Led away in Handcuffs

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Smiling Joe, Bobby J, Dave Rauschkolb and some of the others:

While it is admirable that you are standing up for the "common person", therein lies the dichotomy of your beliefs.

Without the laws and the associated enforcement, not even the "common person" would be safe from "popular opinion".

There are laws and we all live with them. Most are good and some are bad. Private property rights are a good thing. To erode these rights would be setting a precedence and threat to other constitutional rights that we ALL enjoy.

SJ, to talk about boycotting FedEx, parking a broken down truck load of cow manure in front of the Retreat, splitting hairs regarding the southern most "meandering" boundary at the Retreat and some other items really does nothing to further your "cause", only incite emotions with those that do not fully understand the total picture. I admit a lot of what you say is in jest...but the inference is there.

Bobby J, you talk up a good rally cry but you haven't addressed, at least what I believe to be, very pertinent issues as to what constitutes "public use".

Dave Rauschkolb, you jump in at the luxury of owning a very successful business that caters to the very same people that you now condemn. Many people simply just own property and are self-obligated to at least MAINTAIN the value of their private property. Most of us don't sell Mai Tai's to the masses down here. My wife wants to know if you would object to a bunch of us bringing our own beer and food and just hanging out at your establishment to enjoy the beautiful beach view? Seriously, you should recuse yourself from this debate as your livelyhood depends on the number of tourists that are "crammed" into South Walton.... the more, the better for you and your peers.

Some have mentioned Costa Rica, Bahamas and such and their superior property "rules". There are choices for all of us:
1. live with the idea of private property as the law requires
2. move to Costa Rica
3. (the best for last) buy out the beach front property and convert the sandy part to public; then the county could then resell the remaining property and structures, if any, back on the market where the net cost could actually be low...maybe even make a profit! - this is my solution and a viable one in my opinion). An alternative would be to simply purchase easement rights from gulf front owners. The entire beach doesn't have to be public, just enough to handle the tourist industry.

The supreme court may allow a fourth option after their decision regarding beach nourishment.

Complaining and moaning does nothing for solving the "problem". Possible solutions are what we need.

BTW, if all three of you guys go and get yourselves arrested, Dave will still have his business. Will you other two be able to keep your real estate license?

 

[JB]

At the risk of being the voice of reason, let me say "relax". While the situation at the Retreat is serious to those involved, it does not reflect what is happening on the vast majority of SoWal beaches.

I believe most gulf front owners are live and let live. Unfortunately though, as hotter heads prevail, gulf front owners will be forced to defend their positions and become exclusive. So again I say "relax".

Sage advice. What does concern me, however, is news will spread of the hard line approach being taken and all of a sudden, a light bulb goes off in the heads of individual gulf front property owners. Then we'll see an epidemic of people who are set up in front of individual residences being asked to move.

 

[John R]

Smiling Joe, Bobby J, Dave Rauschkolb and some of the others:

While it is admirable that you are standing up for the "common person", therein lies the dichotomy of your beliefs...

...Complaining and moaning does nothing for solving the "problem". Possible solutions are what we need.

BTW, if all three of you guys go and get yourselves arrested, Dave will still have his business. Will you other two be able to keep your real estate license?

Very well stated, BMBV, from the point of view of a beachfront owner. I believe if Dave gets arrested, his liquor license may be in jeopardy, at least when it next comes up for renewal.

But, at least there is talk being generated. The issue is hot and is being brought to a head. If there's no talk, then things are perceived as OK. Things are not OK if people are being hauled off the beach. As we all know, this will not be settled at the local level. we all know who Scott B works for. I agree that some of the off the cuff statements may be a little silly, but silence is not the answer., imo.

 

[scooterbug44]

I fail to see how wanting beach access to continue as it has for years devalues private property and leads to a constitutional armageddon.

