Eastern Lake Outfall Parcel Purchase

That could be the case. I was told by Bill Head, he had language prohibiting vendors as a part of his deed conveyance. When I asked Meadows about doing this with Russell property, she said it couldn't be done. However, Russell has always been trying to get county to abandon the Sandroy Road easement, so that he could put a gate on his property, and have more parking. That could also still be the sticking point.

The beachfront is a special case in that the general public has been allowed for decades by the previous and current owners to use the white sandy beach and thus has established a "customary use" of that beachfront.

Danny you seem to be a voice of reason and an informed person, unlike many who are against littoral private property rights. I think you are correct, you cannot unscramble the egg and about 80% of littoral beaches in Walton is private property with all the rights you and any owner north of Hwy 98 have. Owners paid their hard earned money and have abided by the law to have the property rights they have had an have today. Commissioners have to deal with the facts and Sheriff Atkinson is obligated to enforce the current law or his is derelict in his duty. Please be informed of the facts and help clarify what the doctrine of custom is and is not and not perpetuate the misinformation of customary-use as you have.

You have to go back historically to understand the very-narrow common-law doctrine of custom and customary-use of private property. “Allowing” the public to use private property for tens of years does NOT, a claim of custom make. That's grace (courteous goodwill). There are historically multiple-criteria to make a claim of custom. You could make a claim of custom on contracts or family law, ... or use of private property. That's why custom has to be limited and the bar set high to take what belongs to someone else. Time is but one criteria and the time, has to be ancient, from time immemorial, “That it have been used so long, that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.”

The doctrine of custom first arose in medieval England where, by immemorial custom, citizens could acquire the right to use land in specific localities. Much of American common law is based on the leading legal treatise discussing the doctrine of custom is Sir William Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England". Blackstone described the criteria and limits of common-law custom claims. Blackstone also stated; "So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community."

Do you know what all the historical limits of common-law custom are? One of the limits, upheld by Florida courts, is that customary-use is limited to the parcel it is claimed against. There are about 1,000 littoral private property owners in Walton. How much do you think the final bill to Walton tax payers will be? Millions or multi-Million$? What if property owners prevail? Then what? You will have a 1,000 very unhappy littoral property owners. I doubt the Commissioners will refund the tax payers money for Theriaque's bill (at $450/hr) and Walton Commissioners may have to pay for the property owner's attorney fees too. Maybe Walton Commissioners should work with owners to find solutions, and spend those millions litigating against 1,000 property owners, on infrastructure.

Lucas Reynolds, the point is that if the beaches are not open to the public the economy of the county, north and south, will take a severe hit. So, while fighting for customary use may anger 1,000 beachfront owners, not fighting for it will anger 10's of thousands of Walton County residents, north and south, who depend on the beach for their livelihood or live here so that they can enjoy using it. And I think the county has an excellent case for defending customary use on the vast majority of Walton County beaches RIGHT NOW. The beaches have been used by the public since the first settlers met the Indians here. The Indians used it, the settlers used it and every native resident can remember using it all their life. I certainly have used it during my 54 years here. So, unless the county allows those rights to be terminated I think the county will prevail in court. I do think this is a fight that neither side should want and that cooler heads should prevail. An environmental easement on beachfront property where the public can use the beaches south of the toe of the dunes in exchange for a percentage of their property tax reduced would be good policy and avoid lawsuits that will be expensive for both sides. But if no compromise is made then have no illusions about the county abandoning customary use because voting to end customary use is political suicide.

Sorry for the long reply but there is so much misinformation and opinion to reply to.

Danny, free market economy is based on supply and demand. You presuppose that taking private property rights will reduce the demand for the beach and negatively impact the Walton economy. My crystal ball says it won’t change demand in the long term and could be better in the long term. So we are even on opinions. The economy will likely be different. Just like it was different 20 years ago. If you have facts of how the long term Walton economy will be impacted if private property rights are protected let’s see them otherwise it’s an opinion and everyone has one of those. Let's govern with facts.

Whose fault is it that Walton is dependent on tourism and does not have a diversified economy? Not littoral private property owners. Who abides by the law and has today recognized littoral property rights since 1776, FL became a state, Walton became a county and have paid for and pay property taxes on? Private property owners have. Since when is the majority rule superior to any Constitutional individual private property owner rights? Owner rights-of-property for private exclusive use and enjoyment like you have, among others. The last time the Government thought the economic benefit of the majority was superior to Constitutionally protected individual rights we fought a civil war over it. How did that turn out? Government may be able to use police powers to tell owners how to use their property but NOT who can use their property that’s called a taking, with few very very narrow legal exceptions. If taking private property rights owners have today is acceptable to benefit the economy; what individual Constitutional rights are next? Freedom of speech?

