Customary Use Will Happen On Sowal Beaches

And the reason Most of the County Accesses are used to capacity is that we are FULL! No more room folks.

Yet, this County still refuses to inact occupancy rules that prevent a four bed / three bath home from cycling in 20 to 30 occupants each week. They all bring about four to five SUVs, golf carts on trailers and the kitchen sink.

Occupancy regulation is and has been needed here yet no one cares.

We just had a fire in a rental (Blue Mtn area), and while I'm not sure how many were in that home, there are plenty others with a potential disaster waiting to happen.

Many of this areas problems would be solved by controlling occupancy and Enforcement of Ordinances, already on the books.

So because houses can catch fire we should not rent them? Not sure there is any logic going on.

So because houses can catch fire we should not rent them? Not sure there is any logic going on.

Because Houses can catch fire with 20 to 30 people (vacation renters) in them is a good reason to limit the number of heads in a home. It's called occupancy limits.

Fortunately South Walton FD has started to inspect some of the condos and hopefully this will move to vacation rental homes.

So because houses can catch fire we should not rent them? Not sure there is any logic going on.

That isn't what I read in John G's post. What did he say that makes you think he is suggesting that houses shouldn't be rented at all?

I will be glad to answer. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the state parks, the county accesses or the publicly owned beaches. Most of the county accesses are used to capacity during the season and the county has spent thousands to encourage use of the state parks.

"... county accesses are used to capacity during the season ..." Legally that's not the private beachfront owner's problem.

Sadly, many of the beachfront owners oppose the public purchase of these properties and their development to serve the public.

So? If it's an arm's length purchase that's the free market and Walton commissioners can invite or exclude anyone they want ... just like any other private property owner. What's not arm’s length is when Government coerces $20 million a year [bed] tax that would better be invested in the local economy and willingly pays significantly more than market value pricing people out of the market because they can ... it's not commissioners money so what do they care if they tax none-voting tax payers.

Apparently you agree with me that the best way to provide public access to the beaches is through publicly owned accesses, whether the state or the county is the provider.

I almost agree, "... the best way to provide public access to the beaches is through publicly owned accesses [but you left out, and respect private property rights of exclusion that all other Walton property owners have ...", whether the state or the county is the provider [and enforce the beach activity laws promptly and fairly.]

Question was; Why isn’t the 32,39 plus the properties Walton recent purchased and 5,000 acres of parks enough; that you want to have all private property you desire too? Danny, is bay front subject to customary-use too? If not, why not?

Because Houses can catch fire with 20 to 30 people (vacation renters) in them is a good reason to limit the number of heads in a home. It's called occupancy limits.

Fortunately South Walton FD has started to inspect some of the condos and hopefully this will move to vacation rental homes.

So every day you whine about enforcement and now you want to enforce how many people can be in a house?

"... county accesses are used to capacity during the season ..." Legally that's not the private beachfront owner's problem.


So? If it's an arm's length purchase that's the free market and Walton commissioners can invite or exclude anyone they want ... just like any other private property owner. What's not arm’s length is when Government coerces $20 million a year [bed] tax that would better be invested in the local economy and willingly pays significantly more than market value pricing people out of the market because they can ... it's not commissioners money so what do they care if they tax none-voting tax payers.


I almost agree, "... the best way to provide public access to the beaches is through publicly owned accesses [but you left out, and respect private property rights of exclusion that all other Walton property owners have ...", whether the state or the county is the provider [and enforce the beach activity laws promptly and fairly.]

Question was; Why isn’t the 32,39 plus the properties Walton recent purchased and 5,000 acres of parks enough; that you want to have all private property you desire too? Danny, is bay front subject to customary-use too? If not, why not?

