

BmbVagrant, guess who has authority to decide number three? Number one and two is process (yes the County has work to do). Number three is local government authority and the evidence for general recreational public use. Will Judge Green allow the evidence from the County regarding general recreational use? I don't think he has a choice but since I am not a lawyer I will gladly let Judge Green do his job. I suggest all us Perry Mason's do something better with our time but I do like the entertainment that you and yours provides

 

[Stone Cold J]

I have read where linear thought is a huge disadvantage with large groups where there are multiple starting points,

But there is a single starting point, the 2016 BCC Special Meeting that tried to set in motion the change of historically Private Property Rights (right of exclusion) as recognized by previous Walton County Ordinances and Court Cases, and chase after billions of Power Broker dollars. Wonder who and how many have been paid off in the process...

 

[FloridaBeachBum]

Mputnal to be clear I did not speak for Reggie, it was clear from #1912 “I think you are trying to tell m[e] that you out class me or something of that nature.” that you did not understand the references or reasoning. I explained Reggie’s references and intent with examples of my own to help understand what Reggie said.

There is a difference between (1) speaking for someone and (2) explaining what they said to help understanding.

Like there is a difference between (1) the Declaration of Independence, that expresses the ideals on which the United States was founded and grievances against English royal rule without representation, and (2) the Constitution Bill of Rights, that defines individual citizens’ and states’ rights in relation to the Government.

Or the difference between (1) Commissioners’ police power to tax, regulate, or declare public use of private property without due process, and (2) US Constitutional individual property rights (you call with disdain a “power”) of quiet uninterrupted enjoyment or to choose to share their private property or not.

The difference between (1) beliefs, opinions, and misinformation and (2) verifiable facts and documents.

The difference between (1) Property rights factual credibility and (2) CU baseless incredibility.

See the difference between (1) speaking for someone and (2) explaining what was said?

Pompous, nice word.

 

[mputnal]

SCJ, what about that fossilized beach umbrella from the 1500's? Just kidding you. All the County has to do is produce evidence of general recreational use so there it is. Who from your group has more authority than local government? BTW, do you and FBB work for Reggie/Regina? It seems ya'll follow his/her post like a tick on a...lord forgive the image I just had

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Aw crap. I can’t resist after so many of his posts. I told myself I wouldn’t do it. Yes I’m human. I apologize in advance. Here goes...

Since our favorite social worker seems to have such a hard....uh, let’s just say a certain sexual proclivity for Reggie, I guess he’s just dreaming about the possibility he’s a she. What other reason can cause such continued confusion with a poster’s name (i.e. “Reggie/Regina”)?

“Take a walk on the wild side...”

 

[Bob Hudson]

Judge Issues 2nd Corrected Order

Walton Judge issues order amending customary use order

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Could it be that the judge changed his mind regarding jurisdiction because items 1, 2 and 3 below were never identified as required?

The notice of intent must specifically identify the following:
1. The specific parcels of property, or the specific portions thereof, upon which a customary use affirmation is sought;
2. The detailed, specific, and individual use or uses of the parcels of property to which a customary use affirmation is sought; and
3. Each source of evidence that the governmental entity would rely upon to prove a recreational customary use has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute.

The county has tried to literally skate through over 1100 parcels of private property and treat them as one entity. I believe I told Smiling Joe here on SoWal over 10 years ago that customary use has to be determined on a parcel by parcel basis. Well, here we are. Just another inconvenient truth.

 

[Stone Cold J]

SCJ, what about that fossilized beach umbrella from the 1500's? Just kidding you. All the County has to do is produce evidence of general recreational use so there it is.

Fossilized beach umbrella would prove a break or interrupted. Actually, there is NO provision that states a generalized statement of recreational use is sufficient at all. Can you please quote that source that doesn't exist.

The requirements are not general, but very specific:

The notice of intent must specifically identify the following:
1. The specific parcels of property, or the specific portions thereof, upon which a customary use affirmation is sought;
2. The detailed, specific, and individual use or uses of the parcels of property to which a customary use affirmation is sought; and
3. Each source of evidence that the governmental entity would rely upon to prove a recreational customary use has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

A layman’s observation....
Edgewater is going to give the county a severe spanking on Thursday. And the county will have rightfully deserved it (yet again by Suzanne Harris and her attorneys). And I believe there’s at least one other unrelated parcel in the same situation.

So, if these properties are eventually excluded from the lawsuit because the county reaffirmed their private beach ownership in an unrelated lawsuit with Edgewater (and they will get excluded), then in my very humble opinion:

SHOULDN’T ALL PARCELS BE EXCLUDED FOR THE VERY SAME REASON...i.e. the case thrown out because the county acknowledged private property with all rights thereof for at least Edgewater? Favoritism doesn’t look good in the eyes of justice.

Added: I can hear it now from the county, “Yes we reaffirmed full private property rights in the lawsuit settlement with Edgewater several years ago. We just wanted her off our backs. Surely you can understand we were under duress and really didn’t mean it.”

And without a doubt, Edgewater will be made whole regarding all their legal fees.

 

[mputnal]

FBB, oh my goodness it was a gesture of civility about the beer. You still don't comprehend what that means. You ain't explained nothing. You repeated the attack and continued the accusations. Nuff said on the beer. Nuff said on the difference between the law and intent of the law. Back to the lawsuit.

BmbVagrant, you don't have to apologize. All is fair in love and war BTW I may even agree with you about the specific parcels but I believe the County had to first establish the general public recreational use of the beach and I think they have evidence to do that. However the Judge may not accept a general use of the beach and does he have the power to deny county government authority to determine general use. This is way more complex than us Perry Masons on this forum. I am not sure this court will issue a ruling against the county authority to determine general recreational use but if he does it certainly will not be the end. Eventually a higher court will have to determine this issue and it will be much bigger in scope (not just Walton County). At issue is whether recreational beach users had specific areas defined as the beach or is the beach considered more general in nature. And did parcel owners allow the general recreational use or did they put up fences in order to use the beach for a specific purpose. You and yours are insinuating that people who believe the beach to be open to the public for recreational use lie on affidavits but you are flat wrong. All a person has to do is testify to the fact that there were no fences, no boundaries to prevent them from recreating on the general beach. The court has no evidence of public recreational beach boundaries. If so, where is it? Where are the pictures of fences?

There are some things on this planet there are just meant to be shared. I know it is a difficult concept for some people. No judgment. But we simply can not take it with us on our hereafter journey so why not be happy with sharing the beach. Yes, density and vending need to be addressed but don't make this into a huge conflict between bfo's and non-bfo's. BFO's it is never too late to work this out reasonably and fairly without all the fire works. Both sides should recognize the advantage of compromise over extreme positions. Regardless of what these power brokers keep telling you it would be better for all of us to compromise. We all are rewarded in compromise not punished as they keep telling you. Never too late...