Led away in Handcuffs

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.

Don't go pulling that one again, BMBV. The plat doesn't note a dedication of the beach as "public," because they did not have ownership of the "beach" to dedicate it. What you are asking is similar to me asking you to prove the existence of zebra-striped Elephants. I will note that the you have never shown me a deed which proved the sandy part of that particular beach to be privately owned. ;-)

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.

I don't think that the State should be "taking" the sandy beach, which the public may already have the right to use.

I don't recall the State passing any such law restricting the use of eminent domain for purposes such as this. I believe the State restricted eminent domain when the land was being redistributed to private development, not public use.

Don't go pulling that one again, BMBV. The plat doesn't note a dedication of the beach as "public," because they did not have ownership of the "beach" to dedicate it. What you are asking is similar to me asking you to prove the existence of zebra-striped Elephants. I will note that the you have never shown me a deed which proved the sandy part of that particular beach to be privately owned. ;-)

SJ, simply put, I have never seen the deed to the sandy part of the beach in discussion here that states the county has any rights to it. That's all. I believe the property was owned ALL the way to the MHWL before the subdivision was platted (easily accessable online as we already know).

You can fill in the blanks anyway you choose. You choose to make that part public. It doesn't make it legal without proof.

Logic follows until it's "proven" private, I guess BMB to the east is public!!!??!!?? Let the crowds arrive. To hell with BMBV's map!! Call Surfrider and tell them the good news! WE GOT BEACH! 18 more miles to go.

Time for bed....gettin' cranky.

SJ, simply put, I have never seen the deed to the sandy part of the beach in discussion here that states the county has any rights to it. That's all. I believe the property was owned ALL the way to the MHWL before the subdivision was platted (easily accessable online as we already know).

You can fill in the blanks anyway you choose. You choose to make that part public. It doesn't make it legal without proof.

If prior to the platting of the sub-division, that sandy part of the beach was privately owned, it would be in a deed, which you have yet to produce. You know where the deeds are found, so get to work.

I believe the burden of proof for private ownership are the deeds. Without having a deeded title to the land, it would be public.

Here are a few of the comments the public made in the "Spout Off" section of the Northwest Florida Daily News.

This is in reference to beach access and beach ownership. I was wounded in three different wars. If I am building sandcastles with my granddaughter on the beach, you beach owners better stay away from me, because I am prepared to go down in flames over this issue.
? ? ?
As a 30-year resident of this area, nothing makes my blood boil more than to read that a few folks think they own the beaches. Give them 20 or so feet behind their house to call their own, then leave the rest as Mother Nature intended it ? free and open access to all.
? ? ?
The squabble over private and public beaches is amazing. If the county officials allow any future restoration of the private beaches, then they should be sued personally for using public funds to improve private property, and then they should be voted out of office.
? ? ?
If you want to use beachfront property, buy your own or use the public access beaches, which are plentiful. You do not have a right to use somebody else?s property for your enjoyment.
? ? ?
We have sufficient law enforcement resources to arrest people who stray onto private property at the beach and to make sure people follow the rules of fishing. So why aren?t there enough resources available to deal with the illegal-alien crisis we have?

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.

Since you brought it up, I went to the TDC website and it looks like the project has entered the permitting process so this may end up being the fastest solution.

http://www.protectwaltoncountybeaches.com/Future_Initiatives.asp

You're welcome and your comment is much appreciated.

So what happens when/if a big storm, or several big storms remove all of the
TDC-added sand from the beach? Will we be back at square one?

Smiling Joe,

You will love this answer I got from an attorney regarding the difference between civil & criminal trespassing. Frankly, it is scary.

In Florida, the deputy makes the choice whether it is criminal or
civil.

If you are a jerk to the deputy, he can choose to charge you with criminal
because he wants to and he can take you to jail And if you are not a jerk, he can charge you with civil where you have to make a court appearence. If you are extremely nice to the deputy, he may let you off with a warning.