The simple, obvious answer is that there is more demand than supply. Simple economics. Saying there is thousands of acres of public land and why is that not enough is disingenuous. What is in demand is the square footage of white sandy beach. I know of no huge demand for bay front so that is also a red herring. The demand is for the beach. The beach is why taxable values have increased exponentially in Walton County, is responsible for thousands of jobs being created, is responsible for millions in economic activity and is responsible for the population of Walton County tripling in the last 40 years. The bottom line is that the engine that drives our economy is those square feet of white sand. Everyone that has moved here in the last 40 years knew that before they bought their slice of paradise. The public has used the beaches since I can remember or around 50 years and billions of dollars of property values are derived from the property being in close proximity to that white sand. If the public cannot access the beach in large numbers then inland property values will be negatively effected and jobs will be lost. Lower property values and fewer jobs means the government will have less resources to build and improve infrastructure and thus the economic growth of the county will be negatively impacted. That is a high price to pay for changing the dynamics that have existed for decades.

As to it "not being the beachfront owners problem" that is absolutely wrong. We are a community and so it is everyone's problem. You cannot divorce yourself from those around you.

enforce how many people can be in a house

Not to change the subject, but the "mega wedding homes" are detrimental to the character of neighborhoods in addition to overburdening infrastructure.

The simple, obvious answer is that there is more demand than supply. Simple economics. Saying there is thousands of acres of public land and why is that not enough is disingenuous. What is in demand is the square footage of white sandy beach.

Definition. Disingenuous: not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does. Really?
Danny, the more you explain yourself the more you sound like Bernie Sanders, Democratic socialist.

I know of no huge demand for bay front so that is also a red herring.

Red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. No red herring here. If customary-use legally applies to the beach why would it not apply to the bay or hunting areas that have been use for decades? So customary-use only applies to the properties you, Dave R., and the public desire most?

The demand is for the beach. The beach is why taxable values have increased exponentially in Walton County, ...

We agree, but for different reasons. Demand is for the white sandy beach, and private individuals are willing to pay a premium to own beachfront property to have exclusive use, like bay front property owners who have exclusive use of their private property. Property tax values have increased exponentially because the private property buyer DEMAND has driven the PRICE up exponentially to own private sandy beach to the MHWL for their exclusive use. Not because more public want to use the beach; that's why buyers are willing to pay more for the right to have exclusive use.

The bottom line is that the engine that drives our economy is those square feet of white sand.

Might want to do more research on the history if custom. The claimant of custom on private property shall not "profit" from the use of the property. You just made a great case of how Walton County BCC and public will profit from taking value and profiting from private beachfront property owners. Especially from those private property owners that lease out their property to others for the their exclusive use that guests pay a premium for.

Everyone that has moved here in the last 40 years knew that [public had the right to use private property] before they bought their slice of paradise.

Even the Walton Beach Activity ordinance before the BCC changed it April Fools day stated; SECTION 22-52, MAKES NO FINDING OF FACT THAT THE PUBLIC EITHER HAS OR HAS NOT CUSTOMARILY USED THE BEACH. If I'm a beachfront buyer before April 1, 2017 I'd say you could rely on that statement that you owned all property rights to the MHWL.

The public has used the beaches since I can remember or around 50 years and billions of dollars of property values are derived from the property being in close proximity to that white sand. If the public cannot access the beach in large numbers then inland property values will be negatively effected and jobs will be lost. Lower property values and fewer jobs means the government will have less resources to build and improve infrastructure and thus the economic growth of the county will be negatively impacted. That is a high price to pay for changing the dynamics that have existed for decades.

That's your opinion. My opinion, that won't happen and you are wrong. We are even on opinions and neither of us can prove our hypotheses. Free market Supply and Demand, you said it yourself. If the public want beach bad enough they will pay property owners for its use or purchase it themselves. Just because you, the BCC, or Dave R don't have any beachfront does not mean you get to take property rights for your own use without paying the property owner for it.

As to it "not being the beachfront owners problem" that is absolutely wrong. We are a community and so it is everyone's problem. You cannot divorce yourself from those around you.

