Led away in Handcuffs

Who pays for the cleanup on the private beaches after storms?

Who pays for the cleanup on the private beaches after storms?

Good question.
I really was mostly kidding about the TDC tax thing but it did get me thinking a little.
I took a look at their budget and the beach renourishment line item for 2007 was interesting (what TDC asked for - 11.5 mil, and what they got - 2.1 mil).

Take a look at their "2007 budget totals".(pg 12)

Thought you may be interested in an e-mail sent from the City of Destin Mayor. I have no idea who sent the original e-mail to him, but this is how the problem is being dealt with in Destin.


"As you will recall, state statutes define that sovereign (state) property extends landward to the Mean Highwater Line (MHL). As this line is ambulatory, it is impossible to define without a daily certified survey. Therefore, the City mirrors state statutes as closely and practically as possible by an enforcement policy that states that sovereign property extends 20' landward of the wet sand area. So, public property extends up to 20' of the water's edge.
In response to your email I spoke with Captain Greg Gaddis of the Okaloosa County this morning to confirm that our enforcement policy had not changed and he verified that it had not. A citizen may conduct any normal beach-related activities south of this 20' line."
This letter will probably be in the Destin Log tomorrow. Don't let the umbrella boys push you around. 20 feet from wet sand is for everyone- everywhere in Destin. The email was not written to me personally but to a close friend who forwarded it to me."

Just for FYi

We are sick of it in Destin too, this was forwarded to me last night written by Destin Mayor Craig Barker, the editor of the Destin Log was carboned. I hope it will be in tomorrow's paper:

"As you will recall, state statutes define that sovereign (state) property extends landward to the Mean Highwater Line (MHL). As this line is ambulatory, it is impossible to define without a daily certified survey. Therefore, the City mirrors state statutes as closely and practically as possible by an enforcement policy that states that sovereign property extends 20' landward of the wet sand area. So, public property extends up to 20' of the water's edge.

In response to your email I spoke with Captain Greg Gaddis of the Okaloosa County this morning to confirm that our enforcement policy had not changed and he verified that it had not. A citizen may conduct any normal beach-related activities south of this 20' line."

Our problem in Destin is the umbrella boys who man the concessions in front of the condos.

Didn't mean to repeat the above post. The original email from Craig Barker was sent to Destin local Bob Biel, a personal friend and beach activist. We are organizing another beach sit-in.

We are sick of it in Destin too, this was forwarded to me last night written by Destin Mayor Craig Barker, the editor of the Destin Log was carboned. I hope it will be in tomorrow's paper:

"As you will recall, state statutes define that sovereign (state) property extends landward to the Mean Highwater Line (MHL). As this line is ambulatory, it is impossible to define without a daily certified survey. Therefore, the City mirrors state statutes as closely and practically as possible by an enforcement policy that states that sovereign property extends 20' landward of the wet sand area. So, public property extends up to 20' of the water's edge.

In response to your email I spoke with Captain Greg Gaddis of the Okaloosa County this morning to confirm that our enforcement policy had not changed and he verified that it had not. A citizen may conduct any normal beach-related activities south of this 20' line."

Our problem in Destin is the umbrella boys who man the concessions in front of the condos.

JoeMammy, please post a link to the statute that states the 20 ft. margin.

Thought you may be interested in an e-mail sent from the City of Destin Mayor. I have no idea who sent the original e-mail to him, but this is how the problem is being dealt with in Destin.


"As you will recall, state statutes define that sovereign (state) property extends landward to the Mean Highwater Line (MHL). As this line is ambulatory, it is impossible to define without a daily certified survey. Therefore, the City mirrors state statutes as closely and practically as possible by an enforcement policy that states that sovereign property extends 20' landward of the wet sand area. So, public property extends up to 20' of the water's edge.
In response to your email I spoke with Captain Greg Gaddis of the Okaloosa County this morning to confirm that our enforcement policy had not changed and he verified that it had not. A citizen may conduct any normal beach-related activities south of this 20' line."
This letter will probably be in the Destin Log tomorrow. Don't let the umbrella boys push you around. 20 feet from wet sand is for everyone- everywhere in Destin. The email was not written to me personally but to a close friend who forwarded it to me."

Just for FYi

This is more then likely what will happen here. Is everyone going to be ok with this? BMBV?

It seems to me that most beach goers typically set up within 20 ft of the wet sand, so I think that would be a no-brainer. If we could just get our Mayor in SoWal to talk to the Destin Mayor, ...:funn:

this would help the family with the children building sand castles wouldn't it? I think the Dad said the children were partially in the water?

