Led away in Handcuffs

[sunshine]

I finally made it through this thread - the good, the bad, the ugly and even the occasional funny. What I don't understand is how anyone, especially a full time resident or a rental property owner would not want all of the beaches to be public.

As a full time resident, my occupation (real estate) and my husband's (retail business) are both inextricably attached to visitors coming to our area. If the visitors have good experiences, they'll take advantage of the goods and sevices that my family offers. My neighbors include landscapers, shop owners, developers, carpenters, cooks and interior designers. Each of these families also rely (in varying degrees of course) upon our tourist industry, and I believe that most families living here have a similar reliance.

As a former rental property owner (not my cup of tea), I would be mortified if my well behaved guest was kicked off of any beach down here, and I would not count on their return.

If the visitors have a bad experience, they will go elsewhere next year. Plain and simple. If they leave, so will many of the amenities that all area residents, full time, part time, working and retired enjoy.

Studies abound showing that our visitors enjoy many things here (shopping, golf, fishing, etc.) in addition to the beach while they are here. But, it's the beach that gets them here.

IT"S ALL ABOUT THE BEACH AND THE BEACH SHOULD BE FOR ALL.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

We have all understood your position which has been repeated time and time again as well.

Yea, but I want the last word!!!

It has also been agreed that this may be looked at on a case by case basis and in past threads I have admitted to this. I have said it will get thrown out and be a huge waste of money. What I have studied tells me the law has been written very vague. Almost as if it could be interrupted anyway you like it to read. That is why I have said a good lawyer will eat it up.

Not "may" be looked at on a case by case basis, but must be. per the AG.
I'm a bit confused when you say "it will get thrown out..". What will be thrown out?

I also think you have avoided certain issues such as why would one want to say there beach was "private". Are you concerned about your property values? Are you the lone Saviour for property rights? I have openly stated my reason of why I feel the beaches should and are public.

Bobby, once more, the private beaches today are NOT public. Fact.

I would like to hear the real reason BMBV benefits from a so called "private" beach. I have stated my benefits for the public to have full access. Please address the answer from a personal point of view. I am looking for why "you" want such thing as a "private beach". I am trying to understand the other side of this issue. Thanks in advance.

Bobby, I'll skip the obvious constitutional concept of quiet enjoyment of private property "stuff".

If I decide to step out on the beach at 2:00 PM, I fully expect that I will have adequate room to set up the umbrella and chairs on my property without having to compete with the public for a "prime" spot about 10 to 20 feet from the water's edge. Otherwise I could easily find myself setting my chairs behind someone else's and not being able to see the water (on my property). The more crowded the beach becomes, the more problems that I will have to face regarding my own access to my own property.

Walton County is doing very little in controlling growth in our area. They certainly appear to have no regard to private property rights on the beach.

There certainly appears to be more than enough public beach areas "at this time" where everyone who really wants to go to the beach can get there. I do feel threatened by the county's attitudes. The approval of Redfish Village is an ABSOLUTE CASE IN POINT - no question.

Since we're still on a personal level, for your information, I have never asked anyone to leave our beach...and really would like to not have to do so in the future. But with uncontrolled growth, this more than likely will change.

Would this affect my property value? Bobby J, you're the trained professional expert here with years of experience. What do you think?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Question for sunshine:
Are your renters prevented from using the public beaches that are available?

 

[yippie]

Question for sunshine:
Are your renters prevented from using the public beaches that are available?

This is her quote "As a former rental property owner (not my cup of tea), I would be mortified if my well behaved guest was kicked off of any beach down here, and I would not count on their return."

 

[Smiling JOe]

I feel like getting arrested. Anyone want to bond me out?

 

[sunshine]

Question for sunshine:
Are your renters prevented from using the public beaches that are available?

As I mentioned, I no longer own a rental property. It wasn't for me. However, the home was on a street with a beach access. I don't know if the neighboring homes and condos consider the beach in front of their properties to be public or private. It seems kind of stupid (and environmentally WRONG) to have to drive to a public beach when there's a TDC maintained access a stroll away.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

This is her quote "As a former rental property owner (not my cup of tea), I would be mortified if my well behaved guest was kicked off of any beach down here, and I would not count on their return."

It still doesn't answer my simple question to sunshine of ....
"Are your renters prevented from using the public beaches that are available?"

 

[yippie]

It still doesn't answer my simple question to sunshine of ....
"Are your renters prevented from using the public beaches that are available?"

Since she is a former rental owner, if I were her, I would answer no. Because she no longer ownes rentals.

You should ask her "Were your renters prevented...." past tense.

I notice on several of your post, you don't read completely what you are commenting on, or you only see what you want to see.

 

[Andy A]

I'm all about civil disobedience. Go for it.

But when you consider the Retreat is one of the highest of the high-end developments, I'm guessing the law might respond a little quicker than they would if the same thing had happened in front of a small cinder block house on Blue Mountain Road. Fair? Nope. Reality? You betcha.

I'm not one of your 400 closest friends, in fact, I don't even know you but I'm certainly volunteering and I'm close enough to walk to the "Retreat".

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

As I mentioned, I no longer own a rental property. It wasn't for me. However, the home was on a street with a beach access. I don't know if the neighboring homes and condos consider the beach in front of their properties to be public or private. It seems kind of stupid (and environmentally WRONG) to have to drive to a public beach when there's a TDC maintained access a stroll away.

Our posts passed each other.

I agree whole heartedly with what you are saying about the drive vs. the walk. The problem obviously boils down to the county deeding public beach access without the public beach part. This is not a matter of personal opinion, it's the way it is at the moment.

Please allow me to rephrase my question (since yippie is our local grammar nazi) in order to address the issue:

IF you still owned your rental property, and IF the beach was private on each side of the "nearby" public access WOULD your renters have been prevented from getting to the beach in an area that is know to be public?