Sounds more like Bernie. Kumbaya. We are talking about Constitutional rights. Private property rights is a cornerstone of the American Constitution and you can tell owners how to use their private property but you cannot tell owners WHO can use their property. Why don’t you suggest BCC use a Prescriptive Easement or Express or Implied Dedication? Why customary use? Because easements will likely fail in the courts and customary-take is all you have left to get property without eminent domain? Except the taxpayers MILLION$ in litigation costs. If owners prevail taxpayers get nothing and the BCC will likely have to pay owners reasonable legal co$t too.

Note: "Kumbaya. In any conversation where some of the participants hold an opinion to the left of other participants, someone with the more conservative position will compare said person's opinion to the naivete of "singing around a campfire singing Kumbaya".

Sir ( or Ma'am) if the demand for the beach was based on me or my family, the whole place would not be worth a plug nickel. But various creeks and lakes would be worth a fortune. We prefer freshwater. I often went to the beach in my teens and 20's but that was some time ago. And my ancestors often camped on the beach and enjoyed it. I certainly respect property rights as much as any. But where I differ from you is that I only want to maintain the status quo and you want to change the entire character and use patterns of the single most important economic engine in this county. I believe a desire to change the status quo is liberal and a desire for things to remain as they have been is conservative. But since you believe that the government can tell you HOW you can use your private property then I am sure you do not object to the prohibition on signs, fences, or any other objects being placed on the beach.

So every day you whine about enforcement and now you want to enforce how many people can be in a house?

Absolutely.

Why are you opposed to occupancy limits?

Absolutely.

Why are you opposed to occupancy limits?

I haven't thought about it much but it makes sense in a commercial building that holds lots of people so you can ensure egress in an emergency. I don't think 20 or 30 people in a house is going to be a problem for emergency exit. 50 yes, 20 no.

The number of beds and limiting parking spaces is enough to address the situation. If there are 40 people staying in a house with people sleeping on the floors then yes that could be a problem. Is it happening? Maybe on occasion. Is the argument that if 8 people are staying in a house instead of 20 that a fire will kill fewer? Maybe we should require more doors, bigger doors and fire escapes on rental houses?

My guess is you just want fewer people coming to SoWal and you want them all to behave and if they don't then you require that the sheriff get on their butts immediately and fine them or jail them.

@John G Nanny Stater

I haven't thought about it much but it makes sense in a commercial building that holds lots of people so you can ensure egress in an emergency. I don't think 20 or 30 people in a house is going to be a problem for emergency exit. 50 yes, 20 no.

The number of beds and limiting parking spaces is enough to address the situation. If there are 40 people staying in a house with people sleeping on the floors then yes that could be a problem. Is it happening? Maybe on occasion. Is the argument that if 8 people are staying in a house instead of 20 that a fire will kill fewer? Maybe we should require more doors, bigger doors and fire escapes on rental houses?

My guess is you just want fewer people coming to SoWal and you want them all to behave and if they don't then you require that the sheriff get on their butts immediately and fine them or jail them.

@John G Nanny Stater

My guess is you just want fewer people coming to SoWal and you want them all to behave and if they don't then you require that the sheriff get on their butts immediately and fine them or jail them.

That's actually a pretty fair assessment...

Sir (or Ma'am) ... I certainly respect property rights as much as any.

Before the customary-take ordinance, if a beachfront property owner (to the MHWL with proof of ownership) asked you or any uninvited persons to make space for their friends and family on their beachfront property, would you or would you expect the uninvited persons to respect that owner's request or demand to occupy their own property? Or would you expect the beachfront owner not to use their property (they pay taxes on)?

