This morning as my wife and I were returing form a shoreline walk we saw county officials asking a couple of men to move their "set up" from infront of The Retreat at Blue Mountain Beach. About an hour later my wife saw him being led from the beach in handcuffs for tresspassing. One of the men was taking pictures... maybe we'll see them post them here.
I know from reading previous posts that this is a hot button issue but it seems that some want to enforce the "letter of the law". I saw where they were placed and it was close to the water line very near the boundry of the Inn at Blue Mountain. They seemed to minding their own business. As the sherriff left I happened to walk by them and heard "I think it was the right call... where the wet sand meets the dry".
I'm confused, the beachgoers were were set up outside of the posted signs. If the owners really want to keep people out can they fence in their beach? (not that I'd want to see that)
In the many years of coming to SoWal I've always been impressed with the civility of residents and tourists -- although I have heard some horror stories. We abolutely love it here and treat it as though we already live here. But I was very surprised that it seems the owners are calling the country for what seems such a small infraction -- seems like a waste.
This was the second day in a row that I saw county officials inforcing the private beach rule.
Is the pendulum swinging?
Replies
962
Beach Fanatic
I don't recall you using the term, renourish, but I have, just following most people who discuss the issues. I don't like confusing the matter more, but we need to be speaking intelligently on the matter, because it does make a distinct difference when talking about restoration vs nourishment.
I agree since FEMA only participates after restoration. Note that in the FAQ I linked to earlier there is a description and clarification under Implications that describes what I was trying to say in a better way. Here it is..
What is the difference between beach nourishment/renourishment/ restoration?
When a beach is initially restored through dredging and pumping sand onto the beach, it is called a beach restoration project. As the years progress the beach will be nourished (nourishment) with vegetation, sea oats, sand fencing, and most likely more sand. The term renourishment is not correct.
Edited
SoWal Expert
Going back to that earlier post from Jack S, maybe on another thread, is the so-called easement on the sandy dry beach in front of the public access, located between the Inn @ BMB and The Retreat, well defined with corner posts, so that we beach goers will all know exactly when we cross the "so-called" legal line? It seems that The Retreat thinks they know exactly where that line is located, and will have any trespassers arrested, even if sitting approximately on the line.
Beach Fanatic
And this is what I thought you were asking about- a restored beach, which is why I said that FEMA would probably participate. Thanks for jumping on the grammar bandwagon with me, but I didn't see the word "renourish" in anything I linked to, did you? If I ever get a chance to talk to higher ups, I will let them know. But then again, I heard you were running for County Commissioner.
You're right on your last post that answered me. I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about the current project.
So, now, I am getting confused. Our beach has never been restored to my knowledge. Even after Opal. But, everyone is calling it a renourishment project, but it is not. I suppose it is a restore / nourish project???
Beach Fanatic
I agree since FEMA only participates after restoration. Note that in the FAQ I linked to earlier there is a description and clarification under Implications that describes what I was trying to say in a better way. Here it is..
What is the difference between beach nourishment/renourishment/ restoration?
When a beach is initially restored through dredging and pumping sand onto the beach, it is called a beach restoration project. As the years progress the beach will be nourished (nourishment) with vegetation, sea oats, sand fencing, and most likely more sand. The term renourishment is not correct.
So we ARE killing two birds with one stone. After the sand was blown on the beach, people are coming back and planting sea oats and putting up sand fences. We are doing a restore / nourishment project together.
I am Soooooooo glad I am not a politician! I am sooooooo glad I don't work for the city or county. And I'll bet you are too!
Phew!
Beach Fanatic
You're right on your last post that answered me. I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about the current project.
So, now, I am getting confused. Our beach has never been restored to my knowledge. Even after Opal. But, everyone is calling it a renourishment project, but it is not. I suppose it is a restore / nourish project???
No problem on the earlier posts.
