Led away in Handcuffs

Nope.

Amazing what wearing a thong and pressing yourself up against a sliding door will do!!

That would keep me away (or at least facing the other direction) ................. after I took a pic to post on sowal!

Amazing how often issues come up and the solution would be to simply enforce the EXISTING laws :roll:.

Seems to me like with all the property taxes we pay, trash pick-up, whether on the street or on the beach, should be a given. And that would not depend on whether you live in a neighborhood with a private beach or not.

First, beach service can be requested by private property owners. I don't see any relevance here with all the talk regarding beach service. Perhaps you could explain why this subject continues to pop up.

Second, as I've already said, someone else posted "...someone sitting on one patch of sand does not prevent someone else from using another nearby patch."

I just thought I would show that the beach can get a little crowded and that finding a "nearby patch" of sand could be difficult at times. What better than a photograph?

Does this clear things up?

No. Maybe I was not clear with the meaning of my post. My thoughts are this forum was about people getting arrested or ask to leave private property while at the beach.

Somewhere in the last 300 post, I seem to remember several remarks that this is an issue that the TDC and county need to look at.

I guess the point I was trying to make is showing private property packed to the gills really doesn't matter, however, if you had posted a public beach packed like that, it would be a great example of 1. The entire beach issue needs to be addressed, and 2. It would also help explain one reason why someone may go onto private property.

A Montana cowboy was overseeing his herd in a remote
mountainous pasture when suddenly a brand-new BMW
advanced out of a dust cloud towards him. The driver,
a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban
sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks
the cowboy, "If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you
have in your herd, will you give me a calf?"

The cowboy looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then
looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly
answers, "Sure, Why not?"

The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook
computer, connects it to his cingular RAZR V3 cell
phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where
he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system to get
an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to
another NASA satellite that scans the area in an
ultra-high-resolution photo. The young man then opens
the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to
an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany. Within
seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that
the image has been processed and the data stored.

He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC
connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his
Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a
response. Finally, he prints out a full-color,
150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP
LaserJet printer and finally turns to the cowboy and
says, "You have exactly, 586 cows and calves."

"That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my
calves," says the cowboy.

He watches the young man select one of the animals and
looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the
trunk of his car.

Then the cowboy says to the young man, "Hey, if I can
tell you exactly what your business is, will you give
me back my calf?"

The young man thinks about it for a second and then
says, "Okay, why not?"

You're one of them Congressman from Washington D.C.",
says the cowboy.

"Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did
you guess that?"

"No guessing required." answered the cowboy. "You
showed up here even though nobody called you; you want
to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a
question I never asked. You tried to show me how much
smarter than me you are; and you don't know a thing
about cows...this is a herd of sheep.

Now give me back my dog!

Second, as I've already said, someone else posted "...someone sitting on one patch of sand does not prevent someone else from using another nearby patch."

I just thought I would show that the beach can get a little crowded and that finding a "nearby patch" of sand could be difficult at times. What better than a photograph?

BMBV, you are going to love this ... NOT!
I just received a pm from someone who informs me that the BCC voted to approve all five requests for density increases at tonight's meeting.

I would proudly be arrested for walking on the beach anywhere on the "Beaches of South Walton." Get it? The Beaches of South Walton. Do we need to change the name of the place?

Dave, "come and get me" Rauschkolb.

another local case of a brilliant use of "marketing" for the purposes of looking pretty instead of building business. the tdc went to GREAT LENGTHS to change the branding of the region to "the beaches of south walton" with an image of "the small, low-key southern beach" because they understood that was the side of bread the butter was on and that was their target niche. obviously they can't compete with orlando or miami, so value what you have going and work it. great. if that was in deed instead of word.

when it came time to produce "the beaches" concept sold, all that was left is a silly slogan.

it's like the developers who mow down rosemary to create "rosemary beach" or cypresses to build "cypress dunes" or are now blocking the view to the sea in "seaside".

profit oriented marketing means that you work hard to get them here once so they come back again and again. the opposite is happening here. it looks like a good idea to newcomers until one visit. even some oldtimers i know here stay based on the nostialgia of what once was, but when they look around they're hardpressed to feel good about very much of what it's become. well, tourists don't have that kind of personal attachment to a place. piss em off once and you'll never see them again. and they will NOT bother wasting their breathe telling you why.

so if that's the case why bother allotting a marketing budget to the TDC when it's a one-shot wonder?

the powers that be really believe the world is full of yankee suckers and maybe they can fool people once, but they will not be fooled twice.

