Led away in Handcuffs

I hear you. Just noticing maybe two out of 200 people who set up in the surf, I think the majority of people would prefer to be on the dryer sand, especially those lying on towels.

Three. I like that whole business of sitting in the edge of the water, too. Especially if I'm pissing off someone who "owns" the dry sand behind me.

I'm sorry - this is a long entry....
My family and I are the most recent victims of property owners threatening to call law inforcement to have individuals removed (like trash) from their property. Our incident occurred on 7/5/07 - near the public access walkway across from Pelayo Drive. We had started building sandcastles. We were in front of several homes - Jasmine Dune. We were basically straddling dry sand and wet sand. When we first arrived, the homeowners were not there. They came out later and put the top on their tent and started glaring at us. I actually was not out as early as the rest of my family. My family was building a castle to one side of the property owners tent - closer to the water, but a little further west of their tent. When I came out, my daughter got very excited and said she wanted to build a castle with me and started digging (straddling the dry and wet sand) more in front of the property owners tent. We're talking about kids here and she had no idea that the owners would take offense to her doing this. I hand set my towel down but was assessing the lay of the land and beginning to think I should suggest to her that we should move over the other way since folks were starting to populate their tent area so near us and we'd be blocking their view. Before I could really get any of this sorted out, a man stated that he was the owner of the property and he needed to ask that we move over. It all came to me then. I had noticed him strutting around, posturing and trying to figure out how to get the "trash" our from in front of his house. His attitude made me react in a less than compromising manner. So, I told him that it was my understanding that shoreline was not his property. He began to get more confrontational. My sister asked him to moderate his behaviour around her children - he was scaring them. He continued to hover over me and say things like - "You need to move that bottle of water and sunscreen.", "You know I can call the sheriff." and many other things. I finally told him that I planned to call the sheriff because he was frightening me and I felt his behavior should be observed by the authorities. I did call. The deputy came up and first spoke to the property owner for about 10 minutes far away from me. I walked up after the property owner left and asked if the deputy wanted to hear from me since I called him for two reasons. 1) was that I was frightned by the man's behaviour and 2) because I wanted clarification about the property issues. The deputy did not want to speak to me. He said he's talk to both of us at the same time to avoid having to speak twice. Final verdict: We were told to move by the sheriff. He said this man's property line is based on 20 years of the mean high tide line and that his property actually extended out in the ocean. We had a right to be on the wet sand only. So we tore down our kid's castles and moved on. Since then, our kid's have seen sheriff's trucks drive by and asked if they were coming to move us again.
Now that I've researched this some, I realise that a couple of things the duputy said were wrong and that a couple of things he said alluded to action we could take. From what I can tell the Tona-Rama ruling does apply here and that we have a right to be on the dry sand area there since it has historically been used by the public. But, if we are asked to leave (see judge's comments below) by the property owner, our only recourse would be to sue to prove that his property can be used by the public, consistent with the ways in which it has been used by them over the last 10 years. I know how this property has been used because I've been coming to the same house for 10 years and accessing that strecth of beach for those 10 years using the Public Access walkway. The deputy did say someting about a lawyer would have to decide it I wanted to question rights to traverse, etc. Someone's got to sue. I'm from Atlanta and not sure that I'll do it. I have several causes in my very backyard there that I'm very active in so it may not be feasable. We have written commissioners, board of tourism and many others. I did not speak to any of the members of that family after the deputy left. People like that will not change easily. They will need to be forced to by a court of law.
Bottom line is that people who build glass houses and people who build on the shores of barrier islands really don't own anything - mother nature will prove that to you every time.
Please let me know if you know of recent rulings that have changed the Tona-Rama ruling. I hate to see visitors treated this way. It has certainly put a damper on our stay. I do realize that living in a tourist town is very difficult and local's patience can be worn very thin. I will do my best not to let one man's bad behaviour clound my opinion of the other locals. We have so many good memories of this area and the people who have welcomed us! A sure way to make this better is to come to a clear understanding of these rights so that they don't have to be decided by deputies who certainly have better things to do.