Yes, they are confusing you... We have a restoration project in western Walton County that has only recently been completed and thus it has not been nourished. Hopefully with no storms it will not become a nourishment project for many years (insert crossed fingers for good luck here). In the 30A area, we have never had a restoration project and thus no nourishments either. Based on the TDC website, it looks like the County has submitted for permits with hopes of a restoration project in late 2008 if everything goes well.
Beach Fanatic
So we ARE killing two birds with one stone. After the sand was blown on the beach, people are coming back and planting sea oats and putting up sand fences. We are doing a restore / nourishment project together.
I am Soooooooo glad I am not a politician! I am sooooooo glad I don't work for the city or county. And I'll bet you are too!
Phew!
See my last post, but typically nourishment events are subsequent activities in later years. The current sea oat planting is part of the original restoration. Hang in there and SJ and I will find you a post on our "cabinet."
SoWal Expert
See my last post, but typically nourishment events are subsequent activities in later years. The current sea oat planting is part of the original restoration. Hang in there and SJ and I will find you a post on our "cabinet."You mean we get to post in our new positions?
I'd be banned from Gov't in a heartbeat.Edited
Beach Fanatic
You mean we get to post in our new positions?
Me too!!
Beach Fanatic
I just received these figures. For Destin, the State of Florida paid 48.46% and the TDC 51.54%.
This is for the Destin / Okaloosa County portion of the restoration that just finished.
This is for the Destin / Okaloosa County portion of the restoration that just finished.
Beach Fanatic
It will be very interesting to see who kicks people off the beach at the access because there is platted "beach" on both sides, and the upland property lines stop at the top of the dune. I personally look forward to meeting the "owner" of the "beach."I do know for sure that the property immediately adjacent and to the west of the access is owned from Blue Mountain Road to the MHWL. They have not, to my knowledge, run anyone off. Everything's still cool. I understand your point though.
Beach Fanatic
I do know for sure that the property immediately adjacent and to the west of the access is owned from Blue Mountain Road to the MHWL. They have not, to my knowledge, run anyone off. Everything's still cool. I understand your point though.
I re-checked and you are correct the westerly owner does own to the MHW, sorry for any confusion.
Thanks for correcting me!One question though, have you heard of any owners of the beach to the east of the access?
Edited
SoWal Expert
I do know for sure that the property immediately adjacent and to the west of the access is owned from Blue Mountain Road to the MHWL. They have not, to my knowledge, run anyone off. Everything's still cool. I understand your point though.
BMBV, you know it is that dang WalCo Property Appraiser's map which is misleading, and I believe that is where BeachSi02 is getting his/her information regarding the property located, west and adjacent to the 83 access. As you are probably aware, the map is not drawn according to the deeds in some cases, and this case happens to be one of those which is inaccurate. The Deed is most likely to be correct, though I have seen incorrect deeds before, but I'm not doubting the case here.
I have not seen anyone running the public off the beach anywhere other than the three larger properties in BMB which were mentioned.
SoWal Expert
I re-checked and you are correct the westerly owner does own to the MHW, sorry for any confusion.There are no individual owners of the beach (dry sandy lower elevation) property located between 83 and Big Redfish Lake.
One question though, have you heard of any owners of the beach to the east of the access?
Beach Fanatic
Originally Posted by Dave Rauschkolb
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.
Dave, I thought you were out of here. Glad to see you back...BTW, nice pic in the Walton Sun.
For the benefit of everyone who didn't see the Walton Sun:
?The beaches are for all of us to enjoy. The edge of the bluff or the edge of the dunes should be the property line for beachfront homeowners. When you pay for beachfront you pay for the view and the risk of being washed away in a hurricane, you?re not paying for the beach behind you. Trying to own the beach is like trying to own the sky. ?The Beaches of South Walton? ? do we need to change the name?? ? Dave Rauschkolb,
Santa Rosa Beach
I just hope you don't start with the desert sand + water analogy stuff from G.G. (Bobby's buddy).