You didn’t read or answer any of the questions. Do you know what ALL the historical limits of common-law custom are? There are many or do you choose to ignore ALL the criteria? Time is but one limit. 54 years is hardly, since time-immemorial. How much do you think the final bill to Walton tax payers, north and south of the bay, will be? Millions or multi-Million$? What if property owners prevail? Then what? You will then have a 1,000 very angry littoral property owners, who you just cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars each to protect the property rights they have today. If I was a littoral property owner I would not be very appreciative, would protect, and enforce my property rights even more. It will be too late to ask for property owner consideration then. You “think” the Commissioners have a good case; here’s the test of how good of case you think you have, would you personally be willing to refund the taxpayer their money to litigate if owners prevail? It’s easy to have an opinion to litigate when it’s not your own tens of thousands or millions of dollars. Want to have a referendum of north and south Walton voters if they would be willing to spend multi-millions to litigate? Property owners do not really get a choice to protect their property rights or not against Commissioners litigation. Commissioners will costs Owners millions in addition to the property taxes they will waste for nothing.

Given the Commissioners ineptness planning the growth of Walton economy and vilifying the 1,000 property owners in the primaries for standing up for their legally recognized rights they have today; owners are not under any illusions that the commissioners are against private property rights and will litigate against 1,000 of their citizens that have played by the rules/law. Owners understand the Commissioners win politically either way to claim custom and litigate against the 1,000 evil minority property owners. First it’s not their money, it’s tax payers money, it’s not like Commissioners will have to pay tax payers back the millions in litigation if property owners prevail, so what do Commissioners care? Commissioners get votes win-or-lose to litigate with tax payers money. Although it didn’t help Imfeld or Meadows to vilify property owners and be against property rights. Customary-use may not be as much political suicide as you think. Wasting millions of tax dollars is. If owners prevail Commissioners will blame and vilify the judges for upholding recognized property rights and say it was the mean-ol judges that would not take private property rights and give to the public, if it was up to us Commissioners we would have - vote for me at the next election - ignore the millions of your taxes we spent for nothing.

Owners also understand your and others position against individual property rights will not change your emotional position against property rights even with facts. It’s just sad you and other outspoken proponents perpetuate the misinformation of customary-use and the majority-public vs minority-“elite”; defined as elite because they have earned and paid for the property rights the majority want (for free), regardless of the consequences to Constitutional rights.

Lucas Reynolds, the point is that if the beaches are not open to the public the economy of the county, north and south, will take a severe hit. So, while fighting for customary use may anger 1,000 beachfront owners, not fighting for it will anger 10's of thousands of Walton County residents, north and south, who depend on the beach for their livelihood or live here so that they can enjoy using it. And I think the county has an excellent case for defending customary use on the vast majority of Walton County beaches RIGHT NOW. The beaches have been used by the public since the first settlers met the Indians here. The Indians used it, the settlers used it and every native resident can remember using it all their life. I certainly have used it during my 54 years here. So, unless the county allows those rights to be terminated I think the county will prevail in court. I do think this is a fight that neither side should want and that cooler heads should prevail. An environmental easement on beachfront property where the public can use the beaches south of the toe of the dunes in exchange for a percentage of their property tax reduced would be good policy and avoid lawsuits that will be expensive for both sides. But if no compromise is made then have no illusions about the county abandoning customary use because voting to end customary use is political suicide.

Don't waste your time debating this issue with LR. It's a waste of time. Heaps of praise on the BCC for taking a stand on this.

Don't waste your time debating this issue with LR. It's a waste of time. Heaps of praise on the BCC for taking a stand on this.

Dave R. you are correct. Don't waste your time if all you have is opinions, misinformation, emotional calls for I'm right and you're wrong, and NO facts. You and Danny seem to be the biggest advocates against property rights and litigating against property owners with tax payers million$. Yep, no doubt the inept Commissioners will litigate against 1,000 property owners in court. Why don't you at least correct the misinformation about common-law custom in the public forum, if you understand custom so well or if you think I'm incorrect. What if property owners prevail? Then what? If you are so sure of your legal position why don't you personally agree to repay the Walton tax payer multi-million dollar legal bill should property owners prevail; if you want to praise the BCC so much and see them litigate against 1,000 of their tax paying citizens. Property owners do not get that choice to spends tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars each defending their property rights they have had and have today.