Now, the question becomes: who will "enlighten" our law enforcement folks?

this would help the family with the children building sand castles wouldn't it? I think the Dad said the children were partially in the water?

Now, the question becomes: who will "enlighten" our law enforcement folks?

Seems like the County Commissioners should step in a inform the Sheriff's office in a written memo, so there is no question. Then the TDC needs to step in and aggressively noticy all rental managers, condo managers and even the general public.

When this does come about, it would help in Rental Managers give each person a card of sorts, and tell them to keep it with them on the beach if there is any problem. All rental units should have this posted in a place it would be seen, like on the fridge.

Who pays for the cleanup on the private beaches after storms?

I and the rest of our Association have paid for beach clean up of our section of the beach after all of the major storms.









i

It seems to me that most beach goers typically set up within 20 ft of the wet sand, so I think that would be a no-brainer. If we could just get our Mayor in SoWal to talk to the Destin Mayor, ...:funn:

This just seems to make sense and be fair for all.

I have been finding this thread very interesting. My family has been to Hawaii two times and enjoyed having access to all beaches. We've also been to SoWAl several times and I must admit we might have unknowingly violated access laws. Though all Hawaii beaches are public, there often seems to be a need for interpretation of the statute. The following is a recent opinion article from the Honolulu Advvertiser (online). Maybe some will find it interesting.


Posted on: Sunday, July 8, 2007
Beach-access accord needed at Iroquois Point

Protecting shoreline access is no small matter in the Islands. It's enshrined in Hawai'i statute but originated in kingdom law.

In 1968, the Hawai'i Supreme Court ruled that the boundary defining the public beaches should be established as "the upper reaches of the wash of the waves," sometimes described as the vegetation line or the debris line.

The one important exception to the law: military-owned property. To ensure that the military can secure their property for defense purposes, this exemption was carved out, and it makes sense.

Despite the precedent and long tradition of public beaches, population growth and tourism has brought pressure to bear on the issue, and public-access disputes persist.

Most recently, a story by Advertiser writer Gordon Pang highlighted the development of Iroquois Point Island Club, a civilian subdivision built in place of the former Pu'uloa Naval Housing.

The Navy still owns the 363-acre club property, but signed a 65-year lease with Fluor Hawaii LLC, which has since partnered with the Hawai'i division of the Hunt Development Group to form Ford Island Housing. Hunt has maintained that because the property is still military-owned, the club is not bound by state beach-access laws.

But clearly the intent of the military exemption to the state beach-access law wasn't to provide a civilian subdivision with a private beach.

Even in military installations in active use, accommodations have been made. Bellows, for example, is primarily used as an Air Force-run military recreation area accommodating some civilian access. But occasionally the site of Marine Corps training exercises, and on those occasions, obviously, civilian access must be restricted.

Similarly, there is limited shoreline access at the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Barking Sands, Kaua'i.

U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, long an advocate for civilian access at shoreline properties controlled by the military, rightly argues that some kind of accommodation can be made at Iroquois Point as well. Discussions with the developer on the issue have begun, and these talks, including the Navy, should continue until a settlement can be reached.

There are a few knotty issues to resolve. Liability is surely a concern in an area known for a strong shoreline undertow, and there are ongoing military activities in surrounding areas that need to be safeguarded.

Finally, provisions for public access must be made anticipating that the Navy retains ownership and may opt in the future to resume a military use for this property.

It's surely worth the effort, however, to work through these complications. Public ownership of the shoreline is a value Hawai'i has worked hard to maintain, and it should not be allowed to erode, needlessly, in the case of Iroquois Point.

[/I]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

don't worry everybody. last night we snuck down and me and brian wise left a big steaming pile of yager poop on their beach.

Thought you may be interested in an e-mail sent from the City of Destin Mayor. I have no idea who sent the original e-mail to him, but this is how the problem is being dealt with in Destin.


"As you will recall, state statutes define that sovereign (state) property extends landward to the Mean Highwater Line (MHL). As this line is ambulatory, it is impossible to define without a daily certified survey. Therefore, the City mirrors state statutes as closely and practically as possible by an enforcement policy that states that sovereign property extends 20' landward of the wet sand area. So, public property extends up to 20' of the water's edge.
In response to your email I spoke with Captain Greg Gaddis of the Okaloosa County this morning to confirm that our enforcement policy had not changed and he verified that it had not. A citizen may conduct any normal beach-related activities south of this 20' line."
This letter will probably be in the Destin Log tomorrow. Don't let the umbrella boys push you around. 20 feet from wet sand is for everyone- everywhere in Destin. The email was not written to me personally but to a close friend who forwarded it to me."