Attacking locals who work their butts off, have a high cost of living just to be here to serve you, and give a great deal back to the community shows your total lack of understanding of this area and just what it takes to "serve you mai tais".

We're not riff-raff infringing on your property rights and driving down your property values with our mere presence, we're the locals who live here year round, build and rebuild this community, and keep the area functioning. Sorry if we'd like to take a stroll on YOUR beach after working a 10 hour day or sit on some dry sand on a day off.

Obviously some of the examples and suggestions made were ridonkulous - it's Sowal!

 

[yippie]

please e-mail me at reed66@earthlink.net I am one of the guys in court on a similar issue in Okaloosa county.

Here is the newspaper article involving Jay. As I read the story, my personal opinion is the lady is just a troublemaker. When you read the article, she lies about her participation in the lawsuit against the city. I believe Destiny Shores is right down in the same area as Destiny, an area where there are several beachfront owners suing the city over the renourishment. We have had nothing but trouble from this group of transplants. FYI - if she trys to appear in front of the city counsel again, they won't respond at all per advice from the city's attorney. It has been quite a show during city counsel sessions when this group gets up and insults everyone and everything and they only receive silence in return.

Anyway, Here's the article and Jay, best of luck to you. After you win this, I would sue them for harrassment!


Beach issues: Harassment? Public access?
By Fraser Sherman
June 24, 2007 1:15 AM
Destin beachfront resident Kathy Wright says allowing the public to walk across private beaches allows ?violent men? to threaten her family.
Wright and her husband, Mike, are now fighting in court to ban Jeffrey Reed and Bill Leech ? whom the Wrights say have trespassed on their property and intimidated their children ? from coming near their Gulf-front Destiny Shores home, claiming the two men trespassed on the Wright?s property and threatened their children.
Reed and Leech claim the Wrights are lying.
This week, Kathy Wright told Destin?s City Council that the two men had been on the brink of settling the court case until the city filed a brief in the case asserting the right of the public to walk and fish on private beaches up to 20 feet upland of the wet sand area.
?You gave these guys courage and confidence to go back to my property,? Wright told the council. ?If you don?t understand fear when your girls are in jeopardy, you don?t understand love.?
In an interview, Reed?s attorney, Glenn Swiatek, said Wright was wrong: Reed would never have accepted settlement terms that included staying 500 feet away from the entire Destiny Shores subdivision, even when out on the water.
About the only thing that isn?t in dispute is that everything began on April 21 when Reed and Leech set up fi shing poles behind the Wright?s house. Kathy Wright contacted an Okaloosa County sheriff?s deputy, who told the men that while they could walk across private beachfront, they couldn?t stop there.
The men subsequently contacted the sheriff?s office, which confi rmed that the city does allow beachgoers to walk, sit or fish up to 20 feet upland of the wet sand. The men resumed fi shing.
According to the Wrights, the men also threatened and harassed Kathy Wright and her children, and later returned and did so again. Swiatek, the attorney, said Reed and Leech never even saw the Wright?s children. In an e-mail on file at City Hall, Reed said Kathy Wright falsely claimed Reed had spent eight hours on the beach at the Wright property May 16 when his work records would prove he?d been on his job until 3 p.m.
Since then, the Wrights have fi led suit against the two men, and have received an initial restraining order against them. Kathy Wright told the City Council this week that the restraining order proves the suit has merit. Swiatek said issuing one in a case like this is routine, regardless of the merits.
On Monday, the Wrights told the City Council that the city had interfered with the case by fi ling its brief on the 20-foot rule.
?I was shocked and dismayed the city turned the safety of my family into a political issue,? Mike Wright said, ?to make a point about beach restoration. (You?re) opposing my wife?s efforts to protect my family.?
Wright said the city had been seduced into favoring tourists over residents, and that the issue was trespassing, not the 20-foot zone.
City Manager Greg Kisela said the Wright?s attorney had contacted the city with questions about the 20-foot rule, and the city had filed the brief to make the policy clear to the judge. Kisela said the brief hadn?t touched on the Wright?s allegations.
Councilor Dewey Destin said that even though the council would probably have supported fi ling the brief, Kisela should have obtained council approval before going ahead. The council voted unanimously that city attorneys should check with the council before making most court fi lings.
Councilor Cyron Marler asked if the Wrights were participants in a current lawsuit by beachfront owners opposed to the controversial beach restoration project under way in east Destin. Wright said he was not involved, but county court records list both Wrights as plaintiffs in the case as recently as May 7.
Mike Wright told the City Council that the merits of the 20-foot rule were irrelevant, since the court case ?is about bullying, it?s about harassment.?
In a letter to Mayor Craig Barker about the case last month, however, Kathy Wright said the city should abandon the 20-foot rule to protect her children.
?Authority has been given for violent and or sexual predators to sit within 50 feet of my children,? Wright wrote. ?If that rule is put in place, criminals will be able to sit on my back porch.?
Destin resident Bob Biel, a frequent critic of the lack of beach access in Destin, has also become involved, writing to City Hall in support of Leech and Reed and their right to use the beaches behind Destiny Shores.
The Wrights did not return The Log?s calls seeking comment for this article.

