Led away in Handcuffs

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.???

I wonder if the accretion on the non-nourished beach, by the nourished beach project, adjacent to the property, could be considered as being public, since it was paid for by public funding.

I'm no lawyer, though it seems to me that the non-nourished beach owners could file suit if their property is damaged due to the nourishment to the adjacent beach property.

Interesting that this thread has somewhat gone off-topic with the beach renourishment issue...or has it?

Darwin, you are definitely asking ALL the right questions. Some are getting answered.

1. 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.

I'm not going to debate the merits of renourishment but it sure seems to me a VERY CHEAP PRICE to pay to gain public access to the beaches compared to the outright purchase of beach front property.

Here's the point: the cost of beach renourishment is a small price to pay to rectify the screwed up beach access mess that Walton County has gotten ALL OF US in. And, it seems, they have made no attempt to truly change things - only make them worse by the unbelievable approval, as an example, of the Redfish Village private easement debacle which will eventually pour hundreds of people into an area the size of one single residential lot bordered on both sides by private property. They were well aware of this but approved it anyway. In Commissioner's Sara Comander's defense, she voted against it (Meadows was not present).

If they did not approve it, Redfish Village would have gone down in flames. The county bailed them out but at whose expense?

Darwin, I'm not familiar with the location where you had your bad experience. But the start of this thread had to do with someone being run off the beach in front of the Retreat. The people at the Retreat and the Inn at Blue Mountain Beach are going through a similar thing. 2. That is, the county approved a public beach access with no "real" dedicated public beach on the other end.

The beach in front of the Inn at BMB is packed because of the very high density of that development for the associated beach frontage. They are in "survival mode". There is much more to this story at the Inn at BMB as many of you in the real estate business are aware of.

In my opinion, the people at the less dense Retreat do not feel they should pay for the lack of planning at the county level. If you paid a few million for your dream home on the beach, you might (just might) understand why they would want to protect their private property.

If you're familiar with the area, you know the pressure that all the development south and north of 30A in that immediate vicinity will put on that single beach access. Yet it keeps on growing and growing without regard to the beach as a finite resource, regardless of who owns it.

Bottom line, the Inn at BMB does not want any more people on their beach because they are getting too crowded as is, and the people at the Retreat do not want the bleedover from the Inn at BMB as well as the public access.

So the public is caught in the middle while all gulf front owners and sheriff's deputies are made out to be the bad guys.

Darwin, if anyone should be ranting and raving, it should be you. Thanks for the level headed, thought provoking posts.

Two quick points of clarification..

1. Not true. It has nothing to do with who pays it has to do with extending the beach past the mean high water location. the old beach remains the same property after the project as it does before. The law is that you can't fill in public sovereign lands without it remaining public sovereign lands. If anti-people want to right a check by all means do it. The state law cannot be circumvented.

2. It is not a public beach access. It is a privately-owned beach access for use of those who are non-gulf front owners, and members or guests of the Blue Mountain Beach Club, same as Redfish Village, Gulf Place, Seaside street associations, etc.

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!!

I think it would also be difficult to prove the exact location where the supposed tresspassers were standing. Furthermore, it would be difficult to prove if they were standing on wet sand vs dry sand. What moisture content would consititute "wet" sand? Also, since removing sand from the beach is against Walton County Code of Ordinances, would either party be able to remove the sand from which they stand to bring to court, or be held as evidence by the Sheriff's Deputy? What if I throw a bucket of water on the sand? Is it then considered wet? How long after a wave washes on shore, is it still considered wet? Too many unanswered questions.

[quote
You must not have lived here very long if you believe that...

We've all had our positive and negative run-ins with the "law".

But the arrest of, at worse, "non-cooperative" tourists is a serious matter as you are painfully aware.

Do you think you could take a stab at the questions in my last post. It seems from your posts that you may be getting pro-active and possibly seeking legal advice before you and SJ go set your tents up at the Retreat.

2. It is not a public beach access. It is a privately-owned beach access for use of those who are non-gulf front owners, and members or guests of the Blue Mountain Beach Club (BMBC), same as Redfish Village, Gulf Place, Seaside street associations, etc.

This is the interesting thing, the reports from the beach goers is that they are renting a property which the owners belong to the BMBC, yet are still getting chased off the beach by the security guard. I'm wondering how the guard is supposed to know who is who and who owns what.

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.

At this time in western Walton County, the ECL is currently still legally established in front of the three skipped properties. That means all property rights and ownership is the same for them as the rest of the people who actually received sand.

It seems from your posts that you may be getting pro-active and possibly seeking legal advice before you and SJ go set your tents up at the Retreat.