Basically it depends on what kind of day the deputy is having.
But, in a civil matter, if any part of the property was damaged, the owner
can take the person to court. If it is a criminal, then the state
attorney (or what ever he is called) handles prosecution so they may serve
jail time, but there will be no moneys recovered if there is damage to the
property unless the "damaged party" files a separate civil suit.

So what happens when/if a big storm, or several big storms remove all of the
TDC-added sand from the beach? Will we be back at square one?

I don't think so, becaues you have to establish a ECL or Erosion Control Line. The basis for the court suit in Destin is whether it is legal to establish and ECL. The ECL is established through a survey on the current conditions. The property owner owns land to the ECL. Anything after that is owned by the state, public.

If the problem happens again, they will refer back to the ECL they established. ECL lines are not established unless there is a beach renourishment project, so right now, none exists unless the survey has been completed.

I don't think so, becaues you have to establish a ECL or Erosion Control Line. The basis for the court suit in Destin is whether it is legal to establish and ECL. The ECL is established through a survey on the current conditions. The property owner owns land to the ECL. Anything after that is owned by the state, public.

If the problem happens again, they will refer back to the ECL they established. ECL lines are not established unless there is a beach renourishment project, so right now, none exists unless the survey has been completed.

I believe I understand that which you are saying, but let's say that the ECL is established, the sand is pumped, the beach is extended 50ft. A powerful set of storms blow in, and remove all of the sand back to the ECL, the line where the original private property was deeded to. Now, the original deeded private property no longer has State beaches in front of it, so wouldn't we be back to where we are now with the legal battles of the public not being able to sit on the dry sand beach, which is landward of the ECL?

I believe I understand that which you are saying, but let's say that the ECL is established, the sand is pumped, the beach is extended 50ft. A powerful set of storms blow in, and remove all of the sand back to the ECL, the line where the original private property was deeded to. Now, the original deeded private property no longer has State beaches in front of it, so wouldn't we be back to where we are now with the legal battles of the public not being able to sit on the dry sand beach, which is landward of the ECL?

Yes, that is true but typically FEMA and the State step in to help restore the beach to the pre-storm condition.

BMBV, I am not yet conversant enough with replies to posts, to use the "Quote with reply" feature of this site to point out the paragraph in your answer but I can assure you my position on public vs. private as far as beaches are concerned, will not change in the near future. You know where I live and I do not know where you are located, but it seems obvious it is close to a public access, possibly the one at Hwy 83. I understand your frustration with public use but it goes with the territory. It is obviously worse than when you and I bought. You don't sit and look at the beach 24 hours a day, however, so I can't understand someone else enjoying it while you're not. What does bug me is easements granted to non beach owners like Redfish Village. The Commissioners sure blew that one, in my opinion.

OK, let me ask a simple question that I don't think has been answered. Duchess and others have said that the public can be anywhere on the beach as long as you are at the MHWM or south thereof. Duchess even said that the Sheriff's Deputy stated this. Where does the Sheriff's Deputy say the MHWM is?

There is no way to get the real MHWM without a survey, so what are they enforcing? I'll be there in a couple of weeks and would like to know.

I believe I understand that which you are saying, but let's say that the ECL is established, the sand is pumped, the beach is extended 50ft. A powerful set of storms blow in, and remove all of the sand back to the ECL, the line where the original private property was deeded to. Now, the original deeded private property no longer has State beaches in front of it, so wouldn't we be back to where we are now with the legal battles of the public not being able to sit on the dry sand beach, which is landward of the ECL?

SJ, I too have wrestled with this as one of the "cons" of beach renourishment. And yours is a most excellent question.

Let's assume the county gets past the Supreme Court "hurdle" and renourishment takes place.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to see your concerns.

After renourishment, the public will be able to use the beach south of this ECL line. Let's say life goes on for a few years without hurricanes or big storms. "Most" everyone is happy! Right?

