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
got any pics?
coolest smiley ever...
I do what I can
SoWal Expert
People just don't know when to draw the line! Moving little kids building sandcastles is a new low! I am VERY sorry your vacation was ruined like that. As you can see by this thread, that guy who was harrassing you does NOT represent the views of the area.
I can understand people wanting to prevent what they view as their beach area from becoming overcrowded or overrun with obnoxious people..........I can't understand WHY they have to be complete and total arses about it and can't share.
This issue needs to be publicized and resolved ASAP before it destroys the area's reputation and adds more time to the real estate recovery time frame.
I can understand people wanting to prevent what they view as their beach area from becoming overcrowded or overrun with obnoxious people..........I can't understand WHY they have to be complete and total arses about it and can't share.
This issue needs to be publicized and resolved ASAP before it destroys the area's reputation and adds more time to the real estate recovery time frame.
Beach Fanatic
This issue needs to be publicized and resolved ASAP before it destroys the area's reputation and adds more time to the real estate recovery time frame.
You don't think this issue as a whole hasn't been publicized? It has where I am and has been for the last couple of years.
Beach Lover
There is a supreme court decision that customary use of the dry sand shall not be impeded!
When the property owners along the beach bought the property they should have known this.This is not a case of us trying to steal their property,but to engage in the enjoyment of the beach as recognized by the state and the court. These property owners are attempting to steal the publics legitimate use of the beach.
BMBW wrote; "I don't believe this a problem in Walton County. I also believe "beach access" from Surfrider's standpoint is defined as being able to get to the beach and ultimately the water seaward of the MHWL...does not necessarily include "access" to private property (i.e. dry sand) on the beach."
The access is to the dry sand area adjacent to the water as already decided in supreme court Tona- Rama and also in 2002 AG opinion.
This argument is whether selfish people can deprive the public of their longstanding rights!
On nourishment ;
BMBW wrote; "Beach restoration... why should the "public" pick up the tab for this? Well as Yippie correctly said, "If public money is used to renourish the beaches, then that part of the beach becomes public." A significant portion of the private beaches become public. You would think that a private property owner would be allowed to "pay" for their part of the beach nourishment and retain their property rights. But I don't believe this is the case. The answer to the question, why, is obvious."
BMBW I don't know how deep your pockets are but it is cheaper to buy beachfront than to nourish it! And you could not afford to do it alone! The beach needs nourishment because it is starved for sand. It is starved for sand because people put houses and condos on the sand source!
As for retaining property rights; Along with accretion The property holder accepts erosion!! Well seawalls pretty much ends that argument!
When the property owners along the beach bought the property they should have known this.This is not a case of us trying to steal their property,but to engage in the enjoyment of the beach as recognized by the state and the court. These property owners are attempting to steal the publics legitimate use of the beach.
BMBW wrote; "I don't believe this a problem in Walton County. I also believe "beach access" from Surfrider's standpoint is defined as being able to get to the beach and ultimately the water seaward of the MHWL...does not necessarily include "access" to private property (i.e. dry sand) on the beach."
The access is to the dry sand area adjacent to the water as already decided in supreme court Tona- Rama and also in 2002 AG opinion.
This argument is whether selfish people can deprive the public of their longstanding rights!
On nourishment ;
BMBW wrote; "Beach restoration... why should the "public" pick up the tab for this? Well as Yippie correctly said, "If public money is used to renourish the beaches, then that part of the beach becomes public." A significant portion of the private beaches become public. You would think that a private property owner would be allowed to "pay" for their part of the beach nourishment and retain their property rights. But I don't believe this is the case. The answer to the question, why, is obvious."
BMBW I don't know how deep your pockets are but it is cheaper to buy beachfront than to nourish it! And you could not afford to do it alone! The beach needs nourishment because it is starved for sand. It is starved for sand because people put houses and condos on the sand source!
As for retaining property rights; Along with accretion The property holder accepts erosion!! Well seawalls pretty much ends that argument!
Beach Comber
Darwin, I owned river property in Telluride and my property line went 1/2 way from my shore to the opposite shore. I did not own the water flowing across it(another fight entirely; water rights). I would never try to prevent boaters or fishers from being on/in the water. Is that actually happening? where?
I assume you did own the land under the river but not the water flowing over it. You probably could have made an issue of people standing on the river bed. There have been many legal battles over river access on the east coast. The legal battle I have been most involved with is access to the Chattooga and its tributaries in Georgia and North Carolina . Property owners have shot at canoers and strung cables across the Chattooga and many other rivers in an effort to scare people away. At the risk of starting a new tread on Mountain Folk, the Chattooga is the river "Deliverance" was filmed on and also a National Wild and Scenic River.
