Led away in Handcuffs

[Bobby J]

Does anyone know the guy that got arrested and could you have him contact me?

Bobby J
850-865-7798

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Some of you continually mention the Tona-Rama decision and to the credit of some, also mention that it (historic public use of the dry sand) has to be decided (proven) on a case by case basis.

It's not very clear to me what constitutes continual and uninterrupted use by the public. Is it once a year? Once a month? Once a day? Is it also defined as sitting or laying on the dry sand for 2 hours?...or 10 minutes?...or 10 seconds? What about simply walking through the dry sand?

What constitutes "interrupted" use? Running a person off once a year?...Once a week?...Calling the sheriff's department?

Is the "public" defined as over 100 different people or just 1 unique person per day? What happens if only a single neighbor has used that beach on any real occasion. Does the public then have a right?

What is the burden of proof that would be required in a court of law?

You guys can mention Tona-Rama until you're blue in the face. However, apparently the Deputy Sheriffs can and will arrest a trespasser. I believe they have been clearly advised of the "laws" by the county and state.

The OBVIOUS question is why a law suit has not already been filed (or has it?) if this Tona-Rama decision is so far reaching.

 

[yippie]

Now, if the property owners refuse to have their property nourished, it sounds as though they maintain the rights to the property. With those rights, also comes liability. Who knows what is likely to happen and who is likely to win cases if a hurricane funnels water and damage to the property owners who forgoe nourishment. It is likely that they will file suit against the State/County for nourishment to the neighboring properties which caused the funnel of damage to their non-nourished beach. If neighboring properties located behind the non-nourished properties become damaged due to the funnel-effect (my word), they will likely have a good case against the property owners who didn't accept the nourishment. They would likely go after the State/County as well. Nourishment and seawalls (similar cases will be likely) is a trainwreck which will happen with time.

I looked into this issue and it is quite interesting. I ask why don't they just skip the people's property who were protesting. The people planning the renourishment project gave me an interesting answer.

They said that because nature would take the new sand on to their property and the people would gain land through natural accretion, but with sand the public paid for.

I don't see how they could have any grounds to sue the county, city or state if they refused the sand while in full knowledge that the project would go around them.???

 

[scooterbug44]

You guys can mention Tona-Rama until you're blue in the face. However, apparently the Deputy Sheriffs can and will arrest a trespasser. I believe they have been clearly advised of the "laws" by the county and state.

The reports I've heard so far all seem to indicate that the deputies are not 100% clear on the issue either and that it varies depending on who is called in.

Either way, it is rapidly escalating.

 

[BeachSiO2]

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!

Not neccesarily, as there could be a high tide that was above +0.74 ft NAVD 88 thus the owner WOULD own into the water on that day as they own to the MHW line established by connecting MHW elevations. Or the waves could be larger leading to more water running up onto the beach above same elevation leading to wet sand being private property. I think it would be extremely difficult for the owner or deputy to prove either one withought a lilcensed surveyor on the bech measuring at the exact moment that the complaint is made which is why wet sand is probably why the Attorney General's reccomendation. I hope the MHW location explanation isn't as confusing as the issue itself is!!

 

[Bobby J]

You must not have lived here very long if you believe that...

 

[Smiling JOe]

They said that because nature would take the new sand on to their property and the people would gain land through natural accretion, but with sand the public paid for.

I don't see how they could have any grounds to sue the county, city or state if they refused the sand while in full knowledge that the project would go around them.???

I wonder if the accretion on the non-nourished beach, by the nourished beach project, adjacent to the property, could be considered as being public, since it was paid for by public funding.

I'm no lawyer, though it seems to me that the non-nourished beach owners could file suit if their property is damaged due to the nourishment to the adjacent beach property.

 

[BeachSiO2]

Interesting that this thread has somewhat gone off-topic with the beach renourishment issue...or has it?

Darwin, you are definitely asking ALL the right questions. Some are getting answered.

1. 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.