Dave weren't you the one who was so confident about the recent primaries you stated; "This cast of characters will stop at nothing to place a career Mailman, Tony Anderson in the Walton County puppet seat. Thankfully, nearly 1500 brand new Republicans [or were you referring to Democrats temporarily switching parties to vote in the Republican primary?] will ensure Cindy [Meadows] will rise above the Walton County blues and keep her rightful seat of true leadership." Meadows lost by a 2 to 1 margin. I doubt any characters have that much influence. Might want to rethink how confident you are about your position against property rights too.

No property ownership changes under Customary Use, so there is no taking.

No property rights change, so there is no taking or loss.

All it is is legal recognition that the public's beach use shall continue as it has for decades. Nothing new, nothing radical, just the same property and recreation rights that have been the norm for many years and generations.

No property ownership changes under Customary Use, so there is no taking.

No property rights change, so there is no taking or loss.

All it is is legal recognition that the public's beach use shall continue as it has for decades. Nothing new, nothing radical, just the same property and recreation rights that have been the norm for many years and generations.

You mean littoral property owners have paid a premium and property taxes for public use of their private property to their deeded MHWL property boundary all these decades? Then the Walton Sheriff over the many decades have falsely and illegally enforced Constitutionally protected private property rights of enjoyment, exclusion and the Florida Statute of trespass for those who do not respect owner's rights? I don't think there is an exception of public use of littoral private property without permission, unless you can educate us of this law. If the Sheriff fails to enforce the current law he is derelict in his duty.

Do you think all Florida beach property rights are now declared public because it's "Nothing new, nothing radical, just the same property and recreation rights that have been the norm for many years and generations."? Please educate us which common-law public customary-right of private property is now in effect? Fifteen spring-breakers, with boom boxes, 15 foot canopies, ice chests of beer, crude language, and public indecency? Walton has not enforced public behavior over the decades why would you think that would change now? What about the property owner's and their family's right to enjoy their property that they have used customarily and have memories for multiple decades and pay compulsory property taxes for the right of use? Facts not opinion please.

The public has had and will have use of all 26 miles of Walton foreshore. What's wrong with the over 6+ miles of Walton public dry sand beaches (some beaches Walton even permits you to drive vehicles on) and 5,000+ acres of public parks with parking, rest rooms, and camping? Too far to walk?

Lucas Reynolds, I am absolutely for private property rights. I certainly do not see my position as radical and would like for cooler heads to prevail and come to a compromise on the issue. An ugly legal fight is something no one wants and will help no one. But make no mistake. If pushed, I think the case can be proven that the public has used the white sand portion of the beach below the toe of the dunes since man first came to these shores. That use has continued to the present. The economy of this county and region is tourist based and has been for several years. That economic model requires that the beach be open to the visitors we bring in and we have been guided by this model for many years. NO ONE objected or tried to change this operating procedure until very recently. That sounds like customary use to me and changing the model has the potential of harming thousands of our citizens and their ability to make a living. That is intolerable and the county must fight to protect those citizens and their economic well-being. The property owners who have tried to block the beach are the individuals who precipitated this and they will be responsible for the legal bills that are incurred.'

Lucas Reynolds, I am absolutely for private property rights. I certainly do not see my position as radical and would like for cooler heads to prevail and come to a compromise on the issue. An ugly legal fight is something no one wants and will help no one. But make no mistake. If pushed, I think the case can be proven that the public has used the white sand portion of the beach below the toe of the dunes since man first came to these shores. That use has continued to the present. The economy of this county and region is tourist based and has been for several years. That economic model requires that the beach be open to the visitors we bring in and we have been guided by this model for many years. NO ONE objected or tried to change this operating procedure until very recently. That sounds like customary use to me and changing the model has the potential of harming thousands of our citizens and their ability to make a living. That is intolerable and the county must fight to protect those citizens and their economic well-being. The property owners who have tried to block the beach are the individuals who precipitated this and they will be responsible for the legal bills that are incurred.'

Sorry it’s hard to keep it short and cover all the points you make.

Danny, you could make a good politician. You state you are absolutely for property rights but you are not for littoral property rights if you are for taking property rights owners have had and have today and you have avoided answering any of the hard questions previously asked. To claim or take property rights owners have today that is not yours is radical. You claim no one, including yourself, want a “ugly legal fight” yet you make absolute statements. “Make no mistake. If pushed ...” and offer no realistic solution except for 1,000 owners to give property rights to Walton, litigation, and opinions. Littoral property owners are the ones who have had and have property rights of enjoyment and exclusion today and you, Dave R, and commissioners want to use Government powers to take rights private citizens have today and give it to the public; without compensation I might add.

