Led away in Handcuffs

[Bobby J]

Vagrant,

It appears that the dark blue beaches on your image should be 'PUBLIC". Is that correct? I've labeled them "No Problem?" from the Walton County GSR. Notice how the property lines stop at the dunes.

Why doesn't the state just use a little eminent domain, and take the beach back for the public for these few PROBLEM properties? Back to the vegetation line?

The state will not act on this issue. We all will have to act on it. It will be a big battle but it looks like one that can be won according to history.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

BMBV, I didn't ask to point a finger at the messenger, I just asked. It's just so glaring that that those public accesses actually do 'lead to nowhere'

Bobby, I share the same hope as you, I'm just wondering if it really will be on a case by case basis, or a blanket decision.

Yes it is glaring. For years I wondered how all this private property stuff worked on the beach. Now I know.

I was beat up to hell and back by the boys on the BCC regarding RFV, so much so that I was beginning to doubt my elemental understanding of private property rights. The BCC just seemed to not care one bit about encroachment on private property, plain and simple.....just allow more developments to pour people on beaches deeded as private and worry about the consequences tomorrow. And take care of their "buds" for now.

Well tomorrow is arriving here in Walton County.

 

[CampCreekLou]

You are probably right, maybe the State is too big an entity to engage.

But you have property lines drawn into the water. Seems like a conflict that should be resolved somehow.

 

[Smiling JOe]

He said something about damages regarding civil, and he also said the trespassing could be considered both. So, my second question to him is how a deputy is suppose to decide whether it is criminal or civil. I may not get an answer until tomorrrow, but will post it when I do.

Thanks for checking. Yes, from what I read regarding the punishment for Civil Trespass, the property owner can only file suit for damages. (For example, if you trespassed onto a farm and left the gate open and all of the cows escaped, you might have to pay for all of the damages the property owner incurred. ) Criminal Trespass is another story and punishment can include jail time and, or, fines. There are different degrees of the crime depending on where you were on the property (eg-inside a home), whether the homeowner or rentor was present at the time, whether you were carrying a deadly weapon, etc.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Vagrant,

It appears that the dark blue beaches on your image should be 'PUBLIC". Is that correct? I've labeled them "No Problem?" from the Walton County GSR. Notice how the property lines stop at the dunes.

It's correct that the property lines stop somewhere near or on the dunes. But it's not correct to assume because of this that the rest of the property is public. This has been "discussed" in the past. Even Brad Pickel (ex-Walton County TDC employee) stated that the beach to the east of the 83 access is public but nobody ever showed me the deed stating the county had public rights to use that beach.

Of course some people told me how to look up a deed and all...but still no proof from anyone. I've learned not to accept ANYTHING verbally that the county says when it comes to something as critical as this. That is why I stated the east end of the map will spark some debate.

Why doesn't the state just use a little eminent domain, and take the beach back for the public for these few PROBLEM properties? Back to the vegetation line?

Fair question. Florida has passed a law to restrict the use of eminent domain for purposes such as this, I believe. This is not a utility easement or a road. This is the beach and is used mainly for recreational purposes. The use of a beach by the public would not justify the use of eminent domain. However I'm open to any other opinions.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Vagrant,

It appears that the dark blue beaches on your image should be 'PUBLIC". Is that correct? I've labeled them "No Problem?" from the Walton County GSR. Notice how the property lines stop at the dunes.

You are correct that the properties to the east of the 83 access do not own to the MHWM. Those properties are defined otherwise on the plat.

 

[Smiling JOe]

It's correct that the property lines stop somewhere near or on the dunes. But it's not correct to assume because of this that the rest of the property is public. This has been "discussed" in the past. Even Brad Pickel (ex-Walton County TDC employee) stated that the beach to the east of the 83 access is public but nobody ever showed me the deed stating the county had public rights to use that beach.

Of course some people told me how to look up a deed and all...but still no proof from anyone. I've learned not to accept ANYTHING verbally that the county says when it comes to something as critical as this. That is why I stated the east end of the map will spark some debate.

Don't go pulling that one again, BMBV. The plat doesn't note a dedication of the beach as "public," because they did not have ownership of the "beach" to dedicate it. What you are asking is similar to me asking you to prove the existence of zebra-striped Elephants. I will note that the you have never shown me a deed which proved the sandy part of that particular beach to be privately owned. ;-)

 

[Smiling JOe]

Fair question. Florida has passed a law to restrict the use of eminent domain for purposes such as this, I believe. This is not a utility easement or a road. This is the beach and is used mainly for recreational purposes. The use of a beach by the public would not justify the use of eminent domain. However I'm open to any other opinions.

I don't think that the State should be "taking" the sandy beach, which the public may already have the right to use.

I don't recall the State passing any such law restricting the use of eminent domain for purposes such as this. I believe the State restricted eminent domain when the land was being redistributed to private development, not public use.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Don't go pulling that one again, BMBV. The plat doesn't note a dedication of the beach as "public," because they did not have ownership of the "beach" to dedicate it. What you are asking is similar to me asking you to prove the existence of zebra-striped Elephants. I will note that the you have never shown me a deed which proved the sandy part of that particular beach to be privately owned. ;-)

SJ, simply put, I have never seen the deed to the sandy part of the beach in discussion here that states the county has any rights to it. That's all. I believe the property was owned ALL the way to the MHWL before the subdivision was platted (easily accessable online as we already know).

You can fill in the blanks anyway you choose. You choose to make that part public. It doesn't make it legal without proof.

Logic follows until it's "proven" private, I guess BMB to the east is public!!!??!!?? Let the crowds arrive. To hell with BMBV's map!! Call Surfrider and tell them the good news! WE GOT BEACH! 18 more miles to go.

Time for bed....gettin' cranky.

 

[Smiling JOe]

SJ, simply put, I have never seen the deed to the sandy part of the beach in discussion here that states the county has any rights to it. That's all. I believe the property was owned ALL the way to the MHWL before the subdivision was platted (easily accessable online as we already know).

You can fill in the blanks anyway you choose. You choose to make that part public. It doesn't make it legal without proof.

If prior to the platting of the sub-division, that sandy part of the beach was privately owned, it would be in a deed, which you have yet to produce. You know where the deeds are found, so get to work.

I believe the burden of proof for private ownership are the deeds. Without having a deeded title to the land, it would be public.