Led away in Handcuffs

It's been a blast.

Short one at that!

I wish all of this Panhandle area the best and to trust in the law.

Goodbye and farewell

You think he really means "it"?

Honest Bobby, where did you find this guy?

See if this helps. It is the State Statutes regarding Burglary & Trespass

http://leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0810/ch0810.htm

I appreciate the link, but that is the information which confused me.

The closest public accesses usable are Blue Mt Beach and the one between the Inn at Blue Mt. and the Retreat.

I thought so but was not real sure. Thanks.

Here's my point to your position (and I respect it...please don't misunderstand me).

Until there is the real "threat" to your beach of being crowded out by those that do not have permission / right, it's much easier to view things from your perspective.

Your property is basically cocooned by many other private gulf front properties. I can't imagine ANYONE walking all the way from Blue Mountain Beach access or from the other access to set their tents, chairs, etc., on your part of the beach.

I am certain that you believe your position to be right. However if you were adjacent or very near one of these public accesses or private accesses to "nowhere", your attitude just might be different.

Bottom line, I don't think you have experienced little if any encroachment from the "public" and probably won't for a LONG LONG time. The public access to your west is about 1200 feet from you. And the prublic access at 83 to the east of you is over 1300 feet away.

Now encroachment from Adagio and Bella Vita is another thing and I guess you could consider them public. But a BIG difference is Adagio and Bella Bita are known quantities with their OWN beach appropriate for the developments. And if they encroach on you, you encroach on them ;-) .

Opening the beaches without limits is another.

Ok I'm nuts.

I just spent over an hour to try to show the relationships between most of the properties in our area from Draper Lake to Redfish Lake.

I know my "diagram" will spur criticism especially regarding the eastern end so let's discuss and try stay civil. Keep in mind the borders are approximate and I may have a few things wrong with homes bordering the Inn at BMB.

Also note the Redfish Village is included shown with a dotted line connecting to their access. (edited: RFV has deeded an easement to the county for use of the sandy part of the beach on their lot, but of course no lateral access.)

The green shaded areas are areas that do not have any "dedicated" beach front other than the accesses themselves.

Below is what I came up with:

bmbv, any chance of delivering that in a larger format? possibly saving it to an offsite hosting service; www.photobucket.com . this way we can get a pretty good look at it in it's native resolution. thanks for that work.

Short one at that!


You think he really means "it"?

Honest Bobby, where did you find this guy?

BMBV - Bobby didn't find this guy. Somehow he found us. He was either at the TDC or contacted the TDC last week. It was mentioned to me on the phone, I briefly looked at his site, very briefly. I didn't care for the design and frankly didn't have to to muddle through it all.

I appreciate the link, but that is the information which confused me.

I e-mailed an attorney I know and the answer he gave me was very confusing. So, I am waiting for him to answer my second question. If it is any less confusing, I will post it. It IS an interesting question.

I e-mailed an attorney I know and the answer he gave me was very confusing. So, I am waiting for him to answer my second question. If it is any less confusing, I will post it. It IS an interesting question.

The biggest difference I can tell between the two is the punishment. It appears that a civil trespass is not punishable by jail time. Most of the criminal trespass laws tend to be associated with burglary or crimes against people, and I would think that sitting peacefully on the sandy beach would not be in any way thought of as, the person sitting, having intent to do bodily harm or theft by the taking. However, you can read that these particular laws are written in code for only lawyers to understand.

The biggest difference I can tell between the two is the punishment. It appears that a civil trespass is not punishable by jail time. Most of the criminal trespass laws tend to be associated with burglary or crimes against people, and I would think that sitting peacefully on the sandy beach would not be in any way thought of as, the person sitting, having intent to do bodily harm or theft by the taking. However, you can read that these particular laws are written in code for only lawyers to understand.

He said something about damages regarding civil, and he also said the trespassing could be considered both. So, my second question to him is how a deputy is suppose to decide whether it is criminal or civil. I may not get an answer until tomorrrow, but will post it when I do.

bmbv, any chance of delivering that in a larger format? possibly saving it to an offsite hosting service; www.photobucket.com . this way we can get a pretty good look at it in it's native resolution. thanks for that work.

Thanks. I set up an account.

Again, Redfish Village is included shown with a dotted line connecting to their private beach access.
The green shaded areas are areas that do not have any "dedicated" beach front other than the accesses themselves.