I and many reject your opinion about the economy. It’s like Dave R’s opinion on the Walton primaries for Cindy Meadows; not well understood and an opinion like any other. YOUR “economic model requires that the beach be open” is your opinion, short sighted, and just as valid as mine or any other “economic model” ... in my opinion. Regardless economic considerations are not superior to Constitutional protection of who has rights and use of private property. Why should property owners bear the burden of inept commoners failure to control growth and respect property rights?

“No one objected or tried to change this operating procedure ... “; that operating procedure is the rule of law. And the law is the same today as it has been since FL became a state. Because an owner or owners, by their grace (courteous goodwill), have not or did not enforce their property rights does not mean they give up their property rights; unless you want to litigate for a prescriptive easement on each parcel.

Again, you should look to the inept commissioners “harming thousands of our citizens and their ability to make a living”; not property owners. I suppose you are for commissioners continuing to give beach vendors free continuous-use of public beaches because it would harm their business and the economy, even at the expense of the public use of the beach too?

“That is intolerable and the county must fight to protect those citizens and their economic well-being.” The county government is EQUALLY responsible to protect ALL citizens and their Constitutional rights. What is intolerable is Government and people who want to take private property rights based on emotion, opinions, what feels good, and not on facts and the law.

Wow, your bias is showing. “The property owners who have tried to block the beach are the individuals who precipitated this and they will be responsible for the legal bills that are incurred.” Do you mean the property owners who are protecting their property rights and some who wish to protect their property from abuse of some of the public in accordance with Florida statutes and Walton Sheriff procedures? Don’t you mean the commissioners and people against property rights ... litigating against property owners, not the other way around, “will be responsible for the legal bills.” I thought you were absolutely for property rights?

Here’s the hard questions again. Will you ignore them again? Do you know what ALL the historical limits of common-law custom are? There are many. Time is but one limit. How much do you think the final bill to Walton tax payers, north and south of the bay, will be? Millions or multi-Million$? What if property owners prevail? Then what? You “think” the Commissioners have a good case; would you personally be willing to refund the taxpayer their money to litigate if owners prevail? It’s easy to have an opinion to litigate when it’s not your own tens of thousands or millions of dollars. Provided the facts of custom and costs, want to have a referendum of north and south Walton voters if they would be willing to spend multi-millions to litigate against property rights? It’s commissioners and supporters burden of proof to claim custom and commissioners and tax payers “will be responsible for the legal bills that are incurred.” Not property owner protecting their rights. Commissioners could well be responsible for the millions in property owners legal fees too should owners prevail.

Danny, I understand reason and facts will not unfreeze your opinion against Constitutionally protected property rights but maybe you and others will try to understand the facts about common-law custom and what it is and isn’t. All many ask is for are the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts and not opinions. On custom, property rights, and costs. You and Dave R are great on opinions, emotional calls against property rights because you can’t have what you want (and feel others deserve even though you didn't earn the right), and that your opinion is the economic sky is falling because owners protect their rights, because commissioners are inept managing growth. Good discussions. But don’t say you are absolutely for property rights ... just not littoral property rights.

Here’s the hard questions again. Will you ignore them again? I thought the questions were answered but I will be glad to answer them again, one at a time. Do you know what ALL the historical limits of common-law custom are? YES. There are many. Time is but one limit. How much do you think the final bill to Walton tax payers, north and south of the bay, will be? Millions or multi-Million$? Somewhere close to a million I imagine. What if property owners prevail? Then what? Then public access to the beach is history as is much of the economy and the property value for any property north of 30-A or old 98. You “think” the Commissioners have a good case; would you personally be willing to refund the taxpayer their money to litigate if owners prevail? No, any lawsuit would be to protect the rights of the vast majority of taxpayers. It’s easy to have an opinion to litigate when it’s not your own tens of thousands or millions of dollars. Provided the facts of custom and costs, want to have a referendum of north and south Walton voters if they would be willing to spend multi-millions to litigate against property rights? I would love a referendum regarding public access to the beaches as has been the historic practice. I think the numbers north of the bay would be very much in favor of fighting for all citizen’s to have the right of access to the beaches. It’s commissioners and supporters burden of proof to claim custom and commissioners and tax payers “will be responsible for the legal bills that are incurred.” Not property owner protecting their rights. Commissioners could well be responsible for the millions in property owners legal fees too should owners prevail. I think there is a compromise that will help everyone: the county extends a tax break on beachfront policy in exchange for a recreation easement on the white sand portion of the beach south of the toe of the dunes. The terms are negotiable. But I know that this part of the beach has always been used by everyone and that the tourist economy depends on this access. If it is necessary to fight to maintain these rights for every taxpayer, then so be it.