Just for FYi

That e-mail was responding to me about being told by the Okaloosa county sherifs office to leave the wet sand of the beach while fishing on 21-April of this year near Destiny Shores.

It seems to me that most beach goers typically set up within 20 ft of the wet sand, so I think that would be a no-brainer. If we could just get our Mayor in SoWal to talk to the Destin Mayor, ...:funn:

They still have not fixed this in Destin I have a court date on the 17th of August for the judge to determine if the landowner had tresspass authority within the 20 foot inshore of the wet sand zone. I am still under a restraining order becuse I was fishing in the wet sand.

Of course, I know some of you don't like your Gulf front homes to "look down on" restrooms, neither public nor private. ;-)

zing

Krafty, to me, it reads that the intent of the Exception to the law, was "To ensure that the military can secure their property for defense purposes," and Courts will take intent of laws very seriously. In the case of the military's lease to a private entity, the private entity is not the military nor is it defending a military base. I think that is a no-brainer.

They still have not fixed this in Destin I have a court date on the 17th of August for the judge to determine if the landowner had tresspass authority within the 20 foot inshore of the wet sand zone. I am still under a restraining order becuse I was fishing in the wet sand.

Jay, isn't there a law on the books against false arrest?

Krafty, to me, it reads that the intent of the Exception to the law, was "To ensure that the military can secure their property for defense purposes," and Courts will take intent of laws very seriously. In the case of the military's lease to a private entity, the private entity is not the military nor is it defending a military base. I think that is a no-brainer.

I agree.

Protecting shoreline access is no small matter in the Islands. It's enshrined in Hawai'i statute but originated in kingdom law.

I also really like the pride that Hawaiians seem to have in insuring
"public ownership" of the shoreline, as they put it.

False imprisonment:
Intentionally restraining another person without having the legal right to do so. It's not necessary that physical force be used; threats or a show of apparent authority are sufficient. False imprisonment is a misdemeanor and a tort (a civil wrong). If the perpetrator confines the victim for a substantial period of time (or moves him a significant distance) in order to commit a felony, the false imprisonment may become a kidnapping. People who are arrested and get the charges dropped, or are later acquitted, often think that they can sue the arresting officer for false imprisonment (also known as false arrest). These lawsuits rarely succeed: As long as the officer had probable cause to arrest the person, the officer will not be liable for a false arrest, even if it turns out later that the information the officer relied upon was incorrect.

My words here: Probable cause is the tricky one. Try proving that they didn't have that! They can always find probable cause.

Back to the Inn at Blue Mountain Beach. Circuit Court Case# 93-1133-CA, Claude D. and Elizabeth C. Jones, Plaintiffs, VS. Walton County. This case involved a long-running dispute between Jones and the developers of the Inn. Maybe some old timers remember that originally this was going to be a highrise, as the developers claimed grandfathering exempting them from the height limitation. That was one of the issues that landed them in court. An order approving a settlement agreement was filed on 3/12/98. The agreement is between the Joneses, Walton County, and Blue Mountain Beach Associates L.C. Of interest to this thread:

"Public parking for beach access - 5 spaces.
Public beach access shall be maintained with designated parking spaces, as shown on the site plan, and walking/biking access is to be provided as shown on the site plan attached hereto as Exhibit D. (Sorry I do not have the site plan, should be available from the clerk of court,)
This agreement is binding on all the parties hereto, their assigns, successors, predecessors, heirs and agents. "

So it looks like the access is public. Apparently nobody contemplated that the public access would lead to a private beach. In fact, it sort of implies that the beach is public, why else would you worry about a public access? Just so you could keep going, trudging through the wet sand to somewhere else? But it isn't spelled out. An attorney might have fun with this, though.

False imprisonment:
Intentionally restraining another person without having the legal right to do so. It's not necessary that physical force be used; threats or a show of apparent authority are sufficient. False imprisonment is a misdemeanor and a tort (a civil wrong). If the perpetrator confines the victim for a substantial period of time (or moves him a significant distance) in order to commit a felony, the false imprisonment may become a kidnapping. People who are arrested and get the charges dropped, or are later acquitted, often think that they can sue the arresting officer for false imprisonment (also known as false arrest). These lawsuits rarely succeed: As long as the officer had probable cause to arrest the person, the officer will not be liable for a false arrest, even if it turns out later that the information the officer relied upon was incorrect.

My words here: Probable cause is the tricky one. Try proving that they didn't have that! They can always find probable cause.