Here it is...

thanks for the larger image.

so, based on that photo, where are all the people that live in the green zone supposed to go th the beach?

thanks for the larger image.

so, based on that photo, where are all the people that live in the green zone supposed to go th the beach?

Good question, no great answers.


The obvious nearby places are Ed Waline, the one at Old Florida Beach, Blue Mountain Beach (such as it is) and Grayton. Hey don't forget the state parks!

There ARE places to get to the beach. They might not be as convenient as the one, people like Duchess thought was "fully available" to her.

JR, I am really just the messenger with an opinion which, at this time, is backed by law. PLEASE resist the temptation to paint me as an evil villain.

Tangent... remember how many people use to say, "Why should we pay for beach renourishment to benefit all those "greedy" gulf front owners?", especially right after Hurricane Dennis? Well now, if one truly understands the entire picture, renourishment could be considered as a solution where there 2 birds are killed with one stone (just a saying y'all).

And I currently have mixed emotions regarding beach renourishment when I look at how nicely our section of the beach has recovered so far from the hurricanes on its own in such a short time. If we get hit again anytime soon, my tune may certainly change.

Hello, Sowallers,

I was originally just going to report on my visit to the beach today,
but I now realize that Yippie and BMBV have addressed my post from yesterday.

First, Yippie, thank you for re-elevating my post from the morass of cross-
talk on this thread. The other sideline was valid, but not what I was trying
to address. I wanted to provide a first-hand account of what was happening
here.

I hung out at the beach today from 4 -6 pm CST with no problems and maybe
3 others that I can only call my 'posse'. (The beach, including the 'Retreat beach' , was almost empty). We were all appropriately within the
MHW line, so I assume we're not 'Inn people'. That said, I thought that we
all walked upright, spoke a type of English in which our subjects and verbs
agreed, etc., etc. We caused no problems and left no trash on the beach.
I must also note that there was rain from about 2:30 pm (when I wanted to go down to the beach) until 3:50 pm.

I have always understood that I had access to and use of this beach since
our purchase of our lot in August 2001. I have seen documentation of this
then and since then, when we bought a lot across 30-A in 2006. Our lot there is closer to the public beach access at CR 83, but we were assured of our access to and use of the beach between the Retreat and the Inn. We didn't question this, as we had always enjoyed that right and access. Even
after the split between the Inn and the Village.

BMBVagrant has questioned if we'll sell if we can't use the BMB beach closest to our home. NO! I don't believe that will happen, honestly. We'll still be able to use it, even if in a miniscule way. My hubby and I will make it our new goal to use that beach any time we want and suffer the inconvenience of moving our stuff if we need to. Honestly, we're two people (and it's usually the same number of family using our place if we're not there, maybe plus a couple of shorter kids) who just want to spread out a towel or two with a cooler in between.

So BMBV is maybe wondering if we think our property will be devalued because of this issue? We can weather it. I can understand his concern
since he seems to be a beachfront owner to our east whose property mayl be facing this issue potentially very soon. It is an enormously sticky issue. All I can say is that I am trying to work out tomorrow early enough so that I will have my butt on the beach near the Inn at BMB by about 10 am.

Although my name here may be Duchess, I'm not very formal and will
welcome all comers so we can talk about this!!

thanks for the larger image.

so, based on that photo, where are all the people that live in the green zone supposed to go th the beach?

John,
This is why a "private" beach will never hold up in court especially looking at the green area. This area has been used by the public for years and will easily fall under the prescriptive easement rights.
Has anyone researched a case where a "private" beach owner has ever won a private beach law suit. I am not trying to instigate, just curious.

I've been reading intently and a picture is worth a thousand words. Thanks BMBV .
It's real interesting to note that clearly 1/3 of the beach at Blue Mountain is in front of the retreat. Just compare this with the pictures of no one on the beach posted in that area posted earlier. Every one seems to be getting licked off the little segment next to the Inn.

Also didn't St. Joe own all (or most) of the land along 30A. When did they start developing it?

I've been reading intently and a picture is worth a thousand words. Thanks BMBV .
It's real interesting to note that clearly 1/3 of the beach at Blue Mountain is in front of the retreat. Just compare this with the pictures of no one on the beach posted in that area posted earlier. Every one seems to be getting licked off the little segment next to the Inn.

Also didn't St. Joe own all (or most) of the land along 30A. When did they start developing it?

St Joe is the largest land holder in the State of Florida. They started developing it several years ago. SEVERAL years ago.