Recent info adding to Tona-Rama:
http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/45605C3FD5AA4AD985256BC70052F5BD

Question Three

Your third question relates to the use of local law enforcement by private property owners to enforce trespass laws to curtail or discourage the public's right of customary use to the dry sand areas of the beach.

The City of Destin is authorized to regulate the dry sand portions of the beach within its jurisdictional boundaries under the terms discussed above. However, portions of this property are subject to private ownership and until a court establishes a "customary right of use" by the public in such real property, the fee owners thereof may make complaints of trespass to local law enforcement officers as they occur.

Pursuant to section 810.09(1)(a), Florida Statutes, "[a] person who, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters upon or remains in any property other than a structure or conveyance . . . [a]s to which notice against entering or remaining is given . . . commits the offense of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance.[19]

Section 810.09(2)(b), provides that:

"If the offender defies an order to leave, personally communicated to the offender by the owner of the premises or by an authorized person . . . the offender commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083."[20]

Thus, to commit a trespass, the offender must defy an order to leave that has been personally communicated to him by the owner of the premises or some other authorized person.

This office, in Attorney General's Opinion 90-08 considered whether on-duty police officers could be pre-authorized to act as the agents of a private landowner for the purpose of communicating to alleged trespassers an order to leave the private property pursuant to section 810.09(2)(b), Florida Statutes. The facts of that opinion involved the Jupiter Inlet Beach Club, Inc., which owned a parcel of land within the Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony. Access to the lands and the facilities located thereon was limited to members and guests of the private club. Representatives of the club proposed to authorize, in advance of any actual incident, all town police officers to act as the club's agent in ordering alleged offenders to leave the beach club's premises. This office rejected the proposal to authorize local law enforcement officers to be designated as the agents of private persons. As the opinion noted, the Florida Constitution prohibits the use of public funds for a private purpose.[21] The pre-authorization of on-duty law enforcement officers to act as agents of private landowners in warning individuals to leave private property appeared to this office to serve primarily a private, not public, purpose.

Thus, it is my opinion that private property owners who hold title to dry sand areas of the beach falling within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Destin may utilize local law enforcement for purposes of reporting incidents of trespass upon their property on a case-by-case basis. However, local law enforcement officers may not be pre-authorized to act as agents of private landowners for the purpose of communicating orders to their property on a case-by-case basis. However, local law enforcement officers may not be pre-authorized to act as agents of private landowners for the purpose of communicating orders to leave private property to alleged trespassers pursuant to section 810.09(2)(b), Florida Statutes.

Sincerely,



Robert A. Butterworth
Attorney General

RAB/tgh

please e-mail me at reed66@earthlink.net I am one of the guys in court on a similar issue in Okaloosa county.

Maybe property owners in The Retreat and the Inn at Blue Mtn should have to disclose that they own property in there before being served at any local businesses. I for one, will not be shipping via Fed Ex any more, unless this changes.

That's showing them!
Last Trade:114.53Trade Time:11:51AM ETChange: 1.64 (1.41%)

That's showing them!
Last Trade:114.53Trade Time:11:51AM ETChange: 1.64 (1.41%)

It isn't the money, it is the principle, but you are funny today.

My real thoughts were not so much with us boycotting their businesses, but for our servers and store clerks to refuse them service and sales of goods. If they want to be so dang private, maybe they can hire their own personal chefs and clothes makers. By running off the people who keep this area up and running, they are illiminating the very people who help make this place the area which they came to love. Shame on every last one of them!

... The security officer spoke with the two men for about 5-10 minutes, then an officer from the Sherrif's Department arrived on an ATV. One gentleman of the pair walked peacefully with the officer to and over the beach walkover. At no time while the gentleman was on the beach or the walkover was he in handcuffs. The other gentleman was not led away or arrested to my knowledge. I assume that the officer on the ATV couldn't take the arrested gentelman to the Sherriff's office on his ATV ,which is why the officers with a patrol car were summoned.