 

[Miss Kitty]

:scratch: ...so, two wrights do make a wrong.

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

My business has nothing to do with this commentary Mr. BMBV and your attempt at making the association is juvenile at best. Clearly from your inference your resent tourists and my creating a nice place to eat and drink for them and locals alike. And believe me, owning a restaurant is no Luxury.

I don't and haven't condemned anyone. I have just pointed out my view of the law that exists. It is my right to disagree with any law I wish and you don't need to give us a lesson in law. Sure property rights are important but not when they infringe on large numbers of people who deserve to enjoy the beach as much as you or I. My last post reinforced my concern that this "law" could be expanded from it's existing "mean high tide water mark." And property rights or not there are a lot of people who will work very diligently to stop this nonsense or at least keep it at bay.

This is my last post regarding this. Have a nice day.

Smiling Joe, Bobby J, Dave Rauschkolb and some of the others:

While it is admirable that you are standing up for the "common person", therein lies the dichotomy of your beliefs.

Without the laws and the associated enforcement, not even the "common person" would be safe from "popular opinion".

There are laws and we all live with them. Most are good and some are bad. Private property rights are a good thing. To erode these rights would be setting a precedence and threat to other constitutional rights that we ALL enjoy.

SJ, to talk about boycotting FedEx, parking a broken down truck load of cow manure in front of the Retreat, splitting hairs regarding the southern most "meandering" boundary at the Retreat and some other items really does nothing to further your "cause", only incite emotions with those that do not fully understand the total picture. I admit a lot of what you say is in jest...but the inference is there.

Bobby J, you talk up a good rally cry but you haven't addressed, at least what I believe to be, very pertinent issues as to what constitutes "public use".

Dave Rauschkolb, you jump in at the luxury of owning a very successful business that caters to the very same people that you now condemn. Many people simply just own property and are self-obligated to at least MAINTAIN the value of their private property. Most of us don't sell Mai Tai's to the masses down here. My wife wants to know if you would object to a bunch of us bringing our own beer and food and just hanging out at your establishment to enjoy the beautiful beach view? Seriously, you should recuse yourself from this debate as your livelyhood depends on the number of tourists that are "crammed" into South Walton.... the more, the better for you and your peers.

Some have mentioned Costa Rica, Bahamas and such and their superior property "rules". There are choices for all of us:
1. live with the idea of private property as the law requires
2. move to Costa Rica
3. (the best for last) buy out the beach front property and convert the sandy part to public; then the county could then resell the remaining property and structures, if any, back on the market where the net cost could actually be low...maybe even make a profit! - this is my solution and a viable one in my opinion). An alternative would be to simply purchase easement rights from gulf front owners. The entire beach doesn't have to be public, just enough to handle the tourist industry.