Danny, I understand reason and facts will not unfreeze your opinion against Constitutionally protected property rights but maybe you and others will try to understand the facts about common-law custom and what it is and isn’t. All many ask is for are the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts and not opinions. On custom, property rights, and costs. You and Dave R are great on opinions, emotional calls against property rights because you can’t have what you want (and feel others deserve even though you didn't earn the right), and that your opinion is the economic sky is falling because owners protect their rights, because commissioners are inept managing growth. Good discussions. But don’t say you are absolutely for property rights ... just not littoral property rights No one is seeking a change in the status quo except a group of property owners. But there is no taking because there is no change in ownership. All anyone wants is the historic rights of the citizens to access the white sand portion of the beach. Property rights are absolute unless tradition or legal process has granted additional right. Any new beachfront property owner knew or should have known that when they purchased their property that the white sand portion was accessible to the public and had been for decades. Since many were visitors before they were owners they had to have known that those public rights existed. You have absolute property rights to your yard, home driveway, decks and walkovers. All anyone is saying is that the white sand portion of the beach has historically been used by the public and that the access to the beach is vital to the economy and to property values north of the beach. Explain this: why would anyone rent a property that is not beachfront if they cannot gain access to the beach?

Please request a referendum. I think that is a wonderful idea.

Thanks Danny for the reply. Guess I should have expected a “YES” answer to my question. Can you explain simply the historical limits of custom and how they apply to those of us who are unfamiliar with common-law custom and its application so people who want to make an informed decision for themselves if custom applies to private property in Walton? Neither of us are lawyers but for discussion and general information of what custom is and is not.

Now to your points. So you think the majority rule and that individual Constitutionally protected property rights are inferior to the majority? That’s radical.

You think Walton tax payers north of the bay would willing to pay the multi-millions, I’d guess, after the years of expected litigation, likely up to the US Supreme Court? At least a referendum on paying the multi-millions in taxes and the possibility of getting nothing for their money should property owners prevail would be taken out of the hands of the inept commissioners. Commissioners who tax and spend ($130,000,000 2017 budget) and are motivated more by pandering to the majority of the 30% of voters that vote, than protecting individual Constitutional rights, in my opinion.

The “status quo” is that private property owners have the legal right to enjoyment and exclusive use of their property, if they wish, just like you do. Most beachfront owners have in title to the MHWL. Nowhere does it say in the title or Florida Statues, all rights are granted in the title; except for littoral property.

You are correct that property rights for the use of private property is absolute but custom is not an additional right of use. It is the exclusion of private property rights owners have had and have today for use by someone else. Many owners bought property with the knowledge that they had all legal rights to the MHWL and would not have purchased here if did not. In fact in the Walton beach ordinance 2003-07 states; “This ordinance makes no finding of fact that the public either has or has not customarily used any particular piece of gulf front property beach.” Seems clear that owners expect all legal rights to their property.

You keep going on about historically and time criteria to claim customary use. There are multiple criteria and all have to be satisfied for a valid custom use claim. Plus you have to make a claim on each 1,000 private properties. Can you explain each of the customary use criteria and how it applies to Walton private property.

“Why would anyone rent a property that is not beachfront if they cannot gain access to the beach?” What about the 32,369 feet or 6.1 miles of Walton public beachfront (according to Corps of Engineers)? Includes about 38.2 acres of dry sandy beach of Walton’s Regional accesses (from Walton PA).

What about the 3 state parks for public use with beachfront, restrooms, parking, and camping? Since 1997 Deer Lake State Park: 1,995 acres. Since 1964 Greyton Beach State Park: 2,200. Since 2000 Topsail Hill Preserve: 1,643 acres. Of course you have to pay to use the parks but with customary use beachfront property owners get to pay for the public use of their private property and clean up after them too. How’s that right? Is that not public access enough that you think it’s acceptable to take private property rights for public use too? If not then buy more public beachfront at fair (or greater than fair) market value like private property owners.

Danny your only solution is for private property owners to give rights away they want, have paid for, and value more than any tax reduction or face litigation to protect their property rights at the cost of millions of dollars. You recognize owners have the this right or you wouldn’t be willing to give owners a tax break for it. That is more like extortion than compromise.

If a referendum result asking if Walton tax payers are willing to risk multi-millions of thier tax dollars litigating a very narrow legal doctrine of custom against 1,000 Walton property owners like themselves, maybe get nothing in return, strengthen recognition of owners’ rights they have today, and likely have to pay the defendant owners millions in legal fees too; is anything like the results for Meadows and Imfeld in the primaries, you might be careful what you wish for. Plus it takes the decision out of the inept commissioners pandering to voters for multi-millions of tax money commissioners will commit tax payers to over the next many years.

