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
The Walton sheriff's deputy we used to hang out with claimed that there was an actual template for what consitituted proper butt coverage for bathing suits that was in all their rules and regulations paperwork.
Beach Lover
The bike rack comment was just plain wrong... I love it!
Beach Lover
(4) The buttocks. Attire which is insufficient to comply with this requirement includes, but is not limited to, G-Strings, T-Backs,dental floss and thongs.
What exactly is the difference between these various types of butt covers?
I'll be on the beach tomorrow afternoon and want to make sure I use the correct terminology.
SoWal Expert
The Walton sheriff's deputy we used to hang out with claimed that there was an actual template for what consitituted proper butt coverage for bathing suits that was in all their rules and regulations paperwork.I wonder about the breast coverage, since it is defined in percentage of coverage, which will vary from person to person, depending on the size of the breasts.
Back to the handcuffs...
SoWal Expert
That is too funny! Guess you learn something every day! Apparently if I wish to remain a law abiding scooterbug I'd better start showing less skin while tanning! I'd love to see the template they use to determine if coverage is appropriate!
Beach Fanatic
"Hey, Retreat Homeowners- you will relax and share the beach or you will be forced to look at pasty white, hairy buttocks
speak for yourself timmy....
Beach Fanatic
The Walton sheriff's deputy we used to hang out with claimed that there was an actual template for what consitituted proper butt coverage for bathing suits that was in all their rules and regulations paperwork.
This is true, way back when the strip of sand that is now Rosemary Beach went by another name...
I have a wedding picture...someone wrote "NO MORE Q-BEACH!" on one of the windows of our truck.
Beach Fanatic
not so long ago...rosemary used to be totally nudy...i mean...that's what they say...um...not that i would know...um...i mean...you know what i mean...
Beach Fanatic
This is hysterical. (Not the original subject matter). See, I am sitting in the wet area of the beach!!! We should all go down to the Retreat with beach chairs and line the "wet sand" area and have a party!
hmmmm......can't remember
So many things to say here, and not a-one of them is at all appropriate...
Beach Fanatic
Q-beach, hmmm? Wonder what the Q was for?:scratch: 
Oh, BTW, thanks for sayin' the nice stuff about our beach place and also the grayt sense of community, rocket136.
I feel that way about this place too. 
That's just one more very simple reason why we all need to share the beach and watch out for it, a sense of community. 
Now butts of all colors, let's get to that retreat beach:leaving: :leaving: :leaving: :leaving: :leaving: 
and show off some 'million dollar' boo-tays for the home team. ;-) 
Oh, BTW, thanks for sayin' the nice stuff about our beach place and also the grayt sense of community, rocket136.
I feel that way about this place too. That's just one more very simple reason why we all need to share the beach and watch out for it, a sense of community. Now butts of all colors, let's get to that retreat beach:leaving: :leaving: :leaving: :leaving: :leaving: and show off some 'million dollar' boo-tays for the home team. ;-) 
Beach Fanatic
Surely they aren't enforcing this............or every plumber in the county would be locked up.
...just catching up on this BuzzzzY day on the board!!...SO MANY hysterically brilliant comments & observations that each deserve a big: :funn:!! but... couldn't let UncleTimmy's reference to the "NORDJ Man" go by without a big: :funn::funn:
Beach Fanatic
Q-beach, hmmm? Wonder what the Q was for?:scratch:
Oh, BTW, thanks for sayin' the nice stuff about our beach place and also the grayt sense of community, rocket136.
Perhaps a few more emoticons would enhance your point.
Beach ComberAuthor
You Guys are hilarious
Post the protest details and you just never know I may just make it.
Here's an idea they posted their signs why not make a sign of your own take a picture and post it here! I'm sure with all the wit it'll be a good one
Post the protest details and you just never know I may just make it.
Here's an idea they posted their signs why not make a sign of your own take a picture and post it here! I'm sure with all the wit it'll be a good one
Beach Fanatic
What happened to the emoticon eating popcorn????
SoWal Expert
Here's an idea they posted their signs why not make a sign of your own take a picture and post it here! I'm sure with all the wit it'll be a good one
Beach Comber
Ha!
Edited
SoWal Expert
Could someone tell me the best place to park and what obnoxious LEGAL things I could do? Me walking the beach in a non-thong swimsuit isn't exactly a political statement. I have a lovely beach across the street, but have a strong urge to visit this stretch of beach just because they are having a fit.:angry:
Beach Crab
I'm sorry - this is a long entry....