But where I differ from you is that I only want to maintain the status quo and you want to change the entire character and use patterns of the single most important economic engine in this county. I believe a desire to change the status quo is liberal and a desire for things to remain as they have been is conservative.[/QUOTE]
We have very different perspectives of the status quo, if there is such a thing. Status quo since when? The status quo before April 1, 2017 was the Walton Sheriff recognized beachfront owners property rights, that includes the right of enjoyment and exclusive use should the owner want. Just because beachfront owners did/have not enforce their property rights does not mean that the property owners gave up any rights (let's not quibble about prescriptive easements etc.). The TDC should educate the public and the public should understand littoral private property rights, know where PUBLIC property boundaries are (otherwise it is private property and should respect the owner's rights), and be grateful should the owner not ask them to leave their private property. Not the self-entitled your-property is my-property kumbaya.

But since you believe that the government can tell you HOW you can use your private property then I am sure you do not object to the prohibition on signs, fences, or any other objects being placed on the beach.[/QUOTE]
If it does not interfere with the property owners right of free speech to display that they Love the USA or think the BCC should be voted out, contradict state law, like how to post property boundaries to enforce trespass laws, like FS 810.011, or is a legitimate barrier to emergency services, I would likely have no objection. I've seen Walton vehicles drive around volleyball nets so I doubt that any of the signs, plastic chain, or other objects marking property boundaries could not be driven around, removed or run over, in a true life and death emergency. Not Walton's disingenuous definition of obstruction. If you educate the public to respect private property owners rights and enforce the beach activities laws I doubt many or any owners would put "obstructions" on their property.

Good discussions. Thanks. I realize non-beachfront property owners like you and Dave R. and the majority want free use of private beachfront property - because you want it and you think you deserve it and none of these customary-use facts will change your minds. Heck even the state park beaches have more property restrictions than private beachfront owners with customary-take have now.

What frustrates me is guys like you, Dave R., Bob bob, and others who do not understand the historical (many hundreds of years) legal concept/criteria of custom, or how it does and does not apply to property, mislead others that customary-use is one thing when it’s not, and custom is going to solve all the problems on the beach and economy. That the Walton BCC has created by their incompetence over years and attacking private property rights, owners have had, including private use and enjoyment. How many FL beachfront properties have been subject to customary-use since 1975 and not over-turned by higher courts?

If property owners prevail, then what? I will not be too accommodating to uninvited people on my property like I have in the past. Not after the BCC cost me and the other 900 Walton beachfront owners ten$ or hundred$ of thousand$ of dollar$ each to protect our Constitutional rights. It will be too late for the BCC to respect beachfront owners private property rights then - the Walton BCC and Sheriff will have to respect and enforce all owner’s private property rights.

Sir (or Ma'am) I have no idea how long you have been a resident of Walton County, but I have lived here all my life. In fact, my maternal family has lived in Walton County since the 1820's. So when I say status quo, I am talking about many, many years. I have no desire personally to use either the public or private beaches; as I said, in the last 30 years are so I have became a freshwater kind of guy. But I do understand that the community was built on the premise that the beaches were for the enjoyment of the tourists and citizens including walking, sunbathing and fishing. The Sheriff's Office cannot change what has always been, nor can the BCC or you or I. It is what it is. I do not want anything that is not mine and surely support your right to enjoy and protect your property. But I also believe that you knew when you bought your slice of paradise that the public used the beaches to walk, sunbathe and fish and so your property came with these stipulations. As I have previously said, the courts will determine whether I am right or you are. It is what it is.

Sir (or Ma'am) I have no idea how long you have been a resident of Walton County, but I have lived here all my life. In fact, my maternal family has lived in Walton County since the 1820's. So when I say status quo, I am talking about many, many years.

Danny, I do not understand. Which is it? Your ancestors hated change in Walton County over the decades or Walton has always been the same; and the greedy wealthy carpet baggers, attracted by the decades of $20 million dollar a year Walton TDC marketing to bring them here, want to change the “status quo” (not your words but that’s what I get from you and words I’ve heard and read by the BCC during the 2016 primaries and the majority for public rights above private property rights)?

I have no desire personally to use either the public or private beaches; as I said, in the last 30 years are so I have became a freshwater kind of guy. But I do understand that the community was built on the premise that the beaches were for the enjoyment of the tourists and citizens including walking, sunbathing and fishing.