Its gotten a little crazy with some of the river access fights. Most east coast states have very old laws that state river bank property owners can not interfere or limit trade or transportation of navigatable water ways. To demonstrate a rivers navigatability people have loaded up wooden rafts with goats and bales of cotton and attempted to run rapids. Whitewater kayakers are now "navigating" over 100 foot water falls.
Beach Lover
Below mhwl is the sovereign property of the state of Florida for the people! In fact If the fellow arrested, was arrested at about 1030 am on 5 july when the high tide was at 1208....... then he was arrested on the states sovereign property!!!!!!! Also, if a deputy stated ,as said in another post, that the property owner owns into the water... he doesn't know the law! And you realize that using the wet sand as a guide would mean that you could only use the beach on an outgoing tide, and sovereign state property would be off limits to you otherwise!!!! I see lawsuits!
Beach Fanatic
Here is a t-shirt design guaranteed to be a big money maker in SOWAL..."Grandpa and Grandma went to the beach and all they brought me was this lousy arrest report!"
SoWal Expert
You don't think this issue as a whole hasn't been publicized? It has where I am and has been for the last couple of years.
I've lived at the beach for years and never knew about the issue until recently. While my ability to not see things directly in front of me is legendary, this latest escalation is definitely not business as usual.
I meant to convey that the issue of vacationers being arrested & harassed needs to be made clear to property owners/rental companies/anyone involved in tourism etc. An area that runs on tourist $$ needs this nipped in the bud pronto.
SoWal Expert
I'm feeling froggish, today. That cannot be good.
Beach Fanatic
So what has washed out here...Can the guard legally have you escorted from Retreat's beach or does the Fl Supreme Court decision forbid that now?...
Beach Fanatic
A question for anyone: Obviously, this law (murky as it might be) has been on the books for some time. Why are we all of a sudden seeing an epidemic of folks being run off beaches?
Does anyone know of any place this is happening regularly other than in front of the Retreat?
Does anyone know of any place this is happening regularly other than in front of the Retreat?
SoWal Expert
So what has washed out here...Can the guard legally have you escorted from Retreat's beach or does the Fl Supreme Court decision forbid that now?...In Tona-Rama, the FL Supreme Court stated that although the Court leaned toward the public use of the dry beach if the private property had been used by the public for many years without the property owner defending it, each case would need to be decided individually.
IMO, it sounds like if the Inn at Blue Mtn and The Retreat begin defending their property now, they are beginning to defend the property. I'm not sure how long they would have to defend their property from the public use, in order to re-claim it from the public use.
Beach Fanatic
If I look out in my backyard and see some kids fishin' off my boat dock I'm gonna 
and ask if they're 'catchin' anything?' As long as no one's destructing anything who cares.
'It's fun to share'. Maybe a night time 
or could write nice messages like that in the sand real big for early morning viewers from the retreat building. ;-)
and ask if they're 'catchin' anything?' As long as no one's destructing anything who cares. 'It's fun to share'. Maybe a night time or could write nice messages like that in the sand real big for early morning viewers from the retreat building. ;-)SoWal Expert
.Can the guard legally have you escorted from Retreat's beach
Good question. I don't know the answer, but the following opinion from the Florida Attorney General is interesting, and to me (non-lawyer), it reads as though the Sheriff's Office doesn't have the ability to remove people from the beach, unless the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare is at risk. What do you make of the following?
(Full opinion here)
"Generally, a municipality has civil and criminal jurisdiction over property within its corporate boundaries and may thus regulate and restrict certain activities reasonably calculated to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.[7] This municipal regulatory power is subject to the state's paramount power to regulate and control the use of its sovereign lands. To the extent that any regulation has been preempted by the state or is inconsistent with general law or with regulations adopted by the state, any attempted municipal regulation would be invalid.[8] Further, valid municipal regulations must be reasonable and nondiscriminatory, and they must tend to promote the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.[9]"
SoWal Expert
A question for anyone: Obviously, this law (murky as it might be) has been on the books for some time. Why are we all of a sudden seeing an epidemic of folks being run off beaches?
Does anyone know of any place this is happening regularly other than in front of the Retreat?
It is suddenly coming about, because of the recent defending of the beach, by property owners erecting private property signs and hiring security guards to run people off. Who knows why they suddenly began this? In addition to The Retreat doing this, the Inn at Blue Mtn is also reportedly "defending" their property. I've also heard of reports of the property owners near Stallworth erecting private property signs, this year.