I understand that this is a heated issue, but embellishing the facts to incite the readers on this forum makes your arguments and your report much less credible.

I would caution everyone reading the antecdotes relayed on this forum to take them all with a grain of salt.

As the individual who first posted... Thank you for your account and if you had a clearer view if the proceeding I stand corrected. The man's arms were behind him consistent with the posture of being in cuffs while being escorted by multiple officials when he saw seen over the walkover. My mistake if I jumped to conclusions but it is customary for police officers to restrain disobedient people when being taken into custody. I agree accounts should be taken with a grain of salt; that is the nature of a forum such as this and other's accounts are welcomed for clarification. I have as well recieved private messages stating that other indiviuals did see similar events. The local paper's account (posted earlier in this thread) did clarify and elaborate.

Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on what side you are on) the can of worms has been opened. Something serious and troubling did happen and the number of posts that have followed show that although you dispute the details, being arrested for civilly and quietly enjoying the beach is overkill and points to the deep nature of this problem.

There was no intention of embellishment.

I am a long time renter of various properties along 30A going back over 15 years and now will be very careful in understanding the access issues when I return. I thanks everyone for adding your two cents, I really think that is another facet of the appeal of 30A -- The community participation and civility of how people respect others opinions here.

Re: this happened to our friends, too

We used to own a lot in the Retreat. Still own a house off Redfish Circle
in Blue Mountain Beach. Our friends are using our place this week. Just
got a phone call saying they had been threatened by a rent-a-cop from
the Inn at Blue Mountain Beach. They were kicked off the beach after
the security guard wanted to call the cops. My friends were harassed
and this was even after they told the guy that we belong the the Blue
Mountain Beach Club, etc., etc. We've owned there since 2001. Ironically,
when we had a lot in the Retreat we were never able to use the pool and
the other amenities for which we paid handsomely. The pool had lots of
problems and was always being repaired. I myself often sit on the Retreat
side of the signs just as a quiet protest. I may have to rethink that. I
have spent the last half-hour on the phone with different people at the
Village of Blue Mountain beach and I was told that we were perfectly
in the clear using that stretch of beach. And also that anyone can use
any beach within 15 feet of the water. What a nightmare, and how
pissy of the security people at the Inn. I'm going down next weekend
and will certainly be raising Cain about this. My friends were very
intimidated and said the 'security' this week had been very tight; they're
just looking for ways to get the law involved. Glad I found this thread
and now know what has happened to others

Please e-mail me about details on this reed66@earthlink.net I am the guy in the destin log article and I would like to hear your story.

I would not say embellishment, I would say creative license. Busted is busted, handcuffs or not. Don't apologize for anything. Bravo for your posting.

As the individual who first posted... Thank you for your account and if you had a clearer view if the proceeding I stand corrected. The man's arms were behind him consistent with the posture of being in cuffs while being escorted by multiple officials when he saw seen over the walkover. My mistake if I jumped to conclusions but it is customary for police officers to restrain disobedient people when being taken into custody. I agree accounts should be taken with a grain of salt; that is the nature of a forum such as this and other's accounts are welcomed for clarification. I have as well received private messages stating that other individuals did see similar events. The local paper's account (posted earlier in this thread) did clarify and elaborate.

Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on what side you are on) the can of worms has been opened. Something serious and troubling did happen and the number of posts that have followed show that although you dispute the details, being arrested for civilly and quietly enjoying the beach is overkill and points to the deep nature of this problem.

There was no intention of embellishment.

I am a long time renter of various properties along 30A going back over 15 years and now will be very careful in understanding the access issues when I return. I thanks everyone for adding your two cents, I really think that is another facet of the appeal of 30A -- The community participation and civility of how people respect others opinions here.

just tryin' to keep it civil

does anyone (especially business owners) know where the Chamber of Commerce stands on this issue.....

Smiling Joe, Bobby J, Dave Rauschkolb and some of the others:

While it is admirable that you are standing up for the "common person", therein lies the dichotomy of your beliefs.