The discussion started about what was the criteria of the historical doctrine of custom. If you and Dave R are knowledgeable about the doctrine of custom; let’s get the facts out so people can form informed opinions of what custom is and is not and how it may not apply to private property. It’s not just about time and time is not 54 years; it is multiple criteria and all have to be satisfied to apply. And economic benefit of the majority over individual Constitutionally protected property rights is not customary use.

Question. It is fact that Native Americans used our beaches, as did the Spanish when we were under Spanish rule (refer to the Spanish armor my uncles found on Grayton Beach if there is any doubt), many generations of the earliest families to live near the beach accessed the beach whereever possible, and the USAF used several spots of our beach for sighting and navigation back to Eglin during WWII. Nobody "owned" the beach; it was enjoyed (in some cases, used) by all.
So, who took away our rights as the general public to use the beach?

Question. It is fact that Native Americans used our beaches, as did the Spanish when we were under Spanish rule (refer to the Spanish armor my uncles found on Grayton Beach if there is any doubt), many generations of the earliest families to live near the beach accessed the beach whereever possible, and the USAF used several spots of our beach for sighting and navigation back to Eglin during WWII. Nobody "owned" the beach; it was enjoyed (in some cases, used) by all.
So, who took away our rights as the general public to use the beach?

Answer: Whoever claimed this area once such policies as ownership and deeds were created. Those who owned or were given parcels (with ownership docs of various kinds) then proceeded to continue to divide and deed portions, which eventually resulted in the parcels with deeds that you see today on the Walton property appraiser website (they do not claim to be perfect or have totally complete info on the website). While it is frustrating to the public who thinks that nobody "owns" the beach, from a legal standpoint, entities (corporations, resorts, individuals, condo associations, etc) DO, in fact, hold deeds and titles to a significant portion of Florida beaches. Customary use of the beaches varies from area to area and even from parcel to parcel in many cases. Most people seem to agree that walking, jogging, swimming, water activities, and fishing are long standing activities along the beaches. Things like umbrellas, tents, generators, and many other modern "conveniences" that allow people to "claim" large areas of the beach all day long (whether they are there or not), create much of the conflict in my opinion.

FactorFiction,, you are right. The historic use of the beach involves walking, running, swimming, lying on a blanket or towel and fishing. I do not think generators, tents, TV's and other "modern" accoutrements would be included.

Perhaps I am over simplifying. However , if we agree that "customary use " includes beach activities such as lying on the sand with a towel , walking or running , fishing and excludes tents, generators , loud music & every beach toy imaginable etc. how will adopting a customary use ordinance prevent visitors from uncustomary use of privately deeded beaches ?

Perhaps I am over simplifying. However , if we agree that "customary use " includes beach activities such as lying on the sand with a towel , walking or running , fishing and excludes tents, generators , loud music & every beach toy imaginable etc. how will adopting a customary use ordinance prevent visitors from uncustomary use of privately deeded beaches ?

It won't without strict enforcement and a really thorough education of the public.

Question. It is fact that Native Americans used our beaches, as did the Spanish when we were under Spanish rule (refer to the Spanish armor my uncles found on Grayton Beach if there is any doubt), many generations of the earliest families to live near the beach accessed the beach whereever possible, and the USAF used several spots of our beach for sighting and navigation back to Eglin during WWII. Nobody "owned" the beach; it was enjoyed (in some cases, used) by all. So, who took away our rights as the general public to use the beach?

ShallowsNole, Do you want to take a try at explaining common-law criteria of custom or customary-use of private property? A long time as you point out is but one criteria. Danny claimed to know all the historical custom criteria but has failed to take up the challenge to name or explain them. Remember economic benefit of the claimant is not a criteria of custom either.

Great comments and I agree with FactorFiction title/deed comments. ShallowsNole does your title say anything about not having all the rights; guaranteed by the Constitution? Neither do littoral property owners titles. Titles say they have all rights to the MHWL, unless they have an easement or something similar added later. Nowhere do littoral property titles say, all rights except the right of exclusion and private use and enjoyment.

Somehow I doubt the Native Americans and Spanish where customarily throwing Frisbees by the ocean like Walton Commissioners seem to think. Later US, FL, and Walton governments conveyed title to private individuals and ALL the property rights. There are/were no exceptions. What facts do you have that nobody "owned" the beach? Or is it your opinion? To answer your question about public rights; there were no public rights for private property owners to take because all rights were conveyed with the property title to the owner. Owners may not have enforced their property rights but that doesn’t mean they lost them or you can declare them null and void because they didn’t enforce them.