I don't set up tents on the beach, nor do I operate within an organized group. ;-)

I wonder if the accretion on the non-nourished beach, by the nourished beach project, adjacent to the property, could be considered as being public, since it was paid for by public funding.

I'm no lawyer, though it seems to me that the non-nourished beach owners could file suit if their property is damaged due to the nourishment to the adjacent beach property.

Yes, only below the ECL however.

This is the interesting thing, the reports from the beach goers is that they are renting a property which the owners belong to the BMBC, yet are still getting chased off the beach by the security guard. I'm wondering how the guard is supposed to know who is who and who owns what.

The BMBC only has fee simple ownership of a small sliver of sand across the dune to the water (10-20 feet wide max). If you are lucky enough to get their early and sit in the sliver they don't move you but that can only fit one or two people (at least if they carry what I do). They watch what boardwalk people enter from to determine who they are. It is quite a show.

Two quick points of clarification..

1. Not true. It has nothing to do with who pays it has to do with extending the beach past the mean high water location. the old beach remains the same property after the project as it does before. The law is that you can't fill in public sovereign lands without it remaining public sovereign lands. If anti-people want to right a check by all means do it. The state law cannot be circumvented.

2. It is not a public beach access. It is a privately-owned beach access for use of those who are non-gulf front owners, and members or guests of the Blue Mountain Beach Club, same as Redfish Village, Gulf Place, Seaside street associations, etc.

1. Thanks for setting me straight AGAIN! (first time was the MHWL thing).

2. I was under the impression that this was a public access...my bad. The main point I was making here is the county approved this access (next to the Inn at Blue Mountain Beach) knowing full well that the beach on both sides are privately owned.

Thanks for the feedback!

I think it would also be difficult to prove the exact location where the supposed tresspassers were standing. Furthermore, it would be difficult to prove if they were standing on wet sand vs dry sand. What moisture content would consititute "wet" sand? Also, since removing sand from the beach is against Walton County Code of Ordinances, would either party be able to remove the sand from which they stand to bring to court, or be held as evidence by the Sheriff's Deputy? What if I throw a bucket of water on the sand? Is it then considered wet? How long after a wave washes on shore, is it still considered wet? Too many unanswered questions.

Yes, it would, but with the right understanding of the way waves work and good timing you could get arrested and then have someone show that the arrest was illegal and really muck it up!

I know this is a serious problem but I am glad you point out the ridiculousness of what I was describing and more.

If you paid a few million for your dream home on the beach, you might (just might) understand why they would want to protect their private property.

Bottom line, the Inn at BMB does not want any more people on their beach because they are getting too crowded as is, and the people at the Retreat do not want the bleedover from the Inn at BMB as well as the public access.

And if you had paid a premium price to live or vacation near the beach you would understand why there is a fight to keep the beaches public! I love this area, but without the beach it doesn't have another major draw.

I am not going to cry giant alligator tears for those who build/buy multi-unit condos that max out their unit count and then complain it's too crowded!
I'm sure it's crowded on their beach, probably something to do with cause and effect and them being patently unable to share!

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...

Oh boy, do I remember those days!!
When hubby and I had first moved to the area we were living in PCB. On the weekends we would drive along 30-A and sightsee, and often wonder what was beyond the native vegetation. Cars would be scattered along the side of 30-A and we could see cute little footpaths. "What fun!" we would say in our naivety. One day we decided to check it out. We parked along the side of the road and ventured back through the beach shrubs. Waaaaaay back. WOW! Totally empty beaches for as far as the eye could see! HEAVENLY! We commenced to sunbathing and nodding off. Upon my awakening, I see that a few random beachgoers have also "found" our little hideaway. In fact, one man could be seen taking a leisurely stroll along the water's edge, headed in our direction. As he approached I chuckled, "That guy's bathing suit is nearly the same color as his skin!!!......ummmmm.....wait.......I think......ummmmm....OMG, it IS his skin!!!" . We were in shock and more than slightly amused. Couldn't wait to tell our friends later. We went back to our beach reading. Short time later, 2 more guys head down to the beach, set out their blanket and proceed to.....take....off...their....shorts..... .

OK, this is starting to freak us out a bit. So we start really checking other people out....first time we realize, I am the only woman in the vicinity and we are both the only ones with suits on.
After some quick calculations (we were young but not stupid!) we decided to head back to the car. As we headed to the footpath, we cross right in front of another set of sunbathers....both naked as jaybirds. I tried not to look but when the one guy stood up and STRETCHED right as I walked next to him, I nearly dropped my chair!!! Tee-Hee-Hee!

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.

This is really a different subject, but from the FL Supreme Court's website, I found the following regarding riparian rights:

THE RIPARIAN ACT OF 1921 CONVEYED FEE TITLE ONLY TO LAND
WHICH HAD BEEN BULKHEADED, FILLED IN, OR WHARFED OUT, NOT TO
LANDS UNDER OPEN WATERS.

