Customary Use Will Happen On Sowal Beaches

[John G]

Customary use does not imply or state that the property in question is not private nor is it intended to seize private property. When the government takes private property that is called eminent domain. Customary use means that over time the public has been allowed to use private property in a particular manner like sunbathing on the beach. Customary use has more in common with an easement. The theory is that the public for decades has used this private property in specific ways and thus over time this use is recognized as a right. The courts will be the arbiter of whether or not the public's use of our beaches over the years has risen to the level of customary use.

That is a good explanation, but I do believe that there areas where this theory will not apply and that will be the interesting part of all of this.

Wonder if some of those "areas" will be able to show that they jumped through the WCSO hoop and got nothing in return...

 

[FloridaBeachBum]

That property was called private does not negate the principle of customary use.

Bobbie, you should do some homework regarding the history of common-law doctrine of custom. There are many legal custom criteria that have been established over many hundreds of years. Any one criteria that are not satisfied defeats the claim of custom. One criteria is that custom is “exercised without interruption”. That is when the Sheriff recognized that private property owners have the right of exclusion and are protected by trespass laws, enforced by the Sheriff with a written trespass SOP, that the claim of custom on private property is defeated. That’s what I think BeachMax was saying.

 

[FloridaBeachBum]

Customary use does not imply or state that the property in question is not private nor is it intended to seize private property. Customary use means that over time the public has been allowed to use private property in a particular manner like sunbathing on the beach. The theory is that the public for decades has used this private property in specific ways and thus over time this use is recognized as a right. The courts will be the arbiter of whether or not the public's use of our beaches over the years has risen to the level of customary use.

Danny, you understand historically that the claim of custom will be true from “time immemorial” or “before the memory of man” or use of private property must be “ancient” -- NOT decades. You should do some homework on the history of custom. I agree the courts will decide - NOT the Walton BCC declaration of custom on private property. But it only costs the Walton tax payers, not the commissioners, MILLION$ to try.

If there were not rigorous legal criteria to determine the claim of custom, everyone that wanted something of someone else’s will claim custom. That without rigorous narrow criteria the claim of custom will be a slippery slope eroding personal rights. What’s next? All the bay front properties too? Hunters using dogs and hunting on private property because that’s what hunters have done for decades?

 

[Danny Glidewell]

1. I understand about the "ancient" requirement but I do not think it is in much dispute that the Indians and early settlers used the beaches as they chose. That was the case at least until the 1980's. It is the last 40 years are so that is the question.
2. I have listened and read material from all sides. I think I have a fairly clear understanding.
3. I discount the slippery slope argument; we have been on that slide for many years on everyone's property. My Great-grandfathers would be appalled by zoning boards, permits to build on their property and such. They also lived in a time of open ranges and hunting allowed pretty much anywhere. Things change. I don't have to like the changes but I do have to live with them.
4. When I was a boy dog hunting was prevalent in this area and dogs and hunters pretty much went where they chose. Property owners resisted their fences and crops being torn up and destroyed and finally prevailed on the legislature to change the laws. Dog hunting is now pretty much a thing of the past. The Eglin reservation is about the only area open to such these days. Things change.
5. The BCC has made a legislative finding and lawfully passed an ordinance. It is now in the hands of the courts to determine if this law is Constitutional or not. We shall see. Either way there will be some unhappy people.
6. My personal opinion is that the committee came up with a reasonable compromise. No one got everything they wanted but everyone got something. Had this committee been formed and brought their proposal to the BCC before anything was enacted, then maybe we could have avoided some of the hard feelings and lawsuits. Enforcement of the existing ordinances in the past also could have been a big help. But that is the past and now we must move forward. It is what it is.

 

[FloridaBeachBum]

1. I understand about the "ancient" requirement but I do not think it is in much dispute that the Indians and early settlers used the beaches as they chose. That was the case at least until the 1980's. It is the last 40 years are so that is the question.

The Native Americans and Settlers used the bay as much or more than the beaches if you believe Walton's expert, Dr. Miller. Does that mean you are in favor of customary use on bay-front property’s too? Ancient is but one of the custom criteria; there are many more, any one criteria that fails defeats a custom claim.

2. I have listened and read material from all sides. I think I have a fairly clear understanding.

I'd be willing to debate your understanding of the hundreds of years of historical common-law of custom; but what's the use?

3. I discount the slippery slope argument; we have been on that slide for many years on everyone's property. My Great-grandfathers would be appalled by zoning boards, permits to build on their property and such. They also lived in a time of open ranges and hunting allowed pretty much anywhere. Things change. I don't have to like the changes but I do have to live with them.

