Customary Use Will Happen On Sowal Beaches

[FactorFiction]

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.

It is worth noting that the committee made a number of suggestions that the BCC altered or deleted. For the most part, the customary use ordinance is very similar to the one approved in October of 2016 with only minimal changes recommended by the committee. As you point out, Danny, it would have been better had the committee been formed in the first place rather than forming it after they had already developed and approved an ordinance.

 

[Jenksy]

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.

 

[John G]

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.

 

[FactorFiction]

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?

 

[FloridaBeachBum]

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?

 

[Jenksy]

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?

 

[Danny Glidewell]

"... 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.

 

[Marmot]

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.

 

[FloridaBeachBum]

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".

 

[Danny Glidewell]

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.