Now, as you suggest, a storm wipes away most or all of the sand south of the ECL line. Now the public, who has paid significant amounts of money to come down to the beach on vacation or buyers of homes with their private accesses to "nowhere", ALL OF A SUDDEN find themselves not being able to get to many areas of the beach because there is no "public beach" left (south of the ECL).

Just like the debate that takes place on this thread, many will feel like they will still be "entitled" to the beach regardless of where the "ECL" line is. Gulf front private property owners will know and react otherwise.

Unless there is a mechanism in place to address this, all hell is going to break loose when this event happens (not if but when).

Of course the beach can get renourished again and again, but this takes a lot of time and a lot of money. So during the interim after a major storm, there will be confrontations that will dwarf anything we're seeing today because of the continued growth and increasing pressure on the beach as a resource.

A possible solution would be for the county to enter into a "short term" license agreement with property owners. With an investment of 40 to 60 million dollars, to keep tourism going, then not to have a COMPLETE "recovery plan" in place regarding the above issue would be disastrous.

I believe I understand that which you are saying, but let's say that the ECL is established, the sand is pumped, the beach is extended 50ft. A powerful set of storms blow in, and remove all of the sand back to the ECL, the line where the original private property was deeded to. Now, the original deeded private property no longer has State beaches in front of it, so wouldn't we be back to where we are now with the legal battles of the public not being able to sit on the dry sand beach, which is landward of the ECL?

Yes, I believe so, but am waiting on conformation on that.

Good gravy!

Wanting the TDC to pay property owners so folks can use the beach! How selfish and moneygrubbing can one get. Why is sharing and showing a little common courtesy such a hard idea to grasp!

It's a beach in a major vacation destination that keeps advertising and building more and more units! You are not going to have a vacant stretch of sand completely at your disposal. People will come, crowding will occur (oddly enough increasing at the same rate that you build). Check out the French Riviera, Capri, the Amalfi Coast, Waikiki..........DESTIN.

In the event of a major storm wiping out most of the beach, most beach accesses will also be wiped out, causing a whole new set of issues.

BMBV, I am not yet conversant enough with replies to posts, to use the "Quote with reply" feature of this site to point out the paragraph in your answer but I can assure you my position on public vs. private as far as beaches are concerned, will not change in the near future. You know where I live and I do not know where you are located, but it seems obvious it is close to a public access, possibly the one at Hwy 83. I understand your frustration with public use but it goes with the territory. It is obviously worse than when you and I bought. You don't sit and look at the beach 24 hours a day, however, so I can't understand someone else enjoying it while you're not. What does bug me is easements granted to non beach owners like Redfish Village. The Commissioners sure blew that one, in my opinion.

Andy, just click the Quote button from within the post that you want to "reply" to.

I really do understand your opinion and you have a full right to it. I'm not trying to poke holes it but rather illuminate the differences with your particular gulf front property location vs. others. Things certainly are not "equal" in this regard.

You're correct I don't live or stare at the beach all day long, neither do the people at the Retreat, neither do the people at the Inn at BMB, etc. But this should not enter in to the discussion here, in my opinion. I know you will disagree and that's OK. Regardless of my opinion on this and your opinion on this, the majority of gulf front owners will fight for their property rights. Trying to find solutions is what we should be debating.

Since you mentioned Redfish Village, if you feel like one should allow others to use their private property when its not being used, why didn't Redfish Village simply open up their private access to the public? They deeded a public easement ON the beach but there is no legal way to get to it without walking on wet sand.

What's even worse, is the county could "potentially" repeat the Redfish Village on the lot next door to RFV. How about potentially another 500 or more people poured into the same area? There really is no limit as long as they are "bussed" in so it seems.

I and my neighbors obviously have serious motivations to protect our properties regarding public access. The county won't.

Not to muddy the water and get into the seawall debate, but what happens when a hurricane comes and takes ALL the sand up to a seawall (if it survives the storm?) Basically there will be water up to the wall and NO beach. I belive this is exactly what will happen in Seagrove from just west of Doodle Harris's house all the way to Seagrove Villas. Can we walk on the edge of the wall to get down the beach?