Danny, I answered your question; “Why would anyone rent a property that is not beachfront if they cannot gain access to the beach?” What about the 32,369 feet or 6.1 miles of Walton public beachfront (according to Corps of Engineers)? Includes about 38.2 acres of dry sandy beach of Walton’s Regional accesses (from Walton PA). What about the 3 state parks 5,838 acres for public use with beachfront, restrooms, parking, and camping? Of course the public has to pay to use the parks but with customary use beachfront property owners get to pay for the public use of their private property and clean up after them too. Is that not public access enough that you think it’s acceptable to take private property rights owners have had and have today for public use too? No, Yes or No answers please.

Any new beachfront property owner knew or should have known that when they purchased their property that the white sand portion was accessible to the public and had been for decades. Fact, Walton beach ordinance 2003-07 states; “This ordinance makes no finding of fact that the public either has or has not customarily used any particular piece of gulf front property beach.” Do you still disagree it is clear that owners would/should expect ALL legal rights, including private use, enjoyment, and exclusion with their property title?

Danny, you seem to be a political insider, working for Commissioner Meadows before, why don’t YOU ask for a referendum from Commissioners that asks if Walton tax payers are willing to risk multi-millions of their tax dollars, over several years, litigating a very narrow legal doctrine of custom, against 1,000 Walton property owners, like themselves, risking get nothing in return, strengthen recognition of owners’ rights they have today, and likely have to pay the defendant owners millions in legal fees too? That is the question for tax payers; not do you support customary-use?

Danny or Dave R. please explain simply the historical limits of custom and how they apply, to those of us who are unfamiliar with historical common-law custom, and its application to Walton private property. Please let’s get the facts out so people understand customary-use as well as you do to make informed decisions.

Does this answer your question Lucas Reynolds

CUSTOM

If the public has a right to drive and park on appellant's privately owned platted lots, it most likely will be through application of the law of "custom." Florida's Supreme Court first recognized the public's "customary" right to the use of Florida's privately owned dry sand beaches in the Tona-Rama decision. 294 So. 2d at 74. There the court said: The beaches of Florida are of such a character as to use and potential development as to require separate consideration from other lands with respect to the elements and consequences of title. The sandy portion of the beaches . . . [have] served as a thoroughfare and haven for fishermen and bathers, as well as a place of recreation for the public. The interest and rights of the public to the full use of the beaches should be protected. 294 So. 2d at 77. The court recognized that the public may acquire a right to use the sandy area adjacent to the mean high tide line by custom when “the recreational use of the sandy area . . . has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption and free from dispute . . . .” Id. at 78. The recognition of a right through "custom" means that the owner cannot use his property in a way that is inconsistent with the public’s customary use or “calculated to interfere with the exercise of the right of the public to enjoy the dry sand area as a recreational adjunct of the wet sand or foreshore area.” Id. Trepanier et al v. County of Volusia 965 So. 2d 276; 2007 Fla. App

Lucas Reynolds, I do not get daily trash pickup at my property, county employees cleaning my property, volunteers protecting wildlife on my property, intensive law enforcement on my property, government employees stationed on or near my property to save visitors from endangering themselves or government cleanup and restoration in the event of a natural disaster. I also do not get millions of government funds spent on advertising to help me make money on my property. You are getting all of these benefits, so how is it that the taxpayers provide all these trappings and then cannot even throw a towel down and sit for a few minutes?

Lucas Reynolds, I do not get daily trash pickup at my property, county employees cleaning my property, volunteers protecting wildlife on my property, intensive law enforcement on my property, government employees stationed on or near my property to save visitors from endangering themselves or government cleanup and restoration in the event of a natural disaster. I also do not get millions of government funds spent on advertising to help me make money on my property. You are getting all of these benefits, so how is it that the taxpayers provide all these trappings and then cannot even throw a towel down and sit for a few minutes?