Without the laws and the associated enforcement, not even the "common person" would be safe from "popular opinion".

There are laws and we all live with them. Most are good and some are bad. Private property rights are a good thing. To erode these rights would be setting a precedence and threat to other constitutional rights that we ALL enjoy.

SJ, to talk about boycotting FedEx, parking a broken down truck load of cow manure in front of the Retreat, splitting hairs regarding the southern most "meandering" boundary at the Retreat and some other items really does nothing to further your "cause", only incite emotions with those that do not fully understand the total picture. I admit a lot of what you say is in jest...but the inference is there.

Bobby J, you talk up a good rally cry but you haven't addressed, at least what I believe to be, very pertinent issues as to what constitutes "public use".

Dave Rauschkolb, you jump in at the luxury of owning a very successful business that caters to the very same people that you now condemn. Many people simply just own property and are self-obligated to at least MAINTAIN the value of their private property. Most of us don't sell Mai Tai's to the masses down here. My wife wants to know if you would object to a bunch of us bringing our own beer and food and just hanging out at your establishment to enjoy the beautiful beach view? Seriously, you should recuse yourself from this debate as your livelyhood depends on the number of tourists that are "crammed" into South Walton.... the more, the better for you and your peers.

Some have mentioned Costa Rica, Bahamas and such and their superior property "rules". There are choices for all of us:
1. live with the idea of private property as the law requires
2. move to Costa Rica
3. (the best for last) buy out the beach front property and convert the sandy part to public; then the county could then resell the remaining property and structures, if any, back on the market where the net cost could actually be low...maybe even make a profit! - this is my solution and a viable one in my opinion). An alternative would be to simply purchase easement rights from gulf front owners. The entire beach doesn't have to be public, just enough to handle the tourist industry.

The supreme court may allow a fourth option after their decision regarding beach nourishment.

Complaining and moaning does nothing for solving the "problem". Possible solutions are what we need.

BTW, if all three of you guys go and get yourselves arrested, Dave will still have his business. Will you other two be able to keep your real estate license?

At the risk of being the voice of reason, let me say "relax". While the situation at the Retreat is serious to those involved, it does not reflect what is happening on the vast majority of SoWal beaches.

I believe most gulf front owners are live and let live. Unfortunately though, as hotter heads prevail, gulf front owners will be forced to defend their positions and become exclusive. So again I say "relax".

Sage advice. What does concern me, however, is news will spread of the hard line approach being taken and all of a sudden, a light bulb goes off in the heads of individual gulf front property owners. Then we'll see an epidemic of people who are set up in front of individual residences being asked to move.

Smiling Joe, Bobby J, Dave Rauschkolb and some of the others:

While it is admirable that you are standing up for the "common person", therein lies the dichotomy of your beliefs...

...Complaining and moaning does nothing for solving the "problem". Possible solutions are what we need.

BTW, if all three of you guys go and get yourselves arrested, Dave will still have his business. Will you other two be able to keep your real estate license?

Very well stated, BMBV, from the point of view of a beachfront owner. I believe if Dave gets arrested, his liquor license may be in jeopardy, at least when it next comes up for renewal.

But, at least there is talk being generated. The issue is hot and is being brought to a head. If there's no talk, then things are perceived as OK. Things are not OK if people are being hauled off the beach. As we all know, this will not be settled at the local level. we all know who Scott B works for. I agree that some of the off the cuff statements may be a little silly, but silence is not the answer., imo.

I fail to see how wanting beach access to continue as it has for years devalues private property and leads to a constitutional armageddon.

Attacking locals who work their butts off, have a high cost of living just to be here to serve you, and give a great deal back to the community shows your total lack of understanding of this area and just what it takes to "serve you mai tais".

We're not riff-raff infringing on your property rights and driving down your property values with our mere presence, we're the locals who live here year round, build and rebuild this community, and keep the area functioning. Sorry if we'd like to take a stroll on YOUR beach after working a 10 hour day or sit on some dry sand on a day off.