The supreme court may allow a fourth option after their decision regarding beach nourishment.

Complaining and moaning does nothing for solving the "problem". Possible solutions are what we need.

BTW, if all three of you guys go and get yourselves arrested, Dave will still have his business. Will you other two be able to keep your real estate license?

 

[yippie]

Smiling Joe, Bobby J, Dave Rauschkolb and some of the others:

While it is admirable that you are standing up for the "common person", therein lies the dichotomy of your beliefs.

Without the laws and the associated enforcement, not even the "common person" would be safe from "popular opinion".

There are laws and we all live with them. Most are good and some are bad. Private property rights are a good thing. To erode these rights would be setting a precedence and threat to other constitutional rights that we ALL enjoy.

SJ, to talk about boycotting FedEx, parking a broken down truck load of cow manure in front of the Retreat, splitting hairs regarding the southern most "meandering" boundary at the Retreat and some other items really does nothing to further your "cause", only incite emotions with those that do not fully understand the total picture. I admit a lot of what you say is in jest...but the inference is there.

Bobby J, you talk up a good rally cry but you haven't addressed, at least what I believe to be, very pertinent issues as to what constitutes "public use".

Dave Rauschkolb, you jump in at the luxury of owning a very successful business that caters to the very same people that you now condemn. Many people simply just own property and are self-obligated to at least MAINTAIN the value of their private property. Most of us don't sell Mai Tai's to the masses down here. My wife wants to know if you would object to a bunch of us bringing our own beer and food and just hanging out at your establishment to enjoy the beautiful beach view? Seriously, you should recuse yourself from this debate as your livelyhood depends on the number of tourists that are "crammed" into South Walton.... the more, the better for you and your peers.

Some have mentioned Costa Rica, Bahamas and such and their superior property "rules". There are choices for all of us:
1. live with the idea of private property as the law requires
2. move to Costa Rica
3. (the best for last) buy out the beach front property and convert the sandy part to public; then the county could then resell the remaining property and structures, if any, back on the market where the net cost could actually be low...maybe even make a profit! - this is my solution and a viable one in my opinion). An alternative would be to simply purchase easement rights from gulf front owners. The entire beach doesn't have to be public, just enough to handle the tourist industry.

The supreme court may allow a fourth option after their decision regarding beach nourishment.

Complaining and moaning does nothing for solving the "problem". Possible solutions are what we need.

BTW, if all three of you guys go and get yourselves arrested, Dave will still have his business. Will you other two be able to keep your real estate license?

BMBV - Why do you always take this demeaning tone when you post. It is obvious you have some type of personal vindetta against some people, but this attitude is just the thing that makes me ill. And it is this type of attitude that, in my opinion, is raping this area of it's quality of life.

I suppose you are referring anyone who doesn't own beachfront property "common people"?. Or is it the people who work you are calling common people? Well, I hate to tell you, but you, my dear, are also common people. You may have made your money and have retired (being a "common person" while you worked for it), yet your wife works. Is she considered common people too?

I don't understand why you think of yourself more superior than others, because people are just people.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

preventing someone from parking in your driveway and preventing someone from accessing your "private" beach are not the same thing. Your driveway is a finite and specialized space. Someone else parking in it curtails your activities. The beach stretches for miles w/ only minor variations and someone sitting on one patch of sand does not prevent someone else from using another nearby patch.

TDC better get a clue!

Take a look at Blue Mountain Beach last week. Still believe your statement?

 

[yippie]

Take a look at Blue Mountain Beach last week. Still believe your statement?

Fourth of July weekend is the buisest weekend of the year. There wasn't a beach in Florida that looked any different. Leave it to you to post that photo and expect ANYONE to believe it is like that all the time. If you can' take a few holiday weekends of the year, then you are living in the wrong place. Maybe a place that doesn't cater to tourism would be better for you.