Danny, are you referring to resort, condo, and vacation rental properties? Perhaps some of the problem is that all beachfront properties are not the same and do not need, want, or use the services you are indicating. Most of the individual homeowners (single family residential) that I know, are very good stewards of their properties and are willing to accept the downside of not depending on taxpayer dollars. Quite a few of them don't seem to mind people throwing down a towel and sitting on the beach. There is a vast difference between walking, jogging, swimming, fishing, throwing a towel down to rest or sunbathe, and/or building sandcastles VS setting up tents, volleyball nets (or other games), chairs and umbrellas spread out to claim space, loud music, drinking, using dunes for makeshift bathrooms and other things that may interfere with an owner's enjoyment of their property. Even worse is when people damage the dunes , dig holes, leave trash, etc and the property owner is the one who takes the time to remedy the situation the best they can. While it seems that you, personally, believe that customary use should be for the quiet enjoyment of the beach without all the modern accoutrements, many people want far more than that, including the "right" to use tents, chairs and umbrellas, etc as "place holders" on the beach. Enforcement is enough of an issue now that it is difficult to imagine that it will improve with an actual finding of customary use. BTW, I really like that term modern accoutrements! Hope you don't mind me borrowing it

My experience living beach front:
1. Private beachfront does get daily pickups, as the tourists also use these garbage bags a lot
2. In the 81/2 years living on the beach, During this time, I have probably seen 5 or 6 times, county employees cleaning up public beach. Although, they do drive it most every night, except maybe big parts of January and February.
3. The volunteers that protect wildlife are thorough and diligent and I am sure that they will come to your property and handle wildlife protection equally.
4. Intensive law enforcement. When the Sheriff's SOP came out about beach front owners and trespassing, we complied to every request, documents being sealed when presented to officer, social security numbers, collected, blood and hair samples (just kidding). But then there was one thing the SOP required that is impossible. And that was to mark our property boundaries out into the water
5. Government employees on or around private beach to save tourists from endangering themselves? that is non existent, so I don't know what to say but, "nuh unh."
6. Government clean up and restoration in the event of a natural disaster. About beach restoration, many beach property owners wanted to pay for their titled property to be restored as planned. But once it is restored by government funds, it becomes public. So, if delegated money had been spent to restore the public beaches and private beach owners paid for private beach restoration, then we'd be squabbling over a better beach, but with ugly sand. It wasn't about the best for the beaches, it was a failed attempt at a land grab.
7. You don't get millions spent on advertising to make more money on property. First of all, why so much to sell paradise. Plus, no one makes money from overcrowding but tow trucks and tent makers. People want to come here and feel special, not one of the herd.
8. Sitting on a towel for a few minutes. That would be most welcome. If that's all there was, but, thinking it through, it shows other people that they can come over and they may not want to sit on a towel for a few minutes. More than likely they set up their unmrellas that may very well fly down the beach. Then behind that is the tent and all it's ropes and holes. Later that night, this will be the same tent that code enforcement will be called about and drive by, and even spotlight for the next three nights.
Trappings? Tourists craping up the beaches and roads. Pay private property tax on top property tax, pick up,trash, fill holes, have the sheriff sabatoge your rights, and defend what you are titled to. That's what we do daily.

It won't without strict enforcement and a really thorough education of the public.

Once again, there's that word that doesn't exist in South Walton, especially on our beaches - Enforcement.

This past weekend I once again saw dogs off leash, beer Bottles and was even given a full first hand account of fornicating in the shallow water by a young couple that came from a public access.

Never once did I see one of the ten new code enforcement people. Never once a WCSO vehicle. All this on what's now "fall break" and when hundred's of hurricane evacs came her fleeing their original vacation destination.

I think the points about the Sheriff's Office SOP are spot on and beach front owners should be outraged as to how that was misrepresented and misleading. The WCSO should pay for / reimburse, anyone that jumped through their circus hoops expenses if they will not Enforce their own policy.

It's really sad we have to continue this debate and now spend money on a legal battle against an attorney that's playing both sides of the fence when it comes to private property (FWC ruling in Tallahassee).

I also think that the open areas at all the State Parks are drastically underused and provide a great solution to those that believe they can get to the beach.

Or, they can get a mega yacht, park offshore and jet ski or small boat in to shore, in a landing type fashion...

Gailforce, thanks for your input. I understand your frustration. I hope you understand that while the execution of several things I mentioned may currently be lacking, the intent of many Walton County citizens is to help take care of the beaches which are our crown jewel and the motor for our economy. I do not like all the turmoil and would prefer that we work to find common ground. But in fact there has been millions spent on the beaches and the beaches get services that no other Walton County property owner gets. In the past after storms the BCC has spent millions on emergency rebuilds and refurbishments. I vividly remember the amount of county equipment on the beaches repairing damage to the beach. I understand not wanting a tent full of drunks behind your house running a generator and a boom box. But you must understand that people have been sunbathing, swimming and fishing on that same beach for decades and that inhibiting that will cost people their livelihood.

Maybe we should ban umbrellas, tents, and so forth. The events, bonfires, cookouts, amplified systems, etc are getting out of hand.

Probably not practical now that the box is open beachfront owners will just need to deal with it.