Danny, have you ever resided south of 98 or do you reside in far North Walton? Have you ever owned beachfront? The community was built on the premise that the beaches were for tourist and citizens? Built on who’s premise? Not by the people I know. Tourist and the public did not pay for the beachfront property; property owners did. When Walton allowed private property ownership and recorded the title people paid for, the property was private with all the property rights you have in north Walton. When I came here to live many decades ago; I understand the community was built on respect for other's private property and owners could and have shared their beachfront property at their pleasure.

But I also believe that you knew when you bought your slice of paradise that the public used the beaches to walk, sunbathe and fish and so your property came with these stipulations.

You are wrong in your belief about our family and if you talk to recent beachfront property owners they will tell you they bought in Walton because they could own private property to the water. Our family has been here since the 1960s. They bought beachfront for our family’s use knowing their title states to the MHWL, the foreshore is public, and we have paid property taxes on it ever since. Heck we have paid many times more in property taxes than we did to purchase the property. Nowhere in our property title does it stipulate anything about public use without our permission. Nor does it in the Constitution.

Most of the time we don’t mind if others use our private property and other times we do mind. I agree with others that there is more private and public demand for Walton beachfront and inconsiderate tourist have increased exponentially each year for the last five years or more. Upsetting the “status quo”, if there is one. The only status quo I know of is that in Walton County, private property rights and the Constitution have not changed since Florida became a state in 1845; until April 1, 2017.

As I have previously said, the courts will determine whether I am right or you are. It is what it is.

Yes, it is what it is, and the courts will decide except ALL the Walton tax payers may have to pay up to $40 to $50 million (according to Commissioner Comander Oct 2016) to find out. What if owners prevail? I wonder what kind of roads and infrastructure Walton could get for $50M?

Wow, after reading all 4 pages of this, I`m glad we just bought a waterfront home in Freeport. Have fun ya`ll.

Wow, after reading all 4 pages of this, I`m glad we just bought a waterfront home in Freeport. Have fun ya`ll.

Don't be so sure there Gumby. ANY private property, if Walton County BCC and the majority of the voting public, or anyone really, desire and demand use of your property, may claim customary use of it without your permission. If the Walton BCC think people have used your waterfront shoreline for decades, Walton County archeologist expert, Dr. Miller, “proves” native Americans and the public have used your waterfront property to recreate since before 1970, or if the Walton economy will collapse if the public does not have access to your private property (according to Danny). That is enough justification to claim customary use of your private waterfront property for the public without your permission. I'm sure you wouldn't mind the public pulling up to your waterfront and coming up to within 15 feet of your house. Like the BCC permits in beach ordinance 2017-10. You knew if it was customary or not that Native American and the public have used the water and your property frontage since time-immemorial before you bought it right? And the title/deed? Don't mind that piece of paper; the Walton BCC will tell you who has the right to use your property. It's not that farfetched.

Like in Aug 2016 Gulf Trace, neighbors, Randy New and Russell Tippens, inland from the beach, represented by David Theriaque, who also represents Walton County for $425/hr, claimed an easement (claim rejected by Judge Green) and customary use of David Bradford’s private property (TBD) because the Bradford's had the gall to want to have private use and enjoyment of the property they own to the water's edge and pay property taxes on. It was in the news paper.

Customary use is a very narrow legal doctrine that has been interrupted by the majority in Walton, like Danny, Dave R., and BCC, that could apply to anyone's property anywhere in Walton County; not just the beach. It's just that the Walton BCC, majority of voters and public want beachfront, not waterfront in Freeport, without paying you for it, for now.