"There is probably no custom more
universal, more natural or more ancient,
on the sea-coasts, not only of the United
S t a t e s , b u t of the world, than t h a t of
bathing in the s a l t waters of the ocean
and the enjoyment of the wholesome recreation
incident thereto. The lure of the
ocean is universal; t o battle with its
refreshing breakers a delight. Many are
they who have felt t h e l i f e g i v i n g touch
of its healing waters and its clear dustfree
a i r . Appearing constantly to change,
it remains ever e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same."

-- From the FL Supreme Court -- White vs Hughes 1939

I just read Lola's post. I'm glad you stood up for your rights gull. No one owns the beach. That greedy family. This is just another reason why i THINK IT WAS GREEDY TO BUILD RIGHT ON THE BEACH ANY WAY. Whoever started that started the greed. Why mess up the view for everybody because you want a view. Get your butt out and look at the view like everybody else friend. Oooh sorry. I got carried away.GREED KILLS. I can't believe people actually were greedy enough to build homes on the tiny strips of land between a coatal dune lake and the Gulf. They must have a gorgeous view, greedy b@$!@^&$!!! Who cares about everyone, including Mother Nature, else's view of a spectacular feat of nature. Let's just build all over it. How did that sheeet get passed. Ridunkulous I think I learned that word from NoHall. Sinful and yeah I like smileys, so what ... ;-)

I think it would also be difficult to prove the exact location where the supposed tresspassers were standing. Furthermore, it would be difficult to prove if they were standing on wet sand vs dry sand. What moisture content would consititute "wet" sand? Also, since removing sand from the beach is against Walton County Code of Ordinances, would either party be able to remove the sand from which they stand to bring to court, or be held as evidence by the Sheriff's Deputy? What if I throw a bucket of water on the sand? Is it then considered wet? How long after a wave washes on shore, is it still considered wet? Too many unanswered questions.

Cop: "My radar gun shows you doing 89 mph."
SJ : "No sir, I was definitely not speeding!! Your gun must not be properly calibrated."
Cop looking at radar, "Shows here it was calibrated this morning."
SJ: "Well it wasn't me, it must have been the guy next to me."
Cop: "He was doing 55."
SJ: "Then how do you know it wasn't that rock in the road that my car kicked up and triggered your radar."
Cop: "License and registration."

It gets more interesting. From the FL Supreme Court:

It is possible for the public to acquire an easement in
the beaches of the State by the finding of a prescriptive r i g h t
t o the beach land. Citv of M i a m i Beach v. Undercliff R e a l t y &
Investment Co., 155 Pla. 805, 21 So.2d 783 (1945), and Citv of
Miami Beach v. M i a m i Beach Improvement Co., 153 Fla. 107, 14
So.2d 172 (1943). However, in both of the cases cited above
and relied upon by the District Court of Appeal, F i r s t D i s t r i c t ,
i n the case sub iudice, t h i s Court declined to find such prescriptive
r i g h t i n the public because of the absence of an adverse
nature in t h e p u b l i c ' s use of private beach land.


This Court in C i t v of M i a m i Beach v. Undercliff Realty
& Investment Co., supra, said:
"It is true t h a t i n the e a r l i e r days preceding
the remarkable development of M i a m i
Beach, when it had a small population, many
persons used the beach for bathing, sunning
and other recreational purposes. The fact
that the upland owners did not prevent or
object to such use is not s u f f i c i e n t to show
t h a t the use was adverse or under a claim of
right. It has not been shown t h a t there has
been an open, notorious, continuous and uninterrupted
use of the beach by the public,
in derogation of the upland p r o p r i e t o r s '
r i g h t s , for a period of twenty years, or for
any period." 2 1 So.2d 783, p. 786.


T h i s Court in Downins vI B i r d , 100 So.2d 57 (Fla. 1958),
set forth the test f o r r i g h t of access by prescription:
"In e i t h e r prescription or adverse possession,
the r i g h t is acquired only by actual,
continuous, uninterrupted use by the claimant
of the lands of another, for a prescribed
period. In addition the use must be adverse
under claim of riqht and must e i t h e r be with
the knowledge of the owner or so open, notorious,
and v i s i b l e t h a t knowledge of the use
by and adverse claim of the claimant is imputed
to the owner. In both r i g h t s the use
or possession must be inconsistent with the
owner's use and eniovment of his lands and
gust not be a permissive use, for the use
must be such that the owner has a r i g h t t o
a legal action t o stop it, such as an action
for t r e s p a s s o r ejectment.
"Further in e i t h e r prescription or adverse
possession, the use or possession is presumed
to be i n subordination t o the t i t l e of the
t r u e owner, and with his Permission and the
burden is on the claimant to prove t h a t the
use or possession is adverse." (Emphasis
supplied.) (p. 64)