My family and I are the most recent victims of property owners threatening to call law inforcement to have individuals removed (like trash) from their property. Our incident occurred on 7/5/07 - near the public access walkway across from Pelayo Drive. We had started building sandcastles. We were in front of several homes - Jasmine Dune. We were basically straddling dry sand and wet sand. When we first arrived, the homeowners were not there. They came out later and put the top on their tent and started glaring at us. I actually was not out as early as the rest of my family. My family was building a castle to one side of the property owners tent - closer to the water, but a little further west of their tent. When I came out, my daughter got very excited and said she wanted to build a castle with me and started digging (straddling the dry and wet sand) more in front of the property owners tent. We're talking about kids here and she had no idea that the owners would take offense to her doing this. I hand set my towel down but was assessing the lay of the land and beginning to think I should suggest to her that we should move over the other way since folks were starting to populate their tent area so near us and we'd be blocking their view. Before I could really get any of this sorted out, a man stated that he was the owner of the property and he needed to ask that we move over. It all came to me then. I had noticed him strutting around, posturing and trying to figure out how to get the "trash" our from in front of his house. His attitude made me react in a less than compromising manner. So, I told him that it was my understanding that shoreline was not his property. He began to get more confrontational. My sister asked him to moderate his behaviour around her children - he was scaring them. He continued to hover over me and say things like - "You need to move that bottle of water and sunscreen.", "You know I can call the sheriff." and many other things. I finally told him that I planned to call the sheriff because he was frightening me and I felt his behavior should be observed by the authorities. I did call. The deputy came up and first spoke to the property owner for about 10 minutes far away from me. I walked up after the property owner left and asked if the deputy wanted to hear from me since I called him for two reasons. 1) was that I was frightned by the man's behaviour and 2) because I wanted clarification about the property issues. The deputy did not want to speak to me. He said he's talk to both of us at the same time to avoid having to speak twice. Final verdict: We were told to move by the sheriff. He said this man's property line is based on 20 years of the mean high tide line and that his property actually extended out in the ocean. We had a right to be on the wet sand only. So we tore down our kid's castles and moved on. Since then, our kid's have seen sheriff's trucks drive by and asked if they were coming to move us again.
Now that I've researched this some, I realise that a couple of things the duputy said were wrong and that a couple of things he said alluded to action we could take. From what I can tell the Tona-Rama ruling does apply here and that we have a right to be on the dry sand area there since it has historically been used by the public. But, if we are asked to leave (see judge's comments below) by the property owner, our only recourse would be to sue to prove that his property can be used by the public, consistent with the ways in which it has been used by them over the last 10 years. I know how this property has been used because I've been coming to the same house for 10 years and accessing that strecth of beach for those 10 years using the Public Access walkway. The deputy did say someting about a lawyer would have to decide it I wanted to question rights to traverse, etc. Someone's got to sue. I'm from Atlanta and not sure that I'll do it. I have several causes in my very backyard there that I'm very active in so it may not be feasable. We have written commissioners, board of tourism and many others. I did not speak to any of the members of that family after the deputy left. People like that will not change easily. They will need to be forced to by a court of law.
Bottom line is that people who build glass houses and people who build on the shores of barrier islands really don't own anything - mother nature will prove that to you every time.
Please let me know if you know of recent rulings that have changed the Tona-Rama ruling. I hate to see visitors treated this way. It has certainly put a damper on our stay. I do realize that living in a tourist town is very difficult and local's patience can be worn very thin. I will do my best not to let one man's bad behaviour clound my opinion of the other locals. We have so many good memories of this area and the people who have welcomed us! A sure way to make this better is to come to a clear understanding of these rights so that they don't have to be decided by deputies who certainly have better things to do.
Recent info adding to Tona-Rama:
http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/45605C3FD5AA4AD985256BC70052F5BD
Question Three
Your third question relates to the use of local law enforcement by private property owners to enforce trespass laws to curtail or discourage the public's right of customary use to the dry sand areas of the beach.
The City of Destin is authorized to regulate the dry sand portions of the beach within its jurisdictional boundaries under the terms discussed above. However, portions of this property are subject to private ownership and until a court establishes a "customary right of use" by the public in such real property, the fee owners thereof may make complaints of trespass to local law enforcement officers as they occur.