Obviously some of the examples and suggestions made were ridonkulous - it's Sowal!

please e-mail me at reed66@earthlink.net I am one of the guys in court on a similar issue in Okaloosa county.

Here is the newspaper article involving Jay. As I read the story, my personal opinion is the lady is just a troublemaker. When you read the article, she lies about her participation in the lawsuit against the city. I believe Destiny Shores is right down in the same area as Destiny, an area where there are several beachfront owners suing the city over the renourishment. We have had nothing but trouble from this group of transplants. FYI - if she trys to appear in front of the city counsel again, they won't respond at all per advice from the city's attorney. It has been quite a show during city counsel sessions when this group gets up and insults everyone and everything and they only receive silence in return.

Anyway, Here's the article and Jay, best of luck to you. After you win this, I would sue them for harrassment!


Beach issues: Harassment? Public access?
By Fraser Sherman
June 24, 2007 1:15 AM
Destin beachfront resident Kathy Wright says allowing the public to walk across private beaches allows ?violent men? to threaten her family.
Wright and her husband, Mike, are now fighting in court to ban Jeffrey Reed and Bill Leech ? whom the Wrights say have trespassed on their property and intimidated their children ? from coming near their Gulf-front Destiny Shores home, claiming the two men trespassed on the Wright?s property and threatened their children.
Reed and Leech claim the Wrights are lying.
This week, Kathy Wright told Destin?s City Council that the two men had been on the brink of settling the court case until the city filed a brief in the case asserting the right of the public to walk and fish on private beaches up to 20 feet upland of the wet sand area.
?You gave these guys courage and confidence to go back to my property,? Wright told the council. ?If you don?t understand fear when your girls are in jeopardy, you don?t understand love.?
In an interview, Reed?s attorney, Glenn Swiatek, said Wright was wrong: Reed would never have accepted settlement terms that included staying 500 feet away from the entire Destiny Shores subdivision, even when out on the water.
About the only thing that isn?t in dispute is that everything began on April 21 when Reed and Leech set up fi shing poles behind the Wright?s house. Kathy Wright contacted an Okaloosa County sheriff?s deputy, who told the men that while they could walk across private beachfront, they couldn?t stop there.
The men subsequently contacted the sheriff?s office, which confi rmed that the city does allow beachgoers to walk, sit or fish up to 20 feet upland of the wet sand. The men resumed fi shing.
According to the Wrights, the men also threatened and harassed Kathy Wright and her children, and later returned and did so again. Swiatek, the attorney, said Reed and Leech never even saw the Wright?s children. In an e-mail on file at City Hall, Reed said Kathy Wright falsely claimed Reed had spent eight hours on the beach at the Wright property May 16 when his work records would prove he?d been on his job until 3 p.m.
Since then, the Wrights have fi led suit against the two men, and have received an initial restraining order against them. Kathy Wright told the City Council this week that the restraining order proves the suit has merit. Swiatek said issuing one in a case like this is routine, regardless of the merits.
On Monday, the Wrights told the City Council that the city had interfered with the case by fi ling its brief on the 20-foot rule.
?I was shocked and dismayed the city turned the safety of my family into a political issue,? Mike Wright said, ?to make a point about beach restoration. (You?re) opposing my wife?s efforts to protect my family.?
Wright said the city had been seduced into favoring tourists over residents, and that the issue was trespassing, not the 20-foot zone.
City Manager Greg Kisela said the Wright?s attorney had contacted the city with questions about the 20-foot rule, and the city had filed the brief to make the policy clear to the judge. Kisela said the brief hadn?t touched on the Wright?s allegations.
Councilor Dewey Destin said that even though the council would probably have supported fi ling the brief, Kisela should have obtained council approval before going ahead. The council voted unanimously that city attorneys should check with the council before making most court fi lings.
Councilor Cyron Marler asked if the Wrights were participants in a current lawsuit by beachfront owners opposed to the controversial beach restoration project under way in east Destin. Wright said he was not involved, but county court records list both Wrights as plaintiffs in the case as recently as May 7.
Mike Wright told the City Council that the merits of the 20-foot rule were irrelevant, since the court case ?is about bullying, it?s about harassment.?
In a letter to Mayor Craig Barker about the case last month, however, Kathy Wright said the city should abandon the 20-foot rule to protect her children.
?Authority has been given for violent and or sexual predators to sit within 50 feet of my children,? Wright wrote. ?If that rule is put in place, criminals will be able to sit on my back porch.?
Destin resident Bob Biel, a frequent critic of the lack of beach access in Destin, has also become involved, writing to City Hall in support of Leech and Reed and their right to use the beaches behind Destiny Shores.
The Wrights did not return The Log?s calls seeking comment for this article.