I believe I understand that which you are saying, but let's say that the ECL is established, the sand is pumped, the beach is extended 50ft. A powerful set of storms blow in, and remove all of the sand back to the ECL, the line where the original private property was deeded to. Now, the original deeded private property no longer has State beaches in front of it, so wouldn't we be back to where we are now with the legal battles of the public not being able to sit on the dry sand beach, which is landward of the ECL?

Yes, that is true but typically FEMA and the State step in to help restore the beach to the pre-storm condition.

If FEMA and the State step in to continuing renourishment, are new permits required, will the County have to add funding? That seems like it would be very, very costly. What happens during the time period between when the sand is washed back to sea, and the time when the sand is replaced? Couldn't that take years?

It's a beach in a major vacation destination that keeps advertising and building more and more units!

Exactly. And the TDC, which does the advertising and taxes the tourists to pay for it, is now directing those tourists to the six regional beach accesses while using other tourist tax dollars to maintain "public" beach accesses that lead to private beaches, and telling those same tourists that they may be asked to leave. Even when they happen to be located within walking distance of one of the public accesses their taxes fund, now they have to fire up a car and add to the traffic to get to one of the regional beaches. Does anyone else think this is a little strange? :scratch:
I think the current TDC policy as indicated in their recent FAQ's will produce one of these:

OK, let me ask a simple question that I don't think has been answered. Duchess and others have said that the public can be anywhere on the beach as long as you are at the MHWM or south thereof. Duchess even said that the Sheriff's Deputy stated this. Where does the Sheriff's Deputy say the MHWM is?

There is no way to get the real MHWM without a survey, so what are they enforcing? I'll be there in a couple of weeks and would like to know.

Good question, and that is why I would be asking the person accusing me of trespassing, to show me the survey and corner markers, even though the prescriptive easement should outweigh that in a Court of Law.

Not to muddy the water and get into the seawall debate, but what happens when a hurricane comes and takes ALL the sand up to a seawall (if it survives the storm?) Basically there will be water up to the wall and NO beach. I belive this is exactly what will happen in Seagrove from just west of Doodle Harris's house all the way to Seagrove Villas. Can we walk on the edge of the wall to get down the beach?

The answer to your question is, in some cases where the seawalls were erected on the beach, rather than the owner's property, such as the case with some of the homes on Montgomery St, yes, you could walk along the wall since it is on public property.

Exactly. And the TDC, which does the advertising and taxes the tourists to pay for it, is now directing those tourists to the six regional beach accesses while using other tourist tax dollars to maintain "public" beach accesses that lead to private beaches, and telling those same tourists that they may be asked to leave. Even when they happen to be located within walking distance of one of the public accesses their taxes fund, now they have to fire up a car and add to the traffic to get to one of the regional beaches. Does anyone else think this is a little strange? :scratch:
I think the current TDC policy as indicated in their recent FAQ's will produce one of these:

I think its important to point out that these are not the TDC's policies. The TDC is a County department in which the County Commission sets the policies. The FAQ, as I read it, is what the Sherrif's Department is doing. Check with the TDC but I am pretty sure that they are not SETTING any of these policies just trying to get the word out so that they don't get complaints about not getting the word out. It seems to me like the messenger is being shot.

As for the regional accesses, it makes sense to me that the TDC would want to tell people where they could go without being impacted by the Sherrif's policy.

If FEMA and the State step in to continuing renourishment, are new permits required, will the County have to add funding? That seems like it would be very, very costly. What happens during the time period between when the sand is washed back to sea, and the time when the sand is replaced? Couldn't that take years?

1. No, but probably modifications to existing permits since they are valid for 10 years.
2. yes, based on previous hurricane season's it would be 12.5% Walton County
3. Most restored beaches in Florida that were impacted in the 2004 hurricane season were restored by the start of the 2005 season.