Discussion in 'Local Government and Groups' started by Dave Rauschkolb, Mar 28, 2017.
"I do believe that a narrow use of the white sand has existed for many, many years and that use allows the public to walk, fish and sunbathe there as has been done for years."
Danny, "narrow" is a key word here. What if the "vast majority" of beachfront owners knew that folks occasionally fished or walked near the water line, maybe threw a towel down for a short time and relaxed, but did NOT use umbrellas, chairs, shade canopies of various types (umbrellas, tents, etc), coolers, boom boxes, and no end of other extended stay items on the beach? Does that mean that the owners should have known that multitudes would set up on the beach from sun up to sun down because of extensive advertising? Assuming what people did or did not know when they purchased property is presumptuous at best. There are parts of Walton County beaches that had almost no one on them other than the occasional walker or fisherman and there are other parts that were population and entertainment centers. Does that mean that these two disparate areas have the same "customary" use?
I understand what you are saying and think if the beach ordinance was written correctly many of our issues would go away. For the last 30 years Walton County beaches have been major tourists attractions and common sense would dictate that if I live in a tourist attraction or near one I have to accept the issues that such a venue brings. I get frustrated sometimes because Highway 83 is a motor speedway full of cars every weekend because of tourists going to the beach. But it is what it is. I think property owners should be able to keep the tents, boom boxes and alcohol off their property. On the other hand I think owning beachfront brings with it the public's right to walk, sunbathe and fish on the white sandy beach. This was not an issue when the numbers of people, both tourist and resident were smaller but as those numbers increase the aggravation level on both sides rises. We have to work together and be good neighbors on both sides. Because people coming to the beach is not going to change.
You miss the point that if we were all "good neighbors" and everyone of the "public" always did the right thing - there would be no need for private property anywhere. It's a utopian viewpoint that's being promoted just because it's the beach --- and of all groups of people we have applied it to it's the general population of tourists many who are out to party which includes playing music, drinking, playing games, and getting rowdy (none of this I see as wrong but certainly it can rise to a level that causes an intrusion to others who the county sold the space as private property). We aren't talking about the percentage of folks who walk over lay out a couple of towels and "sunbathe" --- it's the ones who come into someone else's space and disrupt the scene. If the ordinance was written with any recognition of this, it would have stated that causing a clear disturbance or complaint is grounds for being asked to leave private property and return to public beach space and the private property owner should have that right. Secondly, it would have prohibited the very common practice of squatting on private chairs - something that happens all the time and forces a confrontation. There would have also been a consideration for the % of space occupied by the public --- if beach vendors can claim 50% of public beach then why in the world would the public be able to claim 100% of private space?
And the whole fishing thing? I like to fish but it can get pretty invasive when you are in the water with the lines, bait and hooks right next to you. That's not a public or private issue - if a bunch of people are in the water in front of you - no fishing.
That said - I also agree with chapter 22. Several did take it too far. The ropes, chains and fences simply do not belong or the blight of no trespassing signs (they are out of character for the wide open space). I see nothing wrong however with very small notices of marker (one east, one west). Seaside's is a good example that the county should have followed as a standard for all property owners.
The County is not in the real estate business and did NOT sell anyone private beach property.
Again, the 50% claimed by beach vendors is not theirs to claim. They are beach squatters! The County is allowing them to squat at no charge.
And I completely agree with you. The big problem is that the beach vendors are using the chairs as "members of the public" and usurping the "first come first serve" concept for public access to the beach this consuming space "in the name of a beach user". The issue is that a member of the public doesn't become a "beach user" until they step foot onto the public beach itself --- they do not become a beach user when they call into reserve a chair with a vendor. This must change. The vendor cannot be allowed to put a chair out until the beach user is present to occupy it and the vendor needs to follow the "first come first serve" rules at that time with the occupants at that time.
formosa64, we have problems and we refuse for some reason to address many of them. I agree that vendors should only put out rented chairs and that first come first serve should be the rule. Most fishermen won't be around people because the scare off the fish and defeat the purpose. Unruly people should be dealt with whether on public or private property. Thanks for the reasonable discussion of the issue.