Beach Fanatic
A question for anyone: Obviously, this law (murky as it might be) has been on the books for some time. Why are we all of a sudden seeing an epidemic of folks being run off beaches?
Does anyone know of any place this is happening regularly other than in front of the Retreat?
Yes, it has been happening for the last few years in Destin and the South Walton stretch from the county line east to Sandestin. And here it is the beach service people who are threatening people. They are down right rude to the tourist. In some instances behind some homes, the property owners came unglued at people who set up and didn't know any better. They have threatened and called the Sheriff, but in Okaloosa county no one has been arrested yet.
I have to say I am quite surprised that this is now becoming an issue when it actually has been a HUGE issue for the last few years.
On the other subject, during the beach renourishment, property owners actually laid down in front of the equipment to try to stop the progress. Deputy's were called and persuaded the people to move, however, as the project crossed into the Okaloosa County line, a deputy stood a 24 hour watch right east of the Crab Trap because some of the most vocal people were the owners in the first four houses west of the Crab Trap.
Up in Walton County at Sandtrap Road, the project just skipped that area because of a property owner. The other property owners are talking about suing the one who prevented it because now their homes are in jeopardy.
Apparently there are some deeds out there that state the property owners own property to the water and some into the water. These deeds. in my opinion, aren't even legal because they violate State Statues.
But, these people have instituted law suit after law suit, suing the city of Destin, etc. I really think they should be suing the realtor who sold them the property because, again in my opinion, if they represented the property ownership to the water, then they misrepresented the property.
Beach Fanatic
Up in Walton County at Sandtrap Road, the project just skipped that area because of a property owner. The other property owners are talking about suing the one who prevented it because now their homes are in jeopardy.
I know of the property owner you reference and even mentioned him in another thread. He is a former convict and obtained his house as a result of being a "sugar daddy" to a woman who died and left him the house. Guy is a complete A-hole. He has been running people off the beach in front of his house for years.
I hope those suing him win and he loses everything.
Beach Fanatic
I know of the property owner you reference and even mentioned him in another thread. He is a former convict and obtained his house as a result of being a "sugar daddy" to a woman who died and left him the house. Guy is a complete A-hole. He has been running people off the beach in front of his house for years.
I hope those suing him win and he loses everything.
Frankly, I don't understand why there are not several law suits of people suing these property owners.
I went to the Chamber of Commerce and ask them if they would initiate a class action suit against these people because they were putting every business at risk of going out of business if they prevented the beach renourishment. The Chamber was at first gun ho, but ultimately decided to form this stupid rally about the benefits of beach renourishment, as if we needed to know that.
Fortunately these individuals did not prevent the renourishment, but it is still in court and we are facing the possibility of giving these property owners the new beach and compensation, both.
SoWal Expert
The law is full of twists regarding this issue. Reading the FL Supreme Court case of Tona-Rama, IMO, it sounds as though the property owners do have rights to their land and the public does not. The Court states, in Tona-Rama (other cases may vary), that the public has the use of the beach, but not rights to the property(beach). The public cannot set up a vending station or build a seawall, etc. because they have no ownership of the private beach. In my non-legal opinion, I think it could be said that the state, county, nor TDC, have the "right" to nourish the beach, but the public may still be able to use the beach (dry) as they have for many years.
Now, if the property owners refuse to have their property nourished, it sounds as though they maintain the rights to the property. With those rights, also comes liability. Who knows what is likely to happen and who is likely to win cases if a hurricane funnels water and damage to the property owners who forgoe nourishment. It is likely that they will file suit against the State/County for nourishment to the neighboring properties which caused the funnel of damage to their non-nourished beach. If neighboring properties located behind the non-nourished properties become damaged due to the funnel-effect (my word), they will likely have a good case against the property owners who didn't accept the nourishment. They would likely go after the State/County as well. Nourishment and seawalls (similar cases will be likely) is a trainwreck which will happen with time.
Now, if the property owners refuse to have their property nourished, it sounds as though they maintain the rights to the property. With those rights, also comes liability. Who knows what is likely to happen and who is likely to win cases if a hurricane funnels water and damage to the property owners who forgoe nourishment. It is likely that they will file suit against the State/County for nourishment to the neighboring properties which caused the funnel of damage to their non-nourished beach. If neighboring properties located behind the non-nourished properties become damaged due to the funnel-effect (my word), they will likely have a good case against the property owners who didn't accept the nourishment. They would likely go after the State/County as well. Nourishment and seawalls (similar cases will be likely) is a trainwreck which will happen with time.
