Easements Returned "Tally" forBeach Nourishment
- Thread starter Bob Hudson
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
No one ever suggested using private beach entrances to access the beach. You wouldn't let anyone trapes throgh your house to access your back yard, would you? The point is, the beaches, from the toe of the dune or from a private property line marking the beginning of the beach, should be public. Yes, people would have to walk to reach our beach but they are welcome to use it respectfully. Our pristine beaches are our gift from God. No individual should have the right to deny the use of them to another human being.
I never said that anyone else suggested that using private beach entrances to access the beach. I was the one who suggested that you should open your private access.
Have your association by-laws been modified that converts your private beach to public? If not, your open invitation to the public wouldn't be fair to your fellow association members who disagree with your position.
My wife is a gift from God......
You and I will never agree on beach usage. I see you and all of your ilk as greedy and, usually wealthy, people who could care less for the U.S. populace in general. The solution does not lie with you or me. It will be up to the Supreme Court of Florida to decide just as they did in California. Beach usage is for all to enjoy.
Andy A, you never stated why you thought it was ok that your beach was conveniently your private property when dump trucks were traversing and you wanted to put an end to it.
You never responded to the idea of the public using your private access to reach the beach that you think everyone has a right to, whether public or private. Your response was "You wouldn't let anyone trapes throgh your house to access your back yard, would you?" That clearly speaks for itself when it comes to protecting one's private property. By the way, people walk across our beach all the time.
You never responded whether or not you were being very generous with your neighbor's property. In other words, does your association's by-laws state whether your beach is public or private?
And now we have "greed" from "usually wealthy people". It's sad to pigeon hole people you don't really know.
I expected more.
You never responded to the idea of the public using your private access to reach the beach that you think everyone has a right to, whether public or private. Your response was "You wouldn't let anyone trapes throgh your house to access your back yard, would you?" That clearly speaks for itself when it comes to protecting one's private property. By the way, people walk across our beach all the time.
You never responded whether or not you were being very generous with your neighbor's property. In other words, does your association's by-laws state whether your beach is public or private?
And now we have "greed" from "usually wealthy people". It's sad to pigeon hole people you don't really know.
I expected more.
John G, I agree beach renourishment for our eroded beaches is over, thanks to thoughtless, uninformed individuals that have never indured any results of a hurricane. Too bad we lost Brad Pickle. He had vision and the right answers. As for you, BMB Vagrant, I don't owe you an explaination for anything. I think I know who you are, and consider your attitude toward beach usage appalling. If I am correct as to who you are, you and your wife don't even want people to use the public access to BMB. If I am wrong in this assumption, please say so and I'll apologize. Nuf said.
Though this comment is not directed directly at me, I consider myself very well informed. And believe me, we've endured the "results" of hurricanes, with the majority of money expended directly from our pockets for seawalls and sand - just like you.
No you don't. But if you're trying to win over the opinions of others regarding private vs. public as well other issues, and you project mixed signals, I think I'm doing you a favor pointing out the flaws in your arguments.
I don't have any idea what you're talking about. No apology is necessary.
We all have our opinions. Hopefully they're simply founded with factual information.
During the December 1st, 2015 TDC meeting, Duncan Greer of Taylor Engineering spoke in front of the TDC. He stated that as of November 25th, based on numbers provided by the county, that 513 property owners are not granting easements for beach nourishment and that 47 owners have granted easements to the Army Corps of Engineers.
But then he said, "We're still at ...approximately 10% is a yes and 90% is a no." He stated that a total of 560 easement request forms have been returned to the county.
In no uncertain terms, a non-returned easement form is counted as a "no". 47 of 1100 is only about 4% yes. So how can that be "10% is a yes"?
I would like to think that Taylor Engineering is presenting hard facts and not playing with numbers in front of a TDC meeting, especially at this late stage of the game. Of course I understand his numbers are based on the actual "yes" forms vs. "no" forms returned. But to be intellectually honest, he should of stated the percentages calculated both ways, not just the high side.
I subsequently found this in a recent Taylor Engineering report :
Easement Acquisition On-Going
Total Easements: 1,100 +/-
Received “Yes’”: 43 (3% of total)
Received “No’s”: 334 (28% of total)
~69% Still Outstanding
At least the report itself is calculating the proper percentages (only 3% truly yes at that time).
By the way, he mentioned the last day to tabulate these forms is the end of January. Perhaps at that time they will officially count a non-responsive property owner as a "no" vote and we'll see the real percentages.
Yea, I know, beach nourishment is dead (based on current easement approval numbers and color of sand). Well it certainly seems to be.........
for now.
But then he said, "We're still at ...approximately 10% is a yes and 90% is a no." He stated that a total of 560 easement request forms have been returned to the county.
In no uncertain terms, a non-returned easement form is counted as a "no". 47 of 1100 is only about 4% yes. So how can that be "10% is a yes"?
I would like to think that Taylor Engineering is presenting hard facts and not playing with numbers in front of a TDC meeting, especially at this late stage of the game. Of course I understand his numbers are based on the actual "yes" forms vs. "no" forms returned. But to be intellectually honest, he should of stated the percentages calculated both ways, not just the high side.
I subsequently found this in a recent Taylor Engineering report :
Easement Acquisition On-Going
Total Easements: 1,100 +/-
Received “Yes’”: 43 (3% of total)
Received “No’s”: 334 (28% of total)
~69% Still Outstanding
At least the report itself is calculating the proper percentages (only 3% truly yes at that time).
By the way, he mentioned the last day to tabulate these forms is the end of January. Perhaps at that time they will officially count a non-responsive property owner as a "no" vote and we'll see the real percentages.
Yea, I know, beach nourishment is dead (based on current easement approval numbers and color of sand). Well it certainly seems to be.........
for now.