:scratch: ...so, two wrights do make a wrong.

My business has nothing to do with this commentary Mr. BMBV and your attempt at making the association is juvenile at best. Clearly from your inference your resent tourists and my creating a nice place to eat and drink for them and locals alike. And believe me, owning a restaurant is no Luxury.

I don't and haven't condemned anyone. I have just pointed out my view of the law that exists. It is my right to disagree with any law I wish and you don't need to give us a lesson in law. Sure property rights are important but not when they infringe on large numbers of people who deserve to enjoy the beach as much as you or I. My last post reinforced my concern that this "law" could be expanded from it's existing "mean high tide water mark." And property rights or not there are a lot of people who will work very diligently to stop this nonsense or at least keep it at bay.

This is my last post regarding this. Have a nice day.

Smiling Joe, Bobby J, Dave Rauschkolb and some of the others:

While it is admirable that you are standing up for the "common person", therein lies the dichotomy of your beliefs.

Without the laws and the associated enforcement, not even the "common person" would be safe from "popular opinion".

There are laws and we all live with them. Most are good and some are bad. Private property rights are a good thing. To erode these rights would be setting a precedence and threat to other constitutional rights that we ALL enjoy.

SJ, to talk about boycotting FedEx, parking a broken down truck load of cow manure in front of the Retreat, splitting hairs regarding the southern most "meandering" boundary at the Retreat and some other items really does nothing to further your "cause", only incite emotions with those that do not fully understand the total picture. I admit a lot of what you say is in jest...but the inference is there.

Bobby J, you talk up a good rally cry but you haven't addressed, at least what I believe to be, very pertinent issues as to what constitutes "public use".

Dave Rauschkolb, you jump in at the luxury of owning a very successful business that caters to the very same people that you now condemn. Many people simply just own property and are self-obligated to at least MAINTAIN the value of their private property. Most of us don't sell Mai Tai's to the masses down here. My wife wants to know if you would object to a bunch of us bringing our own beer and food and just hanging out at your establishment to enjoy the beautiful beach view? Seriously, you should recuse yourself from this debate as your livelyhood depends on the number of tourists that are "crammed" into South Walton.... the more, the better for you and your peers.

Some have mentioned Costa Rica, Bahamas and such and their superior property "rules". There are choices for all of us:
1. live with the idea of private property as the law requires
2. move to Costa Rica
3. (the best for last) buy out the beach front property and convert the sandy part to public; then the county could then resell the remaining property and structures, if any, back on the market where the net cost could actually be low...maybe even make a profit! - this is my solution and a viable one in my opinion). An alternative would be to simply purchase easement rights from gulf front owners. The entire beach doesn't have to be public, just enough to handle the tourist industry.

The supreme court may allow a fourth option after their decision regarding beach nourishment.

Complaining and moaning does nothing for solving the "problem". Possible solutions are what we need.

BTW, if all three of you guys go and get yourselves arrested, Dave will still have his business. Will you other two be able to keep your real estate license?

Smiling Joe, Bobby J, Dave Rauschkolb and some of the others:

While it is admirable that you are standing up for the "common person", therein lies the dichotomy of your beliefs.