Pursuant to section 810.09(1)(a), Florida Statutes, "[a] person who, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters upon or remains in any property other than a structure or conveyance . . . [a]s to which notice against entering or remaining is given . . . commits the offense of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance.[19]
Section 810.09(2)(b), provides that:
"If the offender defies an order to leave, personally communicated to the offender by the owner of the premises or by an authorized person . . . the offender commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083."[20]
Thus, to commit a trespass, the offender must defy an order to leave that has been personally communicated to him by the owner of the premises or some other authorized person.
This office, in Attorney General's Opinion 90-08 considered whether on-duty police officers could be pre-authorized to act as the agents of a private landowner for the purpose of communicating to alleged trespassers an order to leave the private property pursuant to section 810.09(2)(b), Florida Statutes. The facts of that opinion involved the Jupiter Inlet Beach Club, Inc., which owned a parcel of land within the Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony. Access to the lands and the facilities located thereon was limited to members and guests of the private club. Representatives of the club proposed to authorize, in advance of any actual incident, all town police officers to act as the club's agent in ordering alleged offenders to leave the beach club's premises. This office rejected the proposal to authorize local law enforcement officers to be designated as the agents of private persons. As the opinion noted, the Florida Constitution prohibits the use of public funds for a private purpose.[21] The pre-authorization of on-duty law enforcement officers to act as agents of private landowners in warning individuals to leave private property appeared to this office to serve primarily a private, not public, purpose.
Thus, it is my opinion that 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 upon their property on a case-by-case basis. However, local law enforcement officers may not be pre-authorized to act as agents of private landowners for the purpose of communicating orders to their property on a case-by-case basis. However, local law enforcement officers may not be pre-authorized to act as agents of private landowners for the purpose of communicating orders to leave private property to alleged trespassers pursuant to section 810.09(2)(b), Florida Statutes.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Butterworth
Attorney General
RAB/tgh
My family and I are the most recent victims of property owners threatening to call law inforcement to have individuals removed (like trash) from their property. Our incident occurred on 7/5/07 - near the public access walkway across from Pelayo Drive. We had started building sandcastles. We were in front of several homes - Jasmine Dune. We were basically straddling dry sand and wet sand. When we first arrived, the homeowners were not there. They came out later and put the top on their tent and started glaring at us. I actually was not out as early as the rest of my family. My family was building a castle to one side of the property owners tent - closer to the water, but a little further west of their tent. When I came out, my daughter got very excited and said she wanted to build a castle with me and started digging (straddling the dry and wet sand) more in front of the property owners tent. We're talking about kids here and she had no idea that the owners would take offense to her doing this. I hand set my towel down but was assessing the lay of the land and beginning to think I should suggest to her that we should move over the other way since folks were starting to populate their tent area so near us and we'd be blocking their view. Before I could really get any of this sorted out, a man stated that he was the owner of the property and he needed to ask that we move over. It all came to me then. I had noticed him strutting around, posturing and trying to figure out how to get the "trash" our from in front of his house. His attitude made me react in a less than compromising manner. So, I told him that it was my understanding that shoreline was not his property. He began to get more confrontational. My sister asked him to moderate his behaviour around her children - he was scaring them. He continued to hover over me and say things like - "You need to move that bottle of water and sunscreen.", "You know I can call the sheriff." and many other things. I finally told him that I planned to call the sheriff because he was frightening me and I felt his behavior should be observed by the authorities. I did call. The deputy came up and first spoke to the property owner for about 10 minutes far away from me. I walked up after the property owner left and asked if the deputy wanted to hear from me since I called him for two reasons. 1) was that I was frightned by the man's behaviour and 2) because I wanted clarification about the property issues. The deputy did not want to speak to me. He said he's talk to both of us at the same time to avoid having to speak twice. Final verdict: We were told to move by the sheriff. He said this man's property line is based on 20 years of the mean high tide line and that his property actually extended out in the ocean. We had a right to be on the wet sand only. So we tore down our kid's castles and moved on. Since then, our kid's have seen sheriff's trucks drive by and asked if they were coming to move us again.