I'm not going to debate the merits of renourishment but it sure seems to me a VERY CHEAP PRICE to pay to gain public access to the beaches compared to the outright purchase of beach front property.

Here's the point: the cost of beach renourishment is a small price to pay to rectify the screwed up beach access mess that Walton County has gotten ALL OF US in. And, it seems, they have made no attempt to truly change things - only make them worse by the unbelievable approval, as an example, of the Redfish Village private easement debacle which will eventually pour hundreds of people into an area the size of one single residential lot bordered on both sides by private property. They were well aware of this but approved it anyway. In Commissioner's Sara Comander's defense, she voted against it (Meadows was not present).

If they did not approve it, Redfish Village would have gone down in flames. The county bailed them out but at whose expense?

Darwin, I'm not familiar with the location where you had your bad experience. But the start of this thread had to do with someone being run off the beach in front of the Retreat. The people at the Retreat and the Inn at Blue Mountain Beach are going through a similar thing. 2. That is, the county approved a public beach access with no "real" dedicated public beach on the other end.

The beach in front of the Inn at BMB is packed because of the very high density of that development for the associated beach frontage. They are in "survival mode". There is much more to this story at the Inn at BMB as many of you in the real estate business are aware of.

In my opinion, the people at the less dense Retreat do not feel they should pay for the lack of planning at the county level. If you paid a few million for your dream home on the beach, you might (just might) understand why they would want to protect their private property.

If you're familiar with the area, you know the pressure that all the development south and north of 30A in that immediate vicinity will put on that single beach access. Yet it keeps on growing and growing without regard to the beach as a finite resource, regardless of who owns it.

Bottom line, the Inn at BMB does not want any more people on their beach because they are getting too crowded as is, and the people at the Retreat do not want the bleedover from the Inn at BMB as well as the public access.

So the public is caught in the middle while all gulf front owners and sheriff's deputies are made out to be the bad guys.

Darwin, if anyone should be ranting and raving, it should be you. Thanks for the level headed, thought provoking posts.

Two quick points of clarification..

1. Not true. It has nothing to do with who pays it has to do with extending the beach past the mean high water location. the old beach remains the same property after the project as it does before. The law is that you can't fill in public sovereign lands without it remaining public sovereign lands. If anti-people want to right a check by all means do it. The state law cannot be circumvented.

2. It is not a public beach access. It is a privately-owned beach access for use of those who are non-gulf front owners, and members or guests of the Blue Mountain Beach Club, same as Redfish Village, Gulf Place, Seaside street associations, etc.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Not neccesarily, as there could be a high tide that was above +0.74 ft NAVD 88 thus the owner WOULD own into the water on that day as they own to the MHW line established by connecting MHW elevations. Or the waves could be larger leading to more water running up onto the beach above same elevation leading to wet sand being private property. I think it would be extremely difficult for the owner or deputy to prove either one withought a lilcensed surveyor on the bech measuring at the exact moment that the complaint is made which is why wet sand is probably why the Attorney General's reccomendation. I hope the MHW location explanation isn't as confusing as the issue itself is!!

I think it would also be difficult to prove the exact location where the supposed tresspassers were standing. Furthermore, it would be difficult to prove if they were standing on wet sand vs dry sand. What moisture content would consititute "wet" sand? Also, since removing sand from the beach is against Walton County Code of Ordinances, would either party be able to remove the sand from which they stand to bring to court, or be held as evidence by the Sheriff's Deputy? What if I throw a bucket of water on the sand? Is it then considered wet? How long after a wave washes on shore, is it still considered wet? Too many unanswered questions.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

[quote
You must not have lived here very long if you believe that...

We've all had our positive and negative run-ins with the "law".

But the arrest of, at worse, "non-cooperative" tourists is a serious matter as you are painfully aware.

Do you think you could take a stab at the questions in my last post. It seems from your posts that you may be getting pro-active and possibly seeking legal advice before you and SJ go set your tents up at the Retreat.