Fight the power
coolest smiley ever...
Led away in Handcuffs
- Thread starter rocket136
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
coolest smiley ever...
RiverOtter
got any pics?
People just don't know when to draw the line! Moving little kids building sandcastles is a new low! I am VERY sorry your vacation was ruined like that. As you can see by this thread, that guy who was harrassing you does NOT represent the views of the area.
I can understand people wanting to prevent what they view as their beach area from becoming overcrowded or overrun with obnoxious people..........I can't understand WHY they have to be complete and total arses about it and can't share.
This issue needs to be publicized and resolved ASAP before it destroys the area's reputation and adds more time to the real estate recovery time frame.
I can understand people wanting to prevent what they view as their beach area from becoming overcrowded or overrun with obnoxious people..........I can't understand WHY they have to be complete and total arses about it and can't share.
This issue needs to be publicized and resolved ASAP before it destroys the area's reputation and adds more time to the real estate recovery time frame.
You don't think this issue as a whole hasn't been publicized? It has where I am and has been for the last couple of years.
There is a supreme court decision that customary use of the dry sand shall not be impeded!
When the property owners along the beach bought the property they should have known this.This is not a case of us trying to steal their property,but to engage in the enjoyment of the beach as recognized by the state and the court. These property owners are attempting to steal the publics legitimate use of the beach.
BMBW wrote; "I don't believe this a problem in Walton County. I also believe "beach access" from Surfrider's standpoint is defined as being able to get to the beach and ultimately the water seaward of the MHWL...does not necessarily include "access" to private property (i.e. dry sand) on the beach."
The access is to the dry sand area adjacent to the water as already decided in supreme court Tona- Rama and also in 2002 AG opinion.
This argument is whether selfish people can deprive the public of their longstanding rights!
On nourishment ;
BMBW wrote; "Beach restoration... why should the "public" pick up the tab for this? Well as Yippie correctly said, "If public money is used to renourish the beaches, then that part of the beach becomes public." A significant portion of the private beaches become public. You would think that a private property owner would be allowed to "pay" for their part of the beach nourishment and retain their property rights. But I don't believe this is the case. The answer to the question, why, is obvious."
BMBW I don't know how deep your pockets are but it is cheaper to buy beachfront than to nourish it! And you could not afford to do it alone! The beach needs nourishment because it is starved for sand. It is starved for sand because people put houses and condos on the sand source!
As for retaining property rights; Along with accretion The property holder accepts erosion!! Well seawalls pretty much ends that argument!
When the property owners along the beach bought the property they should have known this.This is not a case of us trying to steal their property,but to engage in the enjoyment of the beach as recognized by the state and the court. These property owners are attempting to steal the publics legitimate use of the beach.
BMBW wrote; "I don't believe this a problem in Walton County. I also believe "beach access" from Surfrider's standpoint is defined as being able to get to the beach and ultimately the water seaward of the MHWL...does not necessarily include "access" to private property (i.e. dry sand) on the beach."
The access is to the dry sand area adjacent to the water as already decided in supreme court Tona- Rama and also in 2002 AG opinion.
This argument is whether selfish people can deprive the public of their longstanding rights!
On nourishment ;
BMBW wrote; "Beach restoration... why should the "public" pick up the tab for this? Well as Yippie correctly said, "If public money is used to renourish the beaches, then that part of the beach becomes public." A significant portion of the private beaches become public. You would think that a private property owner would be allowed to "pay" for their part of the beach nourishment and retain their property rights. But I don't believe this is the case. The answer to the question, why, is obvious."
BMBW I don't know how deep your pockets are but it is cheaper to buy beachfront than to nourish it! And you could not afford to do it alone! The beach needs nourishment because it is starved for sand. It is starved for sand because people put houses and condos on the sand source!
As for retaining property rights; Along with accretion The property holder accepts erosion!! Well seawalls pretty much ends that argument!
I assume you did own the land under the river but not the water flowing over it. You probably could have made an issue of people standing on the river bed. There have been many legal battles over river access on the east coast. The legal battle I have been most involved with is access to the Chattooga and its tributaries in Georgia and North Carolina . Property owners have shot at canoers and strung cables across the Chattooga and many other rivers in an effort to scare people away. At the risk of starting a new tread on Mountain Folk, the Chattooga is the river "Deliverance" was filmed on and also a National Wild and Scenic River.
Its gotten a little crazy with some of the river access fights. Most east coast states have very old laws that state river bank property owners can not interfere or limit trade or transportation of navigatable water ways. To demonstrate a rivers navigatability people have loaded up wooden rafts with goats and bales of cotton and attempted to run rapids. Whitewater kayakers are now "navigating" over 100 foot water falls.
Below mhwl is the sovereign property of the state of Florida for the people! In fact If the fellow arrested, was arrested at about 1030 am on 5 july when the high tide was at 1208....... then he was arrested on the states sovereign property!!!!!!! Also, if a deputy stated ,as said in another post, that the property owner owns into the water... he doesn't know the law! And you realize that using the wet sand as a guide would mean that you could only use the beach on an outgoing tide, and sovereign state property would be off limits to you otherwise!!!! I see lawsuits!
Here is a t-shirt design guaranteed to be a big money maker in SOWAL..."Grandpa and Grandma went to the beach and all they brought me was this lousy arrest report!"
I've lived at the beach for years and never knew about the issue until recently. While my ability to not see things directly in front of me is legendary, this latest escalation is definitely not business as usual.
I meant to convey that the issue of vacationers being arrested & harassed needs to be made clear to property owners/rental companies/anyone involved in tourism etc. An area that runs on tourist $$ needs this nipped in the bud pronto.
I'm feeling froggish, today. That cannot be good.