Led away in Handcuffs

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

From what I have read, I believe the case by case basis by the AG was meant for the HO not the beach goer.

Like the goat on the AFLAC commercial...
naah, naah, naaah

The "public" must prove (again, no easy task) that they have used the property for 20 years, etc., BEFORE they are allowed to use that private property. The private property owner already has private proprty property rights as evidenced in his deed. Therefore anyone trespassing and reported who doesn't leave the property will be arrested.

 

[Bobby J]

Like the goat on the AFLAC commercial...
naah, naah, naaah

The "public" must prove (again, no easy task) that they have used the property for 20 years, etc., BEFORE they are allowed to use that private property. The private property owner already has private proprty property rights as evidenced in his deed. Therefore anyone trespassing and reported who doesn't leave the property will be arrested.

Falsely arrested! If the police arrest him/her they are acting as agent for the HO.

 

[Bobby J]

I did not know there was goat on the AFLAC commercial? I thought it was a duck?

 

[Mango]

Like the goat on the AFLAC commercial...
naah, naah, naaah

The "public" must prove (again, no easy task) that they have used the property for 20 years, etc., BEFORE they are allowed to use that private property. The private property owner already has private proprty property rights as evidenced in his deed. Therefore anyone trespassing and reported who doesn't leave the property will be arrested.

Interested in where you are coming up with the public having to prove use for 20 years? Statute?? Where?

According to the Constitution of Florida written in 1885 and revised in 1968 under Article X Section 11- Sovereignty


SECTION 11. Sovereignty lands.--The title to lands under navigable waters, within the boundaries of the state, which have not been alienated, including beaches below mean high water lines, is held by the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, in trust for all the people. Sale of such lands may be authorized by law, but only when in the public interest. Private use of portions of such lands may be authorized by law, but only when not contrary to the public interest. History.--Am. H.J.R. 792, 1970; adopted 1970.

I am no lawyer, but I would venture a guess that a State Constitution would take precedence over any County regulation or jurisdiction.

 

[Bob]

All I'm saying is there's a lot of people that have deeds and titles for beachfront property that deeds their property to the mean high water line. The vast majority of those people were led to believe by SOMEONE when they completed their real estate transactions that that property was indeed (no pun intended) theirs. Bobby J and Smiling Joe claim that everyone knows that no one owns any of the beach - it's all public. So SOMEBODY'S been brokering a hell of a lot of transactions over and over again over a long period of time, knowing (in their heart of hearts) that what's being sold is a sham. I assume that the realtors in this community are knowledgeable about the local laws and practices.

Help me understand what it is I'm missing???

What you are missing is something no one can teach you. It's your attitude, and it's one prevelant with alpha type beachfront owners who look down from their dune-top residences at the great unwashed.

 

[Bobby J]

1st in '59 certainly doesn't need my help as myself and others have complimented the eloquence of his posts behind the scenes. He is spot on, IMO, about the real estate industry in general. It's a tough pill to swallow but none the less true, IMO.

Very easy when the RE market went to hell to point fingers at agents. When the beaches get crowded, point fingers at the agents. He may be spot on but pointing fingers at myself and SJ is out of line. He has no clue what we do or who we sell to. I sign my name on these boards as Bobby J and am wide open and as honest as my threads to my clients. Funny how these type of comments come from someone who would never disclose who they are.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Falsely arrested! If the police arrest him/her they are acting as agent for the HO.

Bobby, it is really simple. The sheriff can NOT simply "patrol" the beach on the owner's behalf and enforce the no trespassing law. The owner must call the sheriff and REPORT an incident of trespassing. Then the sheriff can remove the trespasser from the property.

That is what they mean when they say the sheriff can not "act on the owner's behalf. The sheriff cannot do on his own what the guy in one of SJ's photos was doing at the Inn at BMB, acting on behalf of the owner.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Interested in where you are coming up with the public having to prove use for 20 years? Statute?? Where?

According to the Constitution of Florida written in 1885 and revised in 1968 under Article X Section 11- Sovereignty


SECTION 11. Sovereignty lands.--The title to lands under navigable waters, within the boundaries of the state, which have not been alienated, including beaches below mean high water lines, is held by the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, in trust for all the people. Sale of such lands may be authorized by law, but only when in the public interest. Private use of portions of such lands may be authorized by law, but only when not contrary to the public interest. History.--Am. H.J.R. 792, 1970; adopted 1970.

I am no lawyer, but I would venture a guess that a State Constitution would take precedence over any County regulation or jurisdiction.

First regarding the 20 year comment:

"In Florida, the statute of limitations is seven years for adverse​

possession, while the statute of limitations for prescriptive easements is twenty years." See this and search for the above text.

Second regarding a quote above: "...including beaches below mean high water lines.."
I and nobody else is disputing this so why bring it up?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Very easy when the RE market went to hell to point fingers at agents. When the beaches get crowded, point fingers at the agents. He may be spot on but pointing fingers at myself and SJ is out of line. He has no clue what we do or who we sell to. I sign my name on these boards as Bobby J and am wide open and as honest as my threads to my clients. Funny how these type of comments come from someone who would never disclose who they are.

That is not why he is "pointing fingers". It's because there are agents out there who know full well that much of the beach is private even though there are "beach accesses" that lead to nowhere except approximately 5 to 10 feet of available beach surrounded by private beach.

You and SJ share the fact that you're agents. You and SJ continue to state your opinions against the current private property rights that all private property owners enjoy.

Then when someone gets arrested, you can't believe it. It must therefore be wrong. How can they be considered trespassers? How could one consider "you" (real estate agents) as complicit in this whole debacle?

Do "you" disclose this? I doubt it, exactly like 1st in '59 stated. Even you "joked" about future disclosuere requirements. Will "you" disclose this issue from now on? "You" could pretend ignorance in the past but not now, not with all the press going on.

What if the guy arrested was a person who bought a house across the street and had one of those "private accesses to nowhere" and thus assumed he had full "beach access". Are the parties involved going to get off because because it "depends on the meaning of the words beach access"?

Aren't real estate agents held to a higher standard? Isn't that why they study for the real estate exam? Isn't that why they initially report to a broker who "watches" over them before they can become a broker themselves? Isn't that why disclosure forms were created...to indicate to a perspective buyer anything that might be detrimental to their side of the deal? I would think a questionable beach access would be one of them.

BTW, in that light, would you consider Redfish's beach access questionable?

Which reminds me. I asked you, after you asked me, what would happen to the value of my property if the beach became public and I lost my current private property rights as you are the RE expert?


OK SJ, time to post the "beat the dead horse" pic again.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

What you are missing is something no one can teach you. It's your attitude, and it's one prevelant with alpha type beachfront owners who look down from their dune-top residences at the great unwashed.

At least you're consistent! From earlier this year you called me the same thing.
"As an oceanfront alpha-male, you, among all people, know it's all about money. Even the rule of law is tainted by money. You'll never know if envelopes went under the door late at night. Best thing to do is enjoy the beach as it is today, because it's only going to become more crowded."