Now that I've researched this some, I realise that a couple of things the duputy said were wrong and that a couple of things he said alluded to action we could take. From what I can tell the Tona-Rama ruling does apply here and that we have a right to be on the dry sand area there since it has historically been used by the public. But, if we are asked to leave (see judge's comments below) by the property owner, our only recourse would be to sue to prove that his property can be used by the public, consistent with the ways in which it has been used by them over the last 10 years. I know how this property has been used because I've been coming to the same house for 10 years and accessing that strecth of beach for those 10 years using the Public Access walkway. The deputy did say someting about a lawyer would have to decide it I wanted to question rights to traverse, etc. Someone's got to sue. I'm from Atlanta and not sure that I'll do it. I have several causes in my very backyard there that I'm very active in so it may not be feasable. We have written commissioners, board of tourism and many others. I did not speak to any of the members of that family after the deputy left. People like that will not change easily. They will need to be forced to by a court of law.
Bottom line is that people who build glass houses and people who build on the shores of barrier islands really don't own anything - mother nature will prove that to you every time.
Please let me know if you know of recent rulings that have changed the Tona-Rama ruling. I hate to see visitors treated this way. It has certainly put a damper on our stay. I do realize that living in a tourist town is very difficult and local's patience can be worn very thin. I will do my best not to let one man's bad behaviour clound my opinion of the other locals. We have so many good memories of this area and the people who have welcomed us! A sure way to make this better is to come to a clear understanding of these rights so that they don't have to be decided by deputies who certainly have better things to do.
Recent info adding to Tona-Rama:
http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/45605C3FD5AA4AD985256BC70052F5BD
Question Three
Your third question relates to the use of local law enforcement by private property owners to enforce trespass laws to curtail or discourage the public's right of customary use to the dry sand areas of the beach.
The City of Destin is authorized to regulate the dry sand portions of the beach within its jurisdictional boundaries under the terms discussed above. However, portions of this property are subject to private ownership and until a court establishes a "customary right of use" by the public in such real property, the fee owners thereof may make complaints of trespass to local law enforcement officers as they occur.
Pursuant to section 810.09(1)(a), Florida Statutes, "[a] person who, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters upon or remains in any property other than a structure or conveyance . . . [a]s to which notice against entering or remaining is given . . . commits the offense of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance.[19]
Section 810.09(2)(b), provides that:
"If the offender defies an order to leave, personally communicated to the offender by the owner of the premises or by an authorized person . . . the offender commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083."[20]
Thus, to commit a trespass, the offender must defy an order to leave that has been personally communicated to him by the owner of the premises or some other authorized person.
This office, in Attorney General's Opinion 90-08 considered whether on-duty police officers could be pre-authorized to act as the agents of a private landowner for the purpose of communicating to alleged trespassers an order to leave the private property pursuant to section 810.09(2)(b), Florida Statutes. The facts of that opinion involved the Jupiter Inlet Beach Club, Inc., which owned a parcel of land within the Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony. Access to the lands and the facilities located thereon was limited to members and guests of the private club. Representatives of the club proposed to authorize, in advance of any actual incident, all town police officers to act as the club's agent in ordering alleged offenders to leave the beach club's premises. This office rejected the proposal to authorize local law enforcement officers to be designated as the agents of private persons. As the opinion noted, the Florida Constitution prohibits the use of public funds for a private purpose.[21] The pre-authorization of on-duty law enforcement officers to act as agents of private landowners in warning individuals to leave private property appeared to this office to serve primarily a private, not public, purpose.
Thus, it is my opinion that 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 upon their property on a case-by-case basis. However, local law enforcement officers may not be pre-authorized to act as agents of private landowners for the purpose of communicating orders to their property on a case-by-case basis. However, local law enforcement officers may not be pre-authorized to act as agents of private landowners for the purpose of communicating orders to leave private property to alleged trespassers pursuant to section 810.09(2)(b), Florida Statutes.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Butterworth
Attorney General
RAB/tgh
SoWal Expert
Are there any good lawyers out there who want to make National News defending me?
Beach Fanatic
Lola,
I am so sorry your family, and especially your children, were treated this way in Walton County. This is not the way it used to be for sure, and many of us are trying to do something positive to change this ever-growing situation.
I am glad that you wrote the TDC and the Commissioners. You might think of sending your letter to the local newspapers, television stations, and the Chamber of Commerce as well.
Those of us who live here and want to preserve the beach for the enjoyment of all, need all the help we can get to stop this insanity.