I have always firmly believed the beaches are for all of us to enjoy. The edge of the bluff or the edge of the dunes should be the property line for beach front homeowners. Even this "mean high tide waterline" rule is ridiculous.

When you pay for beach front you are paying for the view and the risk of being washed away in a hurricane, you're not paying for the beach behind you. Trying to own the beach is like trying to own the sky.

I would proudly be arrested for walking on the beach anywhere on the "Beaches of South Walton." Get it? The Beaches of South Walton. Do we need to change the name of the place?

Dave, "come and get me" Rauschkolb.

OK Dave, you didn't actually "condemn" private beachfront property owners. But what I see in your (somewhat threatening) statement above, is that to prove your point, you believe it to be your duty to intentionally trespass on private property in order to incite the owner (by interfering with their right to quiet enjoyment of private property) into filing trespass charges against you. Maybe this is a little graphic, but I hope you understand my point.

Yes, technically you haven't condemned them. Perhaps you could come up with a more appropriate word that describes this posturing shown by you.

I consider you a person of standing in our community. I would only hope that you would show some reservation with such statements as you have made above (as Kurt suggested to all of us).

Your equaling of owning of the beach with owning of the sky confuses me at best.

Mango mentioned that some states do not allow public beaches (along the same lines as your "sky" analogy, I guess). Do you know how many do and how many don't? Is Florida one of a few or one of many?

And yes, I know, Dave said he isn't going to post anymore. But here it is anyway.

BMBV, you are going to love this ... NOT!
I just received a pm from someone who informs me that the BCC voted to approve all five requests for density increases at tonight's meeting.

At the risk of sounding like a psychiatrist, how do you feel about it?

Were any of these requests for property with beach accesses to "nowhere"?

At the risk of sounding like a psychiatrist, how do you feel about it?

Were any of these requests for property with beach accesses to "nowhere"?

It isn't so much a feeling which I have regarding it as it is a thought. I think that the County should not be approving things which squeeze more people into the existing infrastructure. Until the County is willing to address the lack of parking and restrooms at beach accesses, they should not be adding more units by increasing density. The one exception I could think of would be affordable housing of some sort. I think the Commissioners forget that a substantial number of the lots in SoWal are not built out, and when they are built out in the future, we will have a bigger strain on everything around here.

As for your last question, the County's accesses go to the beaches of South Walton, and it is debatable whether or not they go to nowhere.

So here's a question. Flag Post #16 is located at the entrance beside the Inn at Blue Mtn. I am fairly certain that the Flag at that location is maintained by the SWFD. I've read on here that the particular access is for only the guests and owners of people who are members of good standing with the Blue Mtn Beach Club. If that is so, why is the County (SWFD) maintaining the flag? To my knowledge, they don't manage any other flag poles/flags on private property in Walton County. Do you know different?

First, beach service can be requested by private property owners. I don't see any relevance here with all the talk regarding beach service. Perhaps you could explain why this subject continues to pop up.

Second, as I've already said, someone else posted "...someone sitting on one patch of sand does not prevent someone else from using another nearby patch."

I just thought I would show that the beach can get a little crowded and that finding a "nearby patch" of sand could be difficult at times. What better than a photograph?

Does this clear things up?

You deliberately used a telephoto shot that compresses depth of field to illustrate a holiday crowd directly in front of several condo complexes on a beachfront sorely in need of renourishment. That's highly manipulative, and does not characterize most of Blue Mountain Beach on any given day. Of course, as a local owner, you know better!?

You deliberately used a telephoto shot that compresses depth of field to illustrate a holiday crowd directly in front of several condo complexes on a beachfront sorely in need of renourishment. That's highly manipulative, and does not characterize most of Blue Mountain Beach on any given day. Of course, as a local owner, you know better!?

Bob, while it appears that the photo was zoomed in a bit, it is fairly accurate in appearance of that stretch of beach to the west of the CR83 access. I think, for that particular stretch, this week is just as busy as last week. See attachment for different view of the same stretch, of a photo take this week. (No zoom lense used.)