Without the laws and the associated enforcement, not even the "common person" would be safe from "popular opinion".

There are laws and we all live with them. Most are good and some are bad. Private property rights are a good thing. To erode these rights would be setting a precedence and threat to other constitutional rights that we ALL enjoy.

SJ, to talk about boycotting FedEx, parking a broken down truck load of cow manure in front of the Retreat, splitting hairs regarding the southern most "meandering" boundary at the Retreat and some other items really does nothing to further your "cause", only incite emotions with those that do not fully understand the total picture. I admit a lot of what you say is in jest...but the inference is there.

Bobby J, you talk up a good rally cry but you haven't addressed, at least what I believe to be, very pertinent issues as to what constitutes "public use".

Dave Rauschkolb, you jump in at the luxury of owning a very successful business that caters to the very same people that you now condemn. Many people simply just own property and are self-obligated to at least MAINTAIN the value of their private property. Most of us don't sell Mai Tai's to the masses down here. My wife wants to know if you would object to a bunch of us bringing our own beer and food and just hanging out at your establishment to enjoy the beautiful beach view? Seriously, you should recuse yourself from this debate as your livelyhood depends on the number of tourists that are "crammed" into South Walton.... the more, the better for you and your peers.

Some have mentioned Costa Rica, Bahamas and such and their superior property "rules". There are choices for all of us:
1. live with the idea of private property as the law requires
2. move to Costa Rica
3. (the best for last) buy out the beach front property and convert the sandy part to public; then the county could then resell the remaining property and structures, if any, back on the market where the net cost could actually be low...maybe even make a profit! - this is my solution and a viable one in my opinion). An alternative would be to simply purchase easement rights from gulf front owners. The entire beach doesn't have to be public, just enough to handle the tourist industry.

The supreme court may allow a fourth option after their decision regarding beach nourishment.

Complaining and moaning does nothing for solving the "problem". Possible solutions are what we need.

BTW, if all three of you guys go and get yourselves arrested, Dave will still have his business. Will you other two be able to keep your real estate license?

BMBV - Why do you always take this demeaning tone when you post. It is obvious you have some type of personal vindetta against some people, but this attitude is just the thing that makes me ill. And it is this type of attitude that, in my opinion, is raping this area of it's quality of life.

I suppose you are referring anyone who doesn't own beachfront property "common people"?. Or is it the people who work you are calling common people? Well, I hate to tell you, but you, my dear, are also common people. You may have made your money and have retired (being a "common person" while you worked for it), yet your wife works. Is she considered common people too?

I don't understand why you think of yourself more superior than others, because people are just people.

preventing someone from parking in your driveway and preventing someone from accessing your "private" beach are not the same thing. Your driveway is a finite and specialized space. Someone else parking in it curtails your activities. The beach stretches for miles w/ only minor variations and someone sitting on one patch of sand does not prevent someone else from using another nearby patch.

TDC better get a clue!

Take a look at Blue Mountain Beach last week. Still believe your statement?

Take a look at Blue Mountain Beach last week. Still believe your statement?

Fourth of July weekend is the buisest weekend of the year. There wasn't a beach in Florida that looked any different. Leave it to you to post that photo and expect ANYONE to believe it is like that all the time. If you can' take a few holiday weekends of the year, then you are living in the wrong place. Maybe a place that doesn't cater to tourism would be better for you.

....But, at least there is talk being generated...... I agree that some of the off the cuff statements may be a little silly, but silence is not the answer., imo.

Agreed.

I just wish certain people could open their minds a tad and quit trying to equate me with some evil villain: things are the way they are for a reason (good or bad) and I didn't have a thing to do with it. I guess I have become the local "whipping boy". I have been very conscious to not let my posts "spiral down" or be "pulled down".

I don't own in the REREAT. I didn't call the sheriff. I have never run off a single kid from our beach. On and on. Yet tourists are being arrested and some here seem to want to blame me because I support private property rights.