I was thinking more along the lines of the person reporting the tresspassing, rather than the Sheriff's Office.

Maybe it could be considered "harrassment" by the property owner(s).

The proposed beach management ordinance applied to beach concessionaires and vendors. This ordinance restricted the ability of beach vendors to set up umbrellas and chairs (known as “beach set-ups") close to the water’s edge to avoid blocking the public’s lateral access along the beaches.62 The Destin City Council unanimously passed the beach management ordinance, prohibiting rental “beach set-ups” within twenty feet of the water, applying only east of Henderson Beach State Park where the beaches are narrower.

The proposed pedestrian zone ordinance, proposed by beachfront landowners as a compromise, established a ten-foot area for pedestrian lateral access along the beach, additionally prohibiting beach set-ups in the pedestrian zone. This ordinance was to be implemented by the landowners voluntarily granting easements to the City of Destin.However, after public comments that the ordinance could effect a taking, the ordinance was superfluous, and the ordinance could create enforcement problems, the proposed ordinance failed to pass for lack of legislative sponsorship.

[FONT=CenturySchoolbook,Italic]3. The Dry Sand Buffer Zone Ordinance​

​

The proposed dry-sand buffer zone ordinance was based on Florida's doctrine of customary usage announced in [FONT=CenturySchoolbook,Italic]Tona-Rama [/FONT]and proposed by the Destin City Land Use Attorney.This ordinance carved out a twenty-five foot buffer zone from the most seaward permanent structure on the private beach while leaving the rest open for public use. Attempts were made by the Destin City [/FONT]Land Use Attorney to build a record and collect information concerning the public’s customary use of the each. Specifically, the City sought historical and archaeological information to

[FONT=CenturySchoolbook,Italic]B. No Disturbances, No Harm​

Instead of opting to pass a pedestrian zone ordinance or a dry sand buffer ordinance to deal with the beach turf wars, the City of Destin decided to leave the issue to the Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office.72 The Sheriff’s Office uses the debris line in the sand as a surrogate for the mean high water line, allowing the public leeway of ten to fifteen feet landward.If the public beachgoer goes ten to fifteen feet landward of the debris line and is not creating a disturbance or misconduct, he is left alone.However, if the public beachgoer goes ten to fifteen feet landward of the debris line and the private beachfront property owner asks the Sheriff’s Office to ask the party to leave, then the deputies will ask the public beachgoer to leave.If the public beachgoer refuses, then he will be given a “Notice to Appear” in court. ​

The Destin City Council, although interested in finding a compromise for beachfront property owners and the public, was likely worried most about the possible cost of litigation if they were to pass the dry-sand buffer zone ordinance. Small local governments, such as Destin, do not have the financial resources to battle large “public policy” interest groups that have bottomless spending accounts, even if the ordinance is supported by the doctrine of customary use announced in [FONT=CenturySchoolbook,Italic]City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc.[/FONT]

In 2002, the Destin City Mayor and Okaloosa County Sheriff requested an advisory opinion from the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Floridaregarding the beach management ordinance, doctrine of customary use, and use of the Sheriff’s Office in enforcement.The Attorney General for the State of Florida responded:

[ ] The City of Destin may regulate in a reasonable​

manner the beach within its corporate limits to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. This regulation must have a rational relation to and be reasonably designed to accomplish a purpose necessary for the protection of the public. The city may not exercise its police power in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner. Such regulation may be accomplished regardless of the ownership of this area, with the exception of state ownership, and without regard to whether the public has been expressly or impliedly allowed to use that area of the beach by a private property owner who may hold title to the property.​

[ ] The right of a municipality to regulate and control dry sand beach property within its municipal boundaries is not dependent on the finding of the Florida Supreme Court in City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc.​

[ ] 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 as they occur.​

The city’s beach management ordinance ​

​

​

[/FONT]​

This is more then likely what will happen here. Is everyone going to be ok with this? BMBV?

Bobby J, as you can see from my previous post, it seems to me that the Destin Mayor and Council have put an unfair legal burden on the Sheriff's department. It certainly appears to me that a private property owner could sue the sheriff's department for not enforcing the current laws on record.

That is if an owner asked a person on their private property to leave and the sheriff refused to ask the person to leave, it certainly appears to me, according to the attorney general that the sheriff did not perform their "sworn duty".

The Florida attorney general was quite specific that public access had to be proved on a case by case basis because it is a combination of "law" and of "fact". It looks like Tona-Roma sets the "law" such as it is, but that's only part of the end result that you're ultimately looking for.