The position is that a "rented" chair is one that someone has reserved and paid for --- not one that is occupied. So they put out the "rented" chairs every morning first thing and take up the space. Now the chairs may sit empty all day but they are "rented" --- that's the problem. The chair should not be placed on the sand until the person who rented it shows up for the day. Once they do then that's their spot for the day. "First come - first serve" - not "First reserve - first serve".
The devil is in the details and I stand corrected. I meant what you said Formosa64 but your language is much more precise and to the point.
As a consequence of the vendor setups in the name of a beach user, some of the public has also adopted the strategy of setting up, either for themselves or their renters, without actually being there to enjoy the beach.
Click the $ sign in the post top of page 6. Love it!!!
My thoughts are: "NO SET UP TIL YOU SHOW UP!"
This came up in the Sunshine Shuttle thread. I have no doubt the article with the little city of Dayton Beach Shores litigating against Volusia County is a foreshadow of what will happen with the incorporation of the city of SoWal under the leadership of those like Dave Rauschkolb, David Pleat, Jacquee Markel, and others like them who will likely want to spend our tax dollars on their agenda like customary-take and costly Government real estate "un-investment" with tax payers money. Only Pleat and other attorneys will benefit then. That’s why I won’t vote for incorporation. At least Walton BCC is the devil I know and I won’t have to fight both the City and County tax and spend agendas on things outside of safety, security, sanitation that governments should focus tax dollars on.
Jan 2017 Volusia postpones parking lot plan at Shores plots
Apr 2017 Volusia County-Daytona Beach Shores legal fight looms
As a side note; will Walton beachfront property owners who do not reside here (majority?) and would have to pay (majority of?) city and county taxes get to vote on any referendum to incorporate? If not, why not?
The main reason I would see beachfront property owners supporting incorporating is that currently their interests are not being represented appropriately, reasonably or fairly at the county level. This is why local governments get formed - so they can directly represent the needs, concerns and interests of the local population. If the District 5 commissioner was doing his job we wouldn't be where we are - in my view we have no representation at the county - all our concerns get a polite listen and then they are ignored. Prove me wrong - show me where that's not been the case. That's why I will vote for incorporation.
I will only direct you to follow what is going on in Destin with regard to the relationship with the county, beach access, public safety and the like. I more than likely won't have a vote in the incorporation issue but I don't have to look far to say those would be my concerns.
I agree. Not only unreasonably and unfairly but actively working and spending tax payer MILLION$ against private property rights.
Again, agree about BCC ineptness. BUT I trust the "Better" SoWal leadership about as much or LESS than the past, current, or future Walton BCC. IMO property owners will have to fight the (1) county [the devil I know] AND (2) city [the devil I don't know] for individual freedoms, minimal government, taxation, economic freedom, and private property rights. Just look at the city of Dayton Beach Shores and Destin in Okaloosa county.
Does anybody know; will (1) ALL south Walton property owners and (2) residents get to vote on any incorporation referendum? If not, why not?
I'd be willing to bet the "Better" SoWal leaders would not support ALL south Walton property owners getting to vote on a referendum.
I would not see non resident property owners being allowed to vote. Although I did hear a gentleman from Alabama say his wife and him were going to register to vote in Florida so they could homestead in both places.
They better be careful with that. I don't know what Alabama's laws are, but homestead exemption fraud is a big deal here.
Examples of homestead fraud are:
1) The owner(s) claim homestead exemption, but permanent residence is elsewhere.
2) The owner(s) claim homestead exemption, but they rent the property to others for any portion of the year. (The exception is military homesteaders away from home due to orders).
3) The individual or family unit claim homestead exemption on more than one property (including a homestead exemption filed in another state).
Under its current leadership, Incorporate SoWal will Fail. Simple as that.
Customary Use will also ultimately Fail after lots of $$$ spent and legal cases.
Regardless it's and see.
Why shouldn't non-resident property owners NOT be allowed to vote? If 89% of property taxes generated in Walton County in 2016 were generated in South Walton [and a large % of 89% paid by non-resident beachfront owners] and a municipal council can charge new or revised fees or ad valorem taxes, why shouldn't ALL property owners have a vote? Not necessarily a question to you but general questions to "Better" SoWal leaders.
Separate names with a comma.