If the use of an alleged easement is not exclusive and
not inconsistent with the r i g h t s of the owner of the land to
its use and enjoyment, kt would be presumed that such use is
permissive rather than adverse. Hence, such use w i l l never
ripen into easement. This principle was recognized i n J. C.
Vereen & Sons v. Hauser, 123 Fla. 641, 167 So. 45 (1936), where
t h i s Court quoted with approval from Jesse French Piano ti Orqan
Co. v. Forbes, 129 A l a . 471, 29 So. 683, 685, 87 Am,St.Rep. 71,
as follows:

"NO easement can be acquired when the use is
by express or implied permission, . . . The
user or enjoyment of the r i g h t claimed, in
order to become an easement by prescription,
must have been adverse to the owner of the
e s t a t e over which the easement is claimed,
under a claim of r i g h t , exclusive, continuous,
and uninterrupted, and with the knowledge and
stance always considered is whether the u s e r
is aqainst the i n t e r e s t of the party sufferins
it, or injurious to him. There must be
an invasion of the partv's r i s h t , for, unless
one loses somethins, the other sains nothinq."
(Emphasis supplied.) (p. 47)

... and just what is the law in this case? I think there are opposing views on the laws, especially since the public has used the beach without anyone defending it as their own, up until this year. The law may not read as clearly as a deed.


This incident makes me want to bring about 400 of my closest friends and set up on the beach in front of the property where this took place.

Where do we meet????

From Tona-Rama (FL Supreme Court)

from the Court:
"The land in question is a parcel of white, powdery sand
running between the hard-packed driving surface of Daytona Beach
and the existing seawalls. By stipulation of the parties, the
land is above the normal high water mark and would be subject to
being covered by the w a t e r s of t h e A t l a n t i c Ocean only during
hurricanes or extremely high tides.

We recognize the propriety of protecting the public interest
in, and r i g h t to u t i l i z a t i o n of, the beaches and oceans of
the State of Florida. No part of Florida is more exclusively
hers, nor more properly u t i l i z e d by her people than her beaches.
And the right of the public of access to, and enjoyment of, Florida's
oceans and beaches has long been recognized by t h i s Court."

I'm a long-time lurker and I don't say much but this has really struck a nerve with me! I'm admittedly uneducated on this subject but I tend to follow the Laws of Common Sense. As such, here are my thoughts.

I really don't understand why this is so complicated. The beach is for everyone to enjoy. Last I checked, no human created it. Depending on your deity/lack thereof, perhaps we should put up a sign on all beaches world-wide that says "Private Property - Owned by God/Allah/Mother Earth. No tresspassing." No one can "own" the beach. If I fish from a public beach but the fish previously swam through a privately-owned space, can I eat it for dinner or do I leave it at the doorstep of the property owner?

Sure, you don't want punks defacing your property. I understand that. But who cares if some kids or a family is sitting on the sand in front of your house? Honestly, what is the problem? Do you really think that 10-year old is going to trench under your house and cause it to collapse? Does the mere sight of a sandcastle and umbrella bother you that much? If so, why did you buy a house the beach to begin with?

Dry sand, wet sand, Tona-Roma, Supreme Court... WHO CARES. So long as you're minding your own business, pick up your belongings and trash, stay away from anyone's house or other property, what is the issue? When the neighbor's kid kicks their soccer ball into my yard do I call the cops to arrest him? No. If he wants to kick the ball around, I don't care. Again, if he starts breaking my windows or something it would be a different story. Let the beachgoers be. Come on. If you don't want to be around PEOPLE, don't buy a house in a tourist area.

The word ridiculous comes to mind.

What constitutes "interrupted" use? Running a person off once a year?...Once a week?...Calling the sheriff's department?

In terms of prescriptive easements interruptions would be physical barriers, like a fence or a gate.

Quick question out of curiosity. Is the beach behind The Red Bar public? That's where I hung out the week before last when I was down there. All this talk makes me nervous about where I need to stay and play when I come down to visit. Thanks in advance!

Quick question out of curiosity. Is the beach behind The Red Bar public? That's where I hung out the week before last when I was down there. All this talk makes me nervous about where I need to stay and play when I come down to visit. Thanks in advance!

It is owned by the state of Florida, through the State Parks system, and is under either a 50, or 99-year lease with the County. In other words, yes use it.

Thanks BeachSiO2. Rock on! Crap! Forgot to ask my other question! Do you have to own property to apply for a vehicle beach access sticker or can anyone apply? I just realized this isnt related to the thread so Ill stop after this question... Sorry.