Led away in Handcuffs

[Smiling JOe]

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 (BMBC), same as Redfish Village, Gulf Place, Seaside street associations, etc.

This is the interesting thing, the reports from the beach goers is that they are renting a property which the owners belong to the BMBC, yet are still getting chased off the beach by the security guard. I'm wondering how the guard is supposed to know who is who and who owns what.

 

[BeachSiO2]

The law is full of twists regarding this issue. Reading the FL Supreme Court case of Tona-Rama, IMO, it sounds as though the property owners do have rights to their land and the public does not. The Court states, in Tona-Rama (other cases may vary), that the public has the use of the beach, but not rights to the property(beach). The public cannot set up a vending station or build a seawall, etc. because they have no ownership of the private beach. In my non-legal opinion, I think it could be said that the state, county, nor TDC, have the "right" to nourish the beach, but the public may still be able to use the beach (dry) as they have for many years.

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.

At this time in western Walton County, the ECL is currently still legally established in front of the three skipped properties. That means all property rights and ownership is the same for them as the rest of the people who actually received sand.

 

[Smiling JOe]

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.

I don't set up tents on the beach, nor do I operate within an organized group. ;-)

 

[BeachSiO2]

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.

Yes, only below the ECL however.

 

[BeachSiO2]

This is the interesting thing, the reports from the beach goers is that they are renting a property which the owners belong to the BMBC, yet are still getting chased off the beach by the security guard. I'm wondering how the guard is supposed to know who is who and who owns what.

The BMBC only has fee simple ownership of a small sliver of sand across the dune to the water (10-20 feet wide max). If you are lucky enough to get their early and sit in the sliver they don't move you but that can only fit one or two people (at least if they carry what I do). They watch what boardwalk people enter from to determine who they are. It is quite a show.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

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.

1. Thanks for setting me straight AGAIN! (first time was the MHWL thing).

2. I was under the impression that this was a public access...my bad. The main point I was making here is the county approved this access (next to the Inn at Blue Mountain Beach) knowing full well that the beach on both sides are privately owned.

Thanks for the feedback!

 

[BeachSiO2]

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.

Yes, it would, but with the right understanding of the way waves work and good timing you could get arrested and then have someone show that the arrest was illegal and really muck it up!

I know this is a serious problem but I am glad you point out the ridiculousness of what I was describing and more.

 

[scooterbug44]

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.

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.

And if you had paid a premium price to live or vacation near the beach you would understand why there is a fight to keep the beaches public! I love this area, but without the beach it doesn't have another major draw.

I am not going to cry giant alligator tears for those who build/buy multi-unit condos that max out their unit count and then complain it's too crowded!
I'm sure it's crowded on their beach, probably something to do with cause and effect and them being patently unable to share!

 

[BeachyQueen]

not so long ago...rosemary used to be totally nudy...i mean...that's what they say...um...not that i would know...um...i mean...you know what i mean...

Oh boy, do I remember those days!!
When hubby and I had first moved to the area we were living in PCB. On the weekends we would drive along 30-A and sightsee, and often wonder what was beyond the native vegetation. Cars would be scattered along the side of 30-A and we could see cute little footpaths. "What fun!" we would say in our naivety. One day we decided to check it out. We parked along the side of the road and ventured back through the beach shrubs. Waaaaaay back. WOW! Totally empty beaches for as far as the eye could see! HEAVENLY! We commenced to sunbathing and nodding off. Upon my awakening, I see that a few random beachgoers have also "found" our little hideaway. In fact, one man could be seen taking a leisurely stroll along the water's edge, headed in our direction. As he approached I chuckled, "That guy's bathing suit is nearly the same color as his skin!!!......ummmmm.....wait.......I think......ummmmm....OMG, it IS his skin!!!" . We were in shock and more than slightly amused. Couldn't wait to tell our friends later. We went back to our beach reading. Short time later, 2 more guys head down to the beach, set out their blanket and proceed to.....take....off...their....shorts..... .

OK, this is starting to freak us out a bit. So we start really checking other people out....first time we realize, I am the only woman in the vicinity and we are both the only ones with suits on.
After some quick calculations (we were young but not stupid!) we decided to head back to the car. As we headed to the footpath, we cross right in front of another set of sunbathers....both naked as jaybirds. I tried not to look but when the one guy stood up and STRETCHED right as I walked next to him, I nearly dropped my chair!!! Tee-Hee-Hee!

 

[Smiling JOe]

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.

This is really a different subject, but from the FL Supreme Court's website, I found the following regarding riparian rights:

THE RIPARIAN ACT OF 1921 CONVEYED FEE TITLE ONLY TO LAND
WHICH HAD BEEN BULKHEADED, FILLED IN, OR WHARFED OUT, NOT TO
LANDS UNDER OPEN WATERS.