I feel this thread would be way too one sided without my input because of the same ole' players. So in essence, "talk is being generated" as you say. I just wish the personal attacks would go away so that we can focus on the subject at hand. If one disagrees, just simply say so and why, otherwise say nothing. I have put forth several questions to stimulate such discussion.

I see plenty of open sand and water and people enjoying themselves.

What was I supposed to see?

Fourth of July weekend is the buisest weekend of the year. There wasn't a beach in Florida that looked any different. Leave it to you to post that photo and expect ANYONE to believe it is like that all the time. If you can' take a few holiday weekends of the year, then you are living in the wrong place. Maybe a place that doesn't cater to tourism would be better for you.

You basically stated "...someone sitting on one patch of sand does not prevent someone else from using another nearby patch".
I simply posted a recent picture that showed where your statement might not always be true.

I understand what you're saying. Here's a question for you. What do you think the Beaches of South Walton will look like in 10 years in terms of tourist density?

Look a little closer at the picture Yippie and you might get a clue about the problem. If everyone brought just a chair or a towel or a single beach umbrella, the beach would be one-fourth as crowded. But no, the standard now is to bring a tent that can cover a dozen people. If you look at the tents, most have empty chairs under them. A lot of the tent-pitchers set up at the crack of dawn, or even worse, they leave their tents up day-and-night all week. Many of the tent pitchers have additional chairs that they set up at water's edge. Two or four people now use the space of 15-20. The eroded and narrower beach only aggravates the problem. It begins to take on the look of a gypsy caravan that's settled into an oasis.

So when your average tourist strolls down to the beach at 10 or 11 in the morning, there's nowhere to go. That's the problem I had when I rented at the Inn at Blue Mountain the week of the 4th.

Perhaps a ban on tent pitching, or at least overnight tents, would help alleviate much of the congestion and bickering.

Just trying to think creatively on solutions, rather than useless name-calling, insults and class warfare.

Smiling Joe, Bobby J, Dave Rauschkolb and some of the others:

While it is admirable that you are standing up for the "common person", therein lies the dichotomy of your beliefs.

Without the laws and the associated enforcement, not even the "common person" would be safe from "popular opinion".

There are laws and we all live with them. Most are good and some are bad. Private property rights are a good thing. To erode these rights would be setting a precedence and threat to other constitutional rights that we ALL enjoy.


Some have mentioned Costa Rica, Bahamas and such and their superior property "rules". There are choices for all of us:
1. live with the idea of private property as the law requires
2. move to Costa Rica
3. (the best for last) buy out the beach front property and convert the sandy part to public; then the county could then resell the remaining property and structures, if any, back on the market where the net cost could actually be low...maybe even make a profit! - this is my solution and a viable one in my opinion). An alternative would be to simply purchase easement rights from gulf front owners. The entire beach doesn't have to be public, just enough to handle the tourist industry.

The supreme court may allow a fourth option after their decision regarding beach nourishment.

Complaining and moaning does nothing for solving the "problem". Possible solutions are what we need.

BTW, if all three of you guys go and get yourselves arrested, Dave will still have his business. Will you other two be able to keep your real estate license?

I am not a lawyer, but there are other States that have determined that past conveyances or grants of "sand" granted for private purposes violates the public trust doctrines.

I sincerely believe and hope that at some point, there will be a precedent setting case that will enable the Supreme Court to enact that "private sand" beaches that have been enjoyed historically in the past by, as you put it, us "commoners", can continue to do so without violation.

BTW, just curious, do gulf front owners pay real estate taxes on the deeded beach portion? if not, I would say that it's unconstitutional for the public to be denied access to the sand when taxes are not being personally made on by the owners of such.

I would like to add though that I have not seen this or heard about this in other areas of the beach and aware that this is limited to some areas positioning in light of their issues with density.

Take a look at Blue Mountain Beach last week. Still believe your statement?

Is this the beach in question that is suppose to be private?

I was just curious, because it looks as if a majority of the umbrellas are from a service. I would think they would know if they can set up on private property or not.