Your slippery slope point is about government police power that compels property owners HOW to use their property; not WHO can use private property. When government representatives like the BCC and you tell property owners WHO can use private property that is a slippery slope the Constitution protects.

4. When I was a boy dog hunting was prevalent in this area and dogs and hunters pretty much went where they chose. Property owners resisted their fences and crops being torn up and destroyed and finally prevailed on the legislature to change the laws. Dog hunting is now pretty much a thing of the past. The Eglin reservation is about the only area open to such these days. Things change.

You must not read the papers. Oct 2016. A couple owns private property adjacent to the State Blackwater Wildlife Management Area (similar to beachfront owners that own adjacent to State waters and foreshore). The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission permits deer hunting with dogs … and does nothing, but could, to prevent dogs and hunters from hunting on private property (similar to Walton Commissioners and beachfront). The couple sues the State to prevent hunting on their private property; to enforce their RIGHT to exclude others and enjoy their private property, and prevailed!

The couples attorney that sued the State? David Theriaque. Walton County’s attorney litigating to take 1,000 beachfront owners private property rights to give to the public with customary-take. That’s ironic isn't it. Wonder why Theriaque did not argue customary-use for the dog-deer hunters that have used that private property for decades? That the couple should have known that dog-deer hunting was a FL custom when they bought the property they pay taxes on?

Judge: FWC must keep Blackwater deer-dog hunters off private property

5. The BCC has made a legislative finding and lawfully passed an ordinance. It is now in the hands of the courts to determine if this law is Constitutional or not. We shall see. Either way there will be some unhappy people.

And the Walton tax payers will be million$ poorer too; for nothing if property owners prevail. When was the last time since 1975 FL beachfront property was found to be subject to custom and not overturned by the courts? Zero.

6. My personal opinion is that the committee came up with a reasonable compromise. No one got everything they wanted but everyone got something. Had this committee been formed and brought their proposal to the BCC before anything was enacted, then maybe we could have avoided some of the hard feelings and lawsuits. Enforcement of the existing ordinances in the past also could have been a big help. But that is the past and now we must move forward. It is what it is.

If your opinion is that the BCC and customary-use committee includes private property owners "getting" customary-take declared by the BCC on private property is reasonable or acceptable you are wrong. This is not a majority rule of law.

What’s wrong with the at least 32,369 feet of publicly owned beachfront, plus what Walton just recently overspent by million$ of dollar$, and 5,839 acres at Topsail, Greyton, and Deer Lake parks with restrooms, camping, and parking? Too expensive? Not enough parking? Won’t allow alcohol or dogs? Walton commissioners even deny those rights to private property owners. Why won't customary-take supporters answer this question?

 

[bob bob]

Which question?

 

[Danny Glidewell]

What’s wrong with the at least 32,369 feet of publicly owned beachfront, plus what Walton just recently overspent by million$ of dollar$, and 5,839 acres at Topsail, Greyton, and Deer Lake parks with restrooms, camping, and parking? Too expensive? Not enough parking? Won’t allow alcohol or dogs? Walton commissioners even deny those rights to private property owners. Why won't customary-take supporters answer this question?

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. I personally am in favor of purchasing every available beachfront parcel that is reasonably priced and developing those parcels into additional county accesses. Sadly, many of the beachfront owners oppose the public purchase of these properties and their development to serve the public. 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.

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

Customary use does not imply or state that the property in question is not private nor is it intended to seize private property. When the government takes private property that is called eminent domain. Customary use means that over time the public has been allowed to use private property in a particular manner like sunbathing on the beach. Customary use has more in common with an easement. The theory is that the public for decades has used this private property in specific ways and thus over time this use is recognized as a right. The courts will be the arbiter of whether or not the public's use of our beaches over the years has risen to the level of customary use.

Here, Here Danny. The facts plain and simple. NOT a taking. And yes, the courts will decide the law of the sand eventually but until then folks...Customary Use IS the Law of the Sand in Walton County.

 

[John G]

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. I personally am in favor of purchasing every available beachfront parcel that is reasonably priced and developing those parcels into additional county accesses. Sadly, many of the beachfront owners oppose the public purchase of these properties and their development to serve the public. 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.

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.

 

[beachmax]

I find it interesting that the BCC, while they can regulate beach activities, chooses to recognize only some of the customary uses of the beach. Dr. Miller states that some of the customary uses are: riding horses,mules and wagons, sunbathing nude and driving county line to county line. Let's get back to the good old days.