To answer your question, SJ is half right:
"yes, you could walk along the wall since it is on public property"
In your scenario, the MHWL would now (most likely) be at the wall. So yes, IMO you could walk along the wall that was on private property and not be trespassing.
What was the point in asking this question?
Beach Fanatic
BMBV:
You answered Dave's question, how about mine? Since you put together the very colorful map, I am guessing either you are a title agent or at least have an opinion on who owns it.
Who owns the beach east of the Blue Mtn big access?
You answered Dave's question, how about mine? Since you put together the very colorful map, I am guessing either you are a title agent or at least have an opinion on who owns it.
Who owns the beach east of the Blue Mtn big access?
SoWal Expert
Dave, I thought you were out of here. Glad to see you back...BTW, nice pic in the Walton Sun.many of those properties stop short (northward) of the MHWM. ;-)
For the benefit of everyone who didn't see the Walton Sun:
?The beaches are for all of us to enjoy. The edge of the bluff or the edge of the dunes should be the property line for beachfront homeowners. When you pay for beachfront you pay for the view and the risk of being washed away in a hurricane, you?re not paying for the beach behind you. Trying to own the beach is like trying to own the sky. ?The Beaches of South Walton? ? do we need to change the name?? ? Dave Rauschkolb,
Santa Rosa Beach
I just hope you don't start with the desert sand + water analogy stuff from G.G. (Bobby's buddy).
To answer your question, SJ is half right:
"yes, you could walk along the wall since it is on public property"
In your scenario, the MHWL would now (most likely) be at the wall. So yes, IMO you could walk along the wall that was on private property and not be trespassing.
What was the point in asking this question?
SoWal Expert
BMBV:
You answered Dave's question, how about mine? Since you put together the very colorful map, I am guessing either you are a title agent or at least have an opinion on who owns it.
Who owns the beach east of the Blue Mtn big access?
He is still looking for the deed of the previous seller to the developer of the existing sub-division. He says that the deed will prove the owner. Banned
YIPPIE
'If the ECL washes away, too, then the wet sand, dry sand rule would apply. Then, if the beach is to be renourished again, a new ECL line would have to be established."
As far as I know, unless something has changed, an ECL line is established once, permanently. It will never be created at a different location on that beach again. Once again, the land above the the MLWH can still be deeded to the upland owner, the ECL doesn't change the deed, but the land between the ECL line & the MHWL is now under public control, similar to an easement, which is similar control to the wet sand area
ECL's started in the 70's I think. As beaches get rebuilt nationally, the DEP establishes ECL lines
TDC funds generally pay for renourishment, only if public access is available, but sometime commissioners will spend TDC funds on beaches only residents can access, which is a miss-appropriation of public funds, but the ultimate decider on access is the commissioners.
Last I knew there were state fund available for renourishment, but public access is a major factor
Here on Hideway Beach, vertually no public access, the residents on the beach paid for their own sand. An ECL line was still established and they still ask for people to get off 'their beach'
Call DEP's Paden Woodruff 850-488-7708 on ECL and other beach questions. He's a wealth of information
All the best
'If the ECL washes away, too, then the wet sand, dry sand rule would apply. Then, if the beach is to be renourished again, a new ECL line would have to be established."
As far as I know, unless something has changed, an ECL line is established once, permanently. It will never be created at a different location on that beach again. Once again, the land above the the MLWH can still be deeded to the upland owner, the ECL doesn't change the deed, but the land between the ECL line & the MHWL is now under public control, similar to an easement, which is similar control to the wet sand area
ECL's started in the 70's I think. As beaches get rebuilt nationally, the DEP establishes ECL lines
TDC funds generally pay for renourishment, only if public access is available, but sometime commissioners will spend TDC funds on beaches only residents can access, which is a miss-appropriation of public funds, but the ultimate decider on access is the commissioners.
