Eastern Lake Outfall Parcel Purchase

[Lucas Reynolds]

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.

 

[Danny Glidewell]

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.

 

[Lucas Reynolds]

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.

 

[ShallowsNole]

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?

 

[FactorFiction]

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.

 

[Danny Glidewell]

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.

 

[Purrmaid]

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 ?

 

[FactorFiction]

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.

 

[Lucas Reynolds]

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.

 

[catmoney]

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