Beach Fanatic
Does anyone know the guy that got arrested and could you have him contact me?
Bobby J
850-865-7798
Bobby J
850-865-7798
Beach Fanatic
Some of you continually mention the Tona-Rama decision and to the credit of some, also mention that it (historic public use of the dry sand) has to be decided (proven) on a case by case basis.
It's not very clear to me what constitutes continual and uninterrupted use by the public. Is it once a year? Once a month? Once a day? Is it also defined as sitting or laying on the dry sand for 2 hours?...or 10 minutes?...or 10 seconds? What about simply walking through the dry sand?
What constitutes "interrupted" use? Running a person off once a year?...Once a week?...Calling the sheriff's department?
Is the "public" defined as over 100 different people or just 1 unique person per day? What happens if only a single neighbor has used that beach on any real occasion. Does the public then have a right?
What is the burden of proof that would be required in a court of law?
You guys can mention Tona-Rama until you're blue in the face. However, apparently the Deputy Sheriffs can and will arrest a trespasser. I believe they have been clearly advised of the "laws" by the county and state.
The OBVIOUS question is why a law suit has not already been filed (or has it?) if this Tona-Rama decision is so far reaching.
It's not very clear to me what constitutes continual and uninterrupted use by the public. Is it once a year? Once a month? Once a day? Is it also defined as sitting or laying on the dry sand for 2 hours?...or 10 minutes?...or 10 seconds? What about simply walking through the dry sand?
What constitutes "interrupted" use? Running a person off once a year?...Once a week?...Calling the sheriff's department?
Is the "public" defined as over 100 different people or just 1 unique person per day? What happens if only a single neighbor has used that beach on any real occasion. Does the public then have a right?
What is the burden of proof that would be required in a court of law?
You guys can mention Tona-Rama until you're blue in the face. However, apparently the Deputy Sheriffs can and will arrest a trespasser. I believe they have been clearly advised of the "laws" by the county and state.
The OBVIOUS question is why a law suit has not already been filed (or has it?) if this Tona-Rama decision is so far reaching.
Beach Fanatic
Now, if the property owners refuse to have their property nourished, it sounds as though they maintain the rights to the property. With those rights, also comes liability. Who knows what is likely to happen and who is likely to win cases if a hurricane funnels water and damage to the property owners who forgoe nourishment. It is likely that they will file suit against the State/County for nourishment to the neighboring properties which caused the funnel of damage to their non-nourished beach. If neighboring properties located behind the non-nourished properties become damaged due to the funnel-effect (my word), they will likely have a good case against the property owners who didn't accept the nourishment. They would likely go after the State/County as well. Nourishment and seawalls (similar cases will be likely) is a trainwreck which will happen with time.
I looked into this issue and it is quite interesting. I ask why don't they just skip the people's property who were protesting. The people planning the renourishment project gave me an interesting answer.
They said that because nature would take the new sand on to their property and the people would gain land through natural accretion, but with sand the public paid for.
I don't see how they could have any grounds to sue the county, city or state if they refused the sand while in full knowledge that the project would go around them.???
SoWal Expert
You guys can mention Tona-Rama until you're blue in the face. However, apparently the Deputy Sheriffs can and will arrest a trespasser. I believe they have been clearly advised of the "laws" by the county and state.The reports I've heard so far all seem to indicate that the deputies are not 100% clear on the issue either and that it varies depending on who is called in.
Either way, it is rapidly escalating.
Beach Fanatic
Below mhwl is the sovereign property of the state of Florida for the people! In fact If the fellow arrested, was arrested at about 1030 am on 5 july when the high tide was at 1208....... then he was arrested on the states sovereign property!!!!!!! Also, if a deputy stated ,as said in another post, that the property owner owns into the water... he doesn't know the law! And you realize that using the wet sand as a guide would mean that you could only use the beach on an outgoing tide, and sovereign state property would be off limits to you otherwise!!!! I see lawsuits!
Not neccesarily, as there could be a high tide that was above +0.74 ft NAVD 88 thus the owner WOULD own into the water on that day as they own to the MHW line established by connecting MHW elevations. Or the waves could be larger leading to more water running up onto the beach above same elevation leading to wet sand being private property. I think it would be extremely difficult for the owner or deputy to prove either one withought a lilcensed surveyor on the bech measuring at the exact moment that the complaint is made which is why wet sand is probably why the Attorney General's reccomendation. I hope the MHW location explanation isn't as confusing as the issue itself is!!
Beach Fanatic
You must not have lived here very long if you believe that...
Edited
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.