I am so sorry your family, and especially your children, were treated this way in Walton County. This is not the way it used to be for sure, and many of us are trying to do something positive to change this ever-growing situation.
I am glad that you wrote the TDC and the Commissioners. You might think of sending your letter to the local newspapers, television stations, and the Chamber of Commerce as well.
Those of us who live here and want to preserve the beach for the enjoyment of all, need all the help we can get to stop this insanity.
Beach Fanatic
Are there any good lawyers out there who want to make National News defending me?
SJ,
I am real close to making a go on this issue. We are working with attorneys and going to pop this one. Do you want in?
Beach Fanatic
That's too bad. It seems to be an epidemic. Lola, please be sure you inform the owner of the house you rented. Property owners near but not on the beach have a lot to lose, and there are many more of them than beachfront owners.
It's my understanding that Tona-Rama is not the definitive legal case and it remains to prove it up on a case by case basis, or for someone to bring a case that will settle this once and for all. Lola has figured this out, it looks like.
If every beachfront owner starts asserting their "property rights" all of a sudden, well, that would be interesting. The sheriff would be very busy.
Anybody hear what happened to the guy who got arrested???
It's my understanding that Tona-Rama is not the definitive legal case and it remains to prove it up on a case by case basis, or for someone to bring a case that will settle this once and for all. Lola has figured this out, it looks like.
If every beachfront owner starts asserting their "property rights" all of a sudden, well, that would be interesting. The sheriff would be very busy.
Anybody hear what happened to the guy who got arrested???
Beach Fanatic
Here is an interesting story that appeared in the Log. If you read it, it is obvious these "laws" are inforced or not inforced depending on what deputy shows up. Seeing that a deputy told these men they could only walk across the beach, but not stop, then the men called the Sheriff's office who confirmed they could use the 20 feet of dry sand, stop, fish, whatever..... Then you will see how insane some of the property owners are... read on...
Local News
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.
Local News
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.
Beach Lover
this happened to our friends, too
We used to own a lot in the Retreat. Still own a house off Redfish Circle
in Blue Mountain Beach. Our friends are using our place this week. Just
got a phone call saying they had been threatened by a rent-a-cop from
the Inn at Blue Mountain Beach. They were kicked off the beach after
the security guard wanted to call the cops. My friends were harassed
and this was even after they told the guy that we belong the the Blue
Mountain Beach Club, etc., etc. We've owned there since 2001. Ironically,
when we had a lot in the Retreat we were never able to use the pool and
the other amenities for which we paid handsomely. The pool had lots of
problems and was always being repaired. I myself often sit on the Retreat
side of the signs just as a quiet protest. I may have to rethink that. I
have spent the last half-hour on the phone with different people at the
Village of Blue Mountain beach and I was told that we were perfectly
in the clear using that stretch of beach. And also that anyone can use
any beach within 15 feet of the water. What a nightmare, and how
pissy of the security people at the Inn. I'm going down next weekend
and will certainly be raising Cain about this. My friends were very
intimidated and said the 'security' this week had been very tight; they're
just looking for ways to get the law involved. Glad I found this thread
and now know what has happened to others
We used to own a lot in the Retreat. Still own a house off Redfish Circle
in Blue Mountain Beach. Our friends are using our place this week. Just
got a phone call saying they had been threatened by a rent-a-cop from
the Inn at Blue Mountain Beach. They were kicked off the beach after
the security guard wanted to call the cops. My friends were harassed
and this was even after they told the guy that we belong the the Blue
Mountain Beach Club, etc., etc. We've owned there since 2001. Ironically,
when we had a lot in the Retreat we were never able to use the pool and
the other amenities for which we paid handsomely. The pool had lots of
problems and was always being repaired. I myself often sit on the Retreat
side of the signs just as a quiet protest. I may have to rethink that. I
have spent the last half-hour on the phone with different people at the
Village of Blue Mountain beach and I was told that we were perfectly
in the clear using that stretch of beach. And also that anyone can use
any beach within 15 feet of the water. What a nightmare, and how
pissy of the security people at the Inn. I'm going down next weekend
and will certainly be raising Cain about this. My friends were very
intimidated and said the 'security' this week had been very tight; they're
just looking for ways to get the law involved. Glad I found this thread
and now know what has happened to others
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.