Customary Use of SoWal Beaches: Contact Governor Scott
- Thread starter Teresa
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
I love how you say "8 miles of public beach." Thats less than 1/3 of Walton County beaches. 50K+ County residence and the multi-million visitors need to share less than 1/3 while 900 beach front homeowners get more than 2/3 of the beach? That is as bass ackwards as it gets.
Actually, what is bass ackward is that the County put an ordinance in place without going through the proper protocol. They over stepped the laws in place and whether you are a beachfront owner or not, be glad that they are being reeled in because soon they may want your titled property.
Making an ordinance to allow public use of the beach is far from taking titled property. Beach front owners still own the same amount of land as they did before the ordinance. The county stepped in because after decades of open beaches property owners (mostly new residence) started putting up ugly fences and trashy no trespassing signs.
When the County steps in, there are legal steps for them to follow. And with signs, there is even a rule about the dimensions of signs and color. Why didn’t they enforce their sign rule, if they did all of this because of aesthetics? Yes, beachfront owners still own the same amount of sand and they are still the only ones paying property tax on it as well. Why is that? I would like to know
Love it all you want, your position is not really accurate. A number of the private beaches are for entire communities. For example there is a private beach for all of Seaside which has 300+ homes. Rosemary Beach supports well over 2,000 homes, etc. So you painting this like there are 900 folks telling everyone else to eat cake is far from reality.
Obviously that's enough beach for the visitors, in that the county can give away 50% of it to beach vendors to reserve it for their own businesses. Until the time that the county says they are so overcrowded that they can no longer give away 50% of the public beach land to beach vendors --- I'm not really sympathetic to your "easement by necessity" argument.
So explain to me how you want 100% of a private beach front property owners sand, but are "ok" with giving away 50% of the public beach sand real estate. You want ass backwards? There it is.
The bill has been passed
More emotional opinion and video fake news. Geez, does anyone try to read and understand the facts. Sorry for the long post but there is so much FICTION to dispel.
1. The bill does NOT prohibit local governments from claiming custom as a Plaintiff on private property. Local governments can't usurp due process to do it and has to prove it in court first.
2. Edwards bill would not ban local ordinances; but would ensure local governments do not circumvent due process and rule of law before the ordinance becomes law.
3. Bill will NOT make it easier for beachfront property owners to put up fences, post “No Trespassing” signs. Custom has NOTHING to do with signs and fences. That is a local government police power. As long as ordinances does NOT infringe on the first amendment - like Walton BCC ordinance did and was struck down in court.
4. Beachgoers may be surprised to learn that MOST of FLORIDA private property lines extend all the way to the mean high tide line; which is how littoral property boundaries were defined by the State.
5. That line [MHWL] becomes a moving target, but it’s typically identified as the “wet” sand area, or the sea side of the line of seaweed that washes ashore. Total FICTION. MHLW is well defined and it is NOT the wet sand.
6. “customary use” standard is important for beachside communities. Customary use elements are ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute. Private property rights were so important they are included in the USA Constitution. Local economics is NOT an element of custom. Nor are popularity votes.
7. Edwards’ bill is about eliminating the ability of cities and counties to protect beach access. FICTION local governments can still claim customary use as a plaintiff just like Teresa can. Except Teresa can not declare private property subject to public use like Walton county did or use million$ of other tax payer's money to litigate.
8. Where does the bill say local governments will have to litigate parcel by parcel as reported in the video? It does NOT. Fake news.
--------------------------------------------------
https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sect...ocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0631&Session=2018
Starting at line 362
Section 10. Section 163.035, Florida Statutes, is created to read: 163.035
Establishment of recreational customary use. —
(1) DEFINITION. — The term " governmental entity" includes an agency of the state, a regional or a local government created by the State Constitution or by general or special act, any county or municipality, or any other entity that independently exercises governmental authority.
(2) ORDINANCES AND RULES RELATING TO CUSTOMARY USE. — A governmental entity may not adopt or keep in effect an ordinance or rule that finds, determines, relies on, or is based upon customary use of any portion of a beach above the mean high - water line, as defined in s. 177.27, unless such ordinance or rule is based on a judicial declaration affirming recreational customary use on such beach.
(3) NOTICE OF INTENT TO AFFIRM RECREATION PUBLIC USE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY; JUDICIAL DETERMINATION. — A governmental entity that seeks to affirm the existence of a recreational customary use on private property must follow the procedures set forth in this subsection.
(a) Notice. — The governing board of a governmental entity must, at a public hearing, adopt a formal notice of intent to affirm the existence of a recreational customary use on private property. 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 governmental entity must provide notice of the public hearing to the owner of each parcel of property subject to the notice of intent at the address reflected in the count y property appraiser's records no later than 30 days before the public meeting. Such notice must be provided by certified mail with return receipt requested, publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the parcels of property are located, and posting on the governmental entity's website.
(b) Judicial determination. —
1. Within 60 days after the adoption of the notice of intent at the public hearing, the governmental entity must file a Complaint for Declaration of Recreational Customary Use with the circuit court in the county in which the properties subject to the notice of intent are located. The governmental entity must provide notice of the filing of the complaint to the owner of each parcel of property subject to the complaint in the same manner as is required for the notice of intent in paragraph (a). The notice must allow the owner receiving the notice to intervene in the proceeding within 45 days after receiving the notice. The governmental entity must provide verification of the service of the notice to the property owners required in this paragraph to the court so that the court may establish a schedule for the judicial proceedings.
2. All proceedings under this paragraph shall be de novo. The court must determine whether the evidence presented demonstrates that the recreational customary use for the use or uses identified in the notice of intent have been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute. There is no presumption regarding the existence of a recreational customary use with respect to any parcel of property, and the governmental entity has the burden of proof to show that a recreational customary use exists. An owner of a parcel of property that is subject to the complaint has the right to intervene as a party defendant in such proceeding.
Last edited by a moderator:
The courts will decide local government claim of custom on private property but not likely this bill.
I predict the Governor will not sign the bill.