I agree with your statement, beachfront and bayfront are 2 different animals. Thank you for clearing that up.
Customary Use Will Happen On Sowal Beaches
- Thread starter Dave Rauschkolb
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
I agree with your statement, beachfront and bayfront are 2 different animals. Thank you for clearing that up.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
You are correct. While Dave R. has had some good points, most cannot distance themselves from his stance on Customary Use.
I am certain, as are others, this defeated the attempt to Incorporate SoWal as this is a dividing topic. Now its "put off" for another year...
I have been a supporter of separation of SoWal for a very long time, actually supported it when it first came up. The current group fails to realize that their flag bearers detract from those of us that would in other situations donate and support this cause.
Need to find a middle ground. Hopefully soon.
This flag waving post, started by Dave R., is a good example. I do like and support his views on some of the other issues.
We have the same issues in Missouri on our streams.
Advocates worry proposal pits paddlers against property owners on Missouri waterways
Use of sand bars or banks for fishing, picnics etc.
Advocates worry proposal pits paddlers against property owners on Missouri waterways
Use of sand bars or banks for fishing, picnics etc.
The real issue that's not being discussed while everyone is high fiving --- is the fact that beach vendors can and do reserve up to 50% of the public beach space and keep it from the public. Yet, I don't see the "public" or the commission going after the beach chair vendors to return this space to the public. If the private owners can't --- then neither should the beach vendors be allows to exclusively use the beach for their own for profit purposes.
All this rhetoric --- beaches without boundaries and this sand is yours and mine gets thrown right out the window when you allow beach vendors to take up 50% of the public beaches. The TDC won't allow the public to move those chairs to allow you to sit there, that's the vendor's spot- not yours --- so the public's "customary use" is certainly being interfered with and impeded. So, when is the commission going to act on this and stop chair vendors from pre-setting chairs on 50% of spaces on the public beaches? And following that once the rentee leaves the beach the chair gets picked up? I haven't read anything anywhere that says that "the public's customary use" defines the "public" as a "chair" or a for profit beach vendor. Why are these private entities allowed to privatize the beaches when no one else is??