Last I knew there were state fund available for renourishment, but public access is a major factor
Here on Hideway Beach, vertually no public access, the residents on the beach paid for their own sand. An ECL line was still established and they still ask for people to get off 'their beach'
Call DEP's Paden Woodruff 850-488-7708 on ECL and other beach questions. He's a wealth of information
All the best
Beach Fanatic
BMBV:Sorry, I didn't mean to dodge you. The answer is..... I don't really know. Everyone else says the county does including the county (Brad Pickel).
You answered Dave's question, how about mine? Since you put together the very colorful map, I am guessing either you are a title agent or at least have an opinion on who owns it.
Who owns the beach east of the Blue Mtn big access?
Banned
A quick reference if it help and showing a simplified version of these lines see http://publicshore.com/special lines.htm
As always find a lawyer for these difficult land issues for help
As always find a lawyer for these difficult land issues for help
Beach Fanatic
many of those properties stop short (northward) of the MHWM. ;-)SJ, Even if many of those properties do stop short (northward) of the MHWM, it doesn't change my analysis.
The wall is either on public property / easement which of course would allow one to walk along it or the wall is on private property with the MHWL lapping up against it anyway and thus the public's right to walk along it.
After a little thought I think I see what you might be thinking. That is if someone owned property in front of you all the way to MHW line, then if a storm comes and basically negates the existence of their property and is now threatening your property, do current rules regarding that you can't own past the MHW line apply to you? The only logical answer is yes.
But I'm open for clarifications.
Beach Fanatic
Sorry, I didn't mean to dodge you. The answer is..... I don't really know. Everyone else says the county does including the county (Brad Pickel).
No worries, it was late in the day. But you marked it as private so that's why I asked you. I am not trying to read into your statements more then I should, so I am confused. Your map showed blue on those parcels and green on public. What information do you have that it is not public and thus would have you marked it as so. My point is you made the map so do you know something if not why would you expect that there would have platted public easements to private beaches? I am just trying to figure out your logic as it would make more sense to me for the developer to have intended those beaches to be public for sales purposes.
If I wanted to maximize profits, I would have the second, third and fourth row properties to have access to the beach, i.e. it would be publically accessible. This is what Cube McGee realized in Seagrove, Robert Davis in Seaside, St. Joe in Watercolor and Watersound, Leucadia in Rosemary Beach, EBSCO in Alys Beach, so I don't know why you would expect Blue Mtn. to be different. Or are you saying it is privately-owned and yet publically accessible. Once again, I would be curious as to who YOU believe made that distinction. Any insight on what you mapped is appreciated. Thanks in advance!
Edited
Beach Fanatic
.....TDC funds generally pay for renourishment, only if public access is available, but sometime commissioners will spend TDC funds on beaches only residents can access, which is a miss-appropriation of public funds, but the ultimate decider on access is the commissioners.
.....
So GG says "commissioners will spend TDC funds on beaches....."
and Kris Titus states,
?We are not part of the county,? said TDC Executive Director Kris Titus. ?We are fully funded by bed taxes. The TDC has the ability to drive on private beach; the health, safety, and welfare of the public is to have a clean beach.?
Can someone PLEASE try to explain in simple layman terms how TDC exists in relation to the County? Who has authority over whom?
Beach Fanatic
So GG says "commissioners will spend TDC funds on beaches....."
and Kris Titus states,
“We are not part of the county,” said TDC Executive Director Kris Titus. “We are fully funded by bed taxes. The TDC has the ability to drive on private beach; the health, safety, and welfare of the public is to have a clean beach.”
Can someone PLEASE try to explain in simple layman terms how TDC exists in relation to the County? Who has authority over whom?
The Titus quote is misleading in a small way. Her point was that the TDC is not funded by ad valoreum taxes an thus not "part of the county" funding process. However, the TDC IS a county agency and thus answers to the County Commission and their direction, just like the other departments. That being said, the TDC also has their own Tourist Development Council board which is advisory in nature on behalf of the tourism industry.
Edited
Beach Fanatic
BeachSiO2...the above says it all.
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.