Let's keep in mind that these are the same folks who share common walls in many cases, so being in the shade of someone else's umbrella, doesn't seem to bother them. Thanks, but no thanks.

Bob, while it appears that the photo was zoomed in a bit, it is fairly accurate in appearance of that stretch of beach to the west of the CR83 access. I think, for that particular stretch, this week is just as busy as last week. See attachment for different view of the same stretch, of a photo take this week. (No zoom lense used.)

Let's keep in mind that these are the same folks who share common walls in many cases, so being in the shade of someone else's umbrella, doesn't seem to bother them. Thanks, but no thanks.

Agreed, but look at the depth of the beach in the photos. It's pitiful!

Regardless of how it may appear in the photos, that stretch of beach is shoulder to shoulder under those tents and umbrellas (when people are actually in the chairs), and it isn't only during Holiday weeks.

It isn't so much a feeling which I have regarding it as it is a thought. I think that the County should not be approving things which squeeze more people into the existing infrastructure. Until the County is willing to address the lack of parking and restrooms at beach accesses, they should not be adding more units by increasing density. The one exception I could think of would be affordable housing of some sort. I think the Commissioners forget that a substantial number of the lots in SoWal are not built out, and when they are built out in the future, we will have a bigger strain on everything around here.

Yep. Public or private the beach itself is also a finite resource.

As for your last question, the County's accesses go to the beaches of South Walton, and it is debatable whether or not they go to nowhere.

The people that were arrested...they also debated this issue with the deputies but lost out. Don't get mad, that was just a jab. It's late at night.

I finally found a list of states and their public/private policies in one document. From what I can see, only Hawaii, Oregon and Texas have what could be considered public beaches. Delaware did the same thing that Walton County and Destin did (still in court) with beach renourishment thus far. So Florida is definitely in the majority. Keep in mind that the document is dated in 2000.


The States Can Be Generally Classified as High and Low Water Boundary States

?Where is the dividing line between the property of the State and that of the littoral property owner? The States are divided on that question, and the groups may be conveniently labeled ?high-tide? or ?low-tide? states.? The two extreme ends of this spectrum are Hawai'i at the high end and Massachusetts at the low end, both, interestingly, based on old traditions.

I finally found a list of states and their public/private policies in one document. From what I can see, only Hawaii, Oregon and Texas have what could be considered public beaches. Delaware did the same thing that Walton County and Destin did (still in court) with beach renourishment thus far. So Florida is definitely in the majority. Keep in mind that the document is dated in 2000.


The States Can Be Generally Classified as High and Low Water Boundary States

?Where is the dividing line between the property of the State and that of the littoral property owner? The States are divided on that question, and the groups may be conveniently labeled ?high-tide? or ?low-tide? states.? The two extreme ends of this spectrum are Hawai'i at the high end and Massachusetts at the low end, both, interestingly, based on old traditions.

The high water mark states are Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. The low water mark states include Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.​

Hawai'i is the only state to use the vegetation line as the boundary between public and private property.For public access purposes, Texas and Oregon attain the same result as Hawai'i, but both use an easement to create public access, one statutory and one based in case law. This removes from the littoral owner only the right to exclude, not the whole fee. Other states grant an easement in public access in limited situations. Delaware, for example, provides public access to newly formed beach wherever publicly funded beach nourishment is done.​

Well, from my understanding, you should be more concerned about the ECL than other states practices. And if you do know much about the current lawsuit that the SOB's vs Destin is involved in, you should know what a ECL is. Better get out your wallet, Walton county is facing the same thing and litigation can be quite expensive.

another local case of a brilliant use of "marketing" for the purposes of looking pretty instead of building business. the tdc went to GREAT LENGTHS to change the branding of the region to "the beaches of south walton" with an image of "the small, low-key southern beach" because they understood that was the side of bread the butter was on and that was their target niche. obviously they can't compete with orlando or miami, so value what you have going and work it. great. if that was in deed instead of word.

when it came time to produce "the beaches" concept sold, all that was left is a silly slogan.

it's like the developers who mow down rosemary to create "rosemary beach" or cypresses to build "cypress dunes" or are now blocking the view to the sea in "seaside".

profit oriented marketing means that you work hard to get them here once so they come back again and again. the opposite is happening here. it looks like a good idea to newcomers until one visit. even some oldtimers i know here stay based on the nostialgia of what once was, but when they look around they're hardpressed to feel good about very much of what it's become. well, tourists don't have that kind of personal attachment to a place. piss em off once and you'll never see them again. and they will NOT bother wasting their breathe telling you why.

so if that's the case why bother allotting a marketing budget to the TDC when it's a one-shot wonder?

the powers that be really believe the world is full of yankee suckers and maybe they can fool people once, but they will not be fooled twice.