BMBV, I didn't ask to point a finger at the messenger, I just asked. It's just so glaring that that those public accesses actually do 'lead to nowhere'

Bobby, I share the same hope as you, I'm just wondering if it really will be on a case by case basis, or a blanket decision.

Vagrant,

It appears that the dark blue beaches on your image should be 'PUBLIC". Is that correct? I've labeled them "No Problem?" from the Walton County GSR. Notice how the property lines stop at the dunes.



Why doesn't the state just use a little eminent domain, and take the beach back for the public for these few PROBLEM properties? Back to the vegetation line?

Hi again Duchess. I had all kinds of things to post but deleted them and started over.

If anyone has a right to be mad as hell it's you! However you have exhibited such composure and clarity not often found on this message board for someone in your situation and it is a breath of fresh air.

Your intent is pure...purchase property near the beach fully thinking you have "full" beach access. BTW, can you clarify if that access is public or private (I'm too lazy to look at TDC's website )?

You truly sound like a neighbor anyone would love to have. Again, I really hate that all this is happening to nice people like you.

PLEASE keep us posted as you have been doing!
Thank you.

Vagrant,

It appears that the dark blue beaches on your image should be 'PUBLIC". Is that correct? I've labeled them "No Problem?" from the Walton County GSR. Notice how the property lines stop at the dunes.



Why doesn't the state just use a little eminent domain, and take the beach back for the public for these few PROBLEM properties? Back to the vegetation line?

The state will not act on this issue. We all will have to act on it. It will be a big battle but it looks like one that can be won according to history.

BMBV, I didn't ask to point a finger at the messenger, I just asked. It's just so glaring that that those public accesses actually do 'lead to nowhere'

Bobby, I share the same hope as you, I'm just wondering if it really will be on a case by case basis, or a blanket decision.

Yes it is glaring. For years I wondered how all this private property stuff worked on the beach. Now I know.

I was beat up to hell and back by the boys on the BCC regarding RFV, so much so that I was beginning to doubt my elemental understanding of private property rights. The BCC just seemed to not care one bit about encroachment on private property, plain and simple.....just allow more developments to pour people on beaches deeded as private and worry about the consequences tomorrow. And take care of their "buds" for now.

Well tomorrow is arriving here in Walton County.

You are probably right, maybe the State is too big an entity to engage.

But you have property lines drawn into the water. Seems like a conflict that should be resolved somehow.

He said something about damages regarding civil, and he also said the trespassing could be considered both. So, my second question to him is how a deputy is suppose to decide whether it is criminal or civil. I may not get an answer until tomorrrow, but will post it when I do.

Thanks for checking. Yes, from what I read regarding the punishment for Civil Trespass, the property owner can only file suit for damages. (For example, if you trespassed onto a farm and left the gate open and all of the cows escaped, you might have to pay for all of the damages the property owner incurred. ) Criminal Trespass is another story and punishment can include jail time and, or, fines. There are different degrees of the crime depending on where you were on the property (eg-inside a home), whether the homeowner or rentor was present at the time, whether you were carrying a deadly weapon, etc.

Vagrant,

It appears that the dark blue beaches on your image should be 'PUBLIC". Is that correct? I've labeled them "No Problem?" from the Walton County GSR. Notice how the property lines stop at the dunes.

It's correct that the property lines stop somewhere near or on the dunes. But it's not correct to assume because of this that the rest of the property is public. This has been "discussed" in the past. Even Brad Pickel (ex-Walton County TDC employee) stated that the beach to the east of the 83 access is public but nobody ever showed me the deed stating the county had public rights to use that beach.

Of course some people told me how to look up a deed and all...but still no proof from anyone. I've learned not to accept ANYTHING verbally that the county says when it comes to something as critical as this. That is why I stated the east end of the map will spark some debate.

Why doesn't the state just use a little eminent domain, and take the beach back for the public for these few PROBLEM properties? Back to the vegetation line?

Fair question. Florida has passed a law to restrict the use of eminent domain for purposes such as this, I believe. This is not a utility easement or a road. This is the beach and is used mainly for recreational purposes. The use of a beach by the public would not justify the use of eminent domain. However I'm open to any other opinions.

Vagrant,

It appears that the dark blue beaches on your image should be 'PUBLIC". Is that correct? I've labeled them "No Problem?" from the Walton County GSR. Notice how the property lines stop at the dunes.

You are correct that the properties to the east of the 83 access do not own to the MHWM. Those properties are defined otherwise on the plat.