FloridaBeach Bum, I respect your opinion and do not fault you for standing up for what you believe. But you go way too far and flat out misstate and misrepresent the views and opinions of others to try and defend your position. I for one have never said that customary use applies in any way to bay front property or any other property except the white sandy beach on the gulf. The only reason I believe that the narrow strip of white sand falls under customary use is that in fact the public has used it to walk, sunbathe and fish as far back as anyone can remember. Period. As you so frequently point out, that is a very narrow legal doctrine and absolutely cannot be applied to 99.9% of the real property in Walton County. To say otherwise is to attempt to use scare tactics to further your position.

County must now prove Customary Use exists

Friday
Posted Apr 7, 2017 at 7:58 AM
By DEBORAH WHEELER
The Walton Sun

As the battles continue over Customary Use, Walton County lost the latest skirmish over the weekend.

Fort Panic Beachfront property-owners Ed and DeLanie Goodwin are suing the county over its Customary Use ordinance, which went into effect April 1.

An order was issued by Chief United States District Court Judge Casey Rodgers on March 31 denying the county’s petition to dismiss the lawsuit. Rodgers also established 45 days for discovery, which gives the county 45 days to prove uninterrupted Customary Use of Walton County’s beaches exists by the public, said the Goodwin’s Attorney Will Dunaway.

However, Rodgers also denied the Goodwin’s request for a Temporary Injunction preventing the county from enforcing the Customary Use ordinance, said County Attorney Mark Davis.

“The Goodwins are pleased that Judge Rodgers denied Walton County’s Motion to Dismiss,” Dunaway said in a prepared statement to The Sun. “The judge gave the parties 45 days to complete discovery. That means the county has 45 days to produce evidence supporting its claim against the Goodwins.

“At the conclusion of the 45 days, the Goodwins expect to file a Motion for Summary Judgment,” he added. “Importantly, in allowing the Customary Use ordinance to go into effect, Judge Rodgers’ order was clear that if the county fails to prove its case against the Goodwins, then the Goodwins (and all beachfront private property owners) will be entitled to compensation from Walton County for the loss of use of their beachfront.”

No court date has been set for the case. It will be heard in Pensacola.

The Goodwins filed their initial complaint in June 2016 to protect their free speech to erect “private property” and “no trespassing” signs on their property.

“We are very pleased that the judge has allowed our case to proceed,” said DeLanie Goodwin, who, along with her husband, bought their home in 1971.

FloridaBeach Bum, I respect your opinion and do not fault you for standing up for what you believe. But you go way too far and flat out misstate and misrepresent the views and opinions of others to try and defend your position. I for one have never said that customary use applies in any way to bay front property or any other property except the white sandy beach on the gulf. The only reason I believe that the narrow strip of white sand falls under customary use is that in fact the public has used it to walk, sunbathe and fish as far back as anyone can remember. Period. As you so frequently point out, that is a very narrow legal doctrine and absolutely cannot be applied to 99.9% of the real property in Walton County. To say otherwise is to attempt to use scare tactics to further your position.

I agree with your statement, beachfront and bayfront are 2 different animals. Thank you for clearing that up.

FloridaBeach Bum, I respect your opinion and do not fault you for standing up for what you believe. But you go way too far and flat out misstate and misrepresent the views and opinions of others to try and defend your position. I for one have never said that customary use applies in any way to bay front property or any other property except the white sandy beach on the gulf. The only reason I believe that the narrow strip of white sand falls under customary use is that in fact the public has used it to walk, sunbathe and fish as far back as anyone can remember. Period. As you so frequently point out, that is a very narrow legal doctrine and absolutely cannot be applied to 99.9% of the real property in Walton County. To say otherwise is to attempt to use scare tactics to further your position.

Thanks Danny. The point is the legal doctrine of custom does not just apply to beachfront property. I’m not a lawyer but I have read the legal briefs and history of custom. Common law custom has been claimed in many other legal areas; contracts, family, and intellectual property laws using the same criteria as property.