Actually, the opposite is happening here. In information I read from last year, it was reported that there is a 78% return visitation rate to BSW, which is much greater then most areas.

So here's a question. Flag Post #16 is located at the entrance beside the Inn at Blue Mtn. I am fairly certain that the Flag at that location is maintained by the SWFD. I've read on here that the particular access is for only the guests and owners of people who are members of good standing with the Blue Mtn Beach Club. If that is so, why is the County (SWFD) maintaining the flag? To my knowledge, they don't manage any other flag poles/flags on private property in Walton County. Do you know different?

Actually the Walton County Beach Safety Committee worked to establish flag poles at many private locations throughout all beach areas except state parks. This required easements to install and maintain flag poles from private property owners. The reason being that they wanted a flag visible from anywhere on the beach to aid in beach safety. Although there are over 50 county beach accesses, there were still gaps. Other examples are Gulf Trace, Seaside, Sandcliffs, Rosemary Beach and a few in western Walton County.

I've decided the whole problem is people feeling a need to claim their territory and then not share it. This applies to property owners as well as folks who set up a tent and claim their patch of beach for many more hours than they are using the space.

I can understand wanting some shade, beverages, toys, and munchies at the beach, but if you have to set up a "base camp" many refugees would gladly call home just to enjoy the beach, maybe you should be enjoying your condo or home instead.

Remember the lesson we were supposed to learn in kindergarten and SHARE! If you aren't using the beach or that patch of sand, let someone else. As long as people are considerate and behave themselves there shouldn't be a problem.

We all agree obnoxious folks should be booted, and removing abusive drunks or fining litterbugs is a far better use of the county's limited law enforcement resources than making sure kids are building their sandcastles in the correct place.

Yep. Public or private the beach itself is also a finite resource.


The people that were arrested...they also debated this issue with the deputies but lost out.

I disagree about "losing out," but see why one might think that. The arresting officer is not the judge and jury. Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty?" That is the way the law is supposed to work in the USA, and when the Sheriff's Deputy becomes the Judge, you better gather your weapons and make a stand, or become the Sheriff. The Sheriff's Dept isn't the office which will decide whether or not the law was violated, and in this case, that holds true. They are just doing what they believe to be their duty, even though there is some question whether or not they had the authority, based on previous Court rulings.

Let me again repeat, for those who just tuned in -- There are many questions being raised, and there seems to be good cause for arguments on both sides of the coin, but it will take a Court's ruling to determine which side will prevail.

I disagree about "losing out," but see why one might think that. The arresting officer is not the judge and jury. Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty?" That is the way the law is supposed to work in the USA, and when the Sheriff's Deputy becomes the Judge, you better gather your weapons and make a stand, or become the Sheriff. The Sheriff's Dept isn't the office which will decide whether or not the law was violated, and in this case, that holds true. They are just doing what they believe to be their duty, even though there is some question whether or not they had the authority, based on previous Court rulings.

Let me again repeat, for those who just tuned in -- There are many questions being raised, and there seems to be good cause for arguments on both sides of the coin, but it will take a Court's ruling to determine which side will prevail.

Good Points SJ. Could be where this thread should end. Let the courts decide!

This required easements to install and maintain flag poles from private property owners.

BeachSiO2,
I'm not sure that I follow correctly. I was informed that the flags on private property are maintained by the private property owners. Is that incorrect?



(and please don't think that I'm against public safety and public trash collection. I use these examples only to show bits of the reasons why I think the public has the right to use the beaches.)

Per Meadows, the Supreme Court should decide in 60-90 days............so an effective short term solution/common ground needs to be found before that 78% tourist return rate plummets.

A satisfied customer will tell 30 people, a dissatisfied one will continue until they eventually reach 300! Can't think of many things that would mess up a vacation more than being arrested or having little kids run off the beach!