No scare tactics. Why can’t custom be claimed on 99.9% of Walton waterfront properties like beachfront? What is unique about beachfront, except people’s desire to have it relative to other waterfront properties? Why couldn’t the Walton BCC claim custom on lakefront or riverfront properties? Because it is less desirable than beachfront? What about inland property that has “customarily” been used for hunting? You have not claimed custom applies to any other property except beachfront -- but why couldn’t you use the same justification to make a claim of custom on non-beachfront properties?

The claim of customary rights of who gets to use other people’s personal property is a slippery slope and erosion of Constitutionally protected rights. I for one do not trust this or future Walton BCC commissioners to limit custom to just the beaches if they can get away with this claim of custom.

I also want others, like Gumby, who may not own beachfront property, to put themselves in the beachfront owners shoes and to have a little sense of what it’s like from a beachfront owner’s perspective. Many beachfront owners are like us (like the Goodwins) who have been around for many decades, who aren’t “rich” or greedy or selfish (not your words but the BCC and others) but lucky when we bought our waterfront properties at “affordable prices” decades ago, struggle to pay Walton property taxes, and just want our property rights to be respected like yours and other waterfront owners.

bought our waterfront properties at “affordable prices” decades ago, struggle to pay Walton property taxes

Unrelated to customary use, but because it came up here and I've wondered about it... has the county ever discussed a cap for property taxes for a residence owned and occupied by a full-time resident? Even if it only went into effect if someone owned the property for a proper length of time or other requirement... as the market grows, it seems unfair for long-time locals to be potentially priced out of their homes. With 3.5 million tourists, seems like we could get revenue another way vs. having someone potentially lose their home or have to move because they cannot keep up with rising property tax rates.

Unrelated to customary use, but because it came up here and I've wondered about it... has the county ever discussed a cap for property taxes for a residence owned and occupied by a full-time resident? Even if it only went into effect if someone owned the property for a proper length of time or other requirement... as the market grows, it seems unfair for long-time locals to be potentially priced out of their homes. With 3.5 million tourists, seems like we could get revenue another way vs. having someone potentially lose their home or have to move because they cannot keep up with rising property tax rates.

Here are some references on Florida Save Our Homes property tax cap that has been around for years if you have a homestead property that you live in.
Doesn't help those who rent to make income to pay Walton property taxes.
FL Dept Rev - Florida Property Tax Valuation and Income Limitation Rates
Save Our Homes
Protecting and Preserving the Save Our Homes Cap
10% cap | Property Tax in Florida

Sadly it is all talk talk talk. The REAL scare tactic is the boatloads full of money that will cause the county and it's citizens to sit down and shut up. As long as it ain't on a private beach. Disgusting. More attorneys at the trough.

With all that's happened in the past several months with total disregard for private property rights, I thought I'd throw in a couple of observations.

I'm really disappointed in the way the thread's creator subsequently performed his end zone touchdown dance as a part of his perceived victory regarding customary use. Plenty of time has gone by and I still feel the same way as my initial reaction when I first read his victory post. I know, I shouldn't be surprised.

What IF the county loses the customary use litigation? What will be the fallout besides the enforcement of private property rights like you've never seen before?

Let's assume, the county does lose which in my opinion is highly likely. Then let's assume we get hit with back to back hurricanes like we did in 2004 and 2005 and suffer beach erosion like we did then. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stated they wouldn't support a nourishment project without having approximately 1.5 miles of contiguous properties with signed easements. After the bitter taste that the county (and restauranteers) have shoved down the throats of gulf-front owners, do you think 1.5 miles worth of gulf-front owners would sign construction easements for beach nourishment? I'm pretty sure that Customary Use does not give the county the right to nourish a beach without the private property owners' permission for a construction easement.

Yes, I know the county can self-fund beach nourishment without the Feds help. But I would think a construction easement would still be necessary to do the work and that the economic rules of having enough contiguous property still apply.

And in the meantime, what happens to the millions and millions of dollars that the county is sitting on for beach nourishment that they can not legally use for any other purpose? Anybody seen that money lately and know the exact amount? I'm too lazy to look it up.