Led away in Handcuffs

[yippie]

Here are a few of the comments the public made in the "Spout Off" section of the Northwest Florida Daily News.

This is in reference to beach access and beach ownership. I was wounded in three different wars. If I am building sandcastles with my granddaughter on the beach, you beach owners better stay away from me, because I am prepared to go down in flames over this issue.
? ? ?
As a 30-year resident of this area, nothing makes my blood boil more than to read that a few folks think they own the beaches. Give them 20 or so feet behind their house to call their own, then leave the rest as Mother Nature intended it ? free and open access to all.
? ? ?
The squabble over private and public beaches is amazing. If the county officials allow any future restoration of the private beaches, then they should be sued personally for using public funds to improve private property, and then they should be voted out of office.
? ? ?
If you want to use beachfront property, buy your own or use the public access beaches, which are plentiful. You do not have a right to use somebody else?s property for your enjoyment.
? ? ?
We have sufficient law enforcement resources to arrest people who stray onto private property at the beach and to make sure people follow the rules of fishing. So why aren?t there enough resources available to deal with the illegal-alien crisis we have?

 

[BeachSiO2]

Good question, no great answers.


The obvious nearby places are Ed Waline, the one at Old Florida Beach, Blue Mountain Beach (such as it is) and Grayton. Hey don't forget the state parks!

There ARE places to get to the beach. They might not be as convenient as the one, people like Duchess thought was "fully available" to her.

JR, I am really just the messenger with an opinion which, at this time, is backed by law. PLEASE resist the temptation to paint me as an evil villain.

Tangent... remember how many people use to say, "Why should we pay for beach renourishment to benefit all those "greedy" gulf front owners?", especially right after Hurricane Dennis? Well now, if one truly understands the entire picture, renourishment could be considered as a solution where there 2 birds are killed with one stone (just a saying y'all).

And I currently have mixed emotions regarding beach renourishment when I look at how nicely our section of the beach has recovered so far from the hurricanes on its own in such a short time. If we get hit again anytime soon, my tune may certainly change.

Since you brought it up, I went to the TDC website and it looks like the project has entered the permitting process so this may end up being the fastest solution.

http://www.protectwaltoncountybeaches.com/Future_Initiatives.asp

 

[Andy A]

You're welcome and your comment is much appreciated.

 

[Smiling JOe]

So what happens when/if a big storm, or several big storms remove all of the
TDC-added sand from the beach? Will we be back at square one?

 

[yippie]

Smiling Joe,

You will love this answer I got from an attorney regarding the difference between civil & criminal trespassing. Frankly, it is scary.

In Florida, the deputy makes the choice whether it is criminal or
civil.

If you are a jerk to the deputy, he can choose to charge you with criminal
because he wants to and he can take you to jail And if you are not a jerk, he can charge you with civil where you have to make a court appearence. If you are extremely nice to the deputy, he may let you off with a warning.

Basically it depends on what kind of day the deputy is having.
But, in a civil matter, if any part of the property was damaged, the owner
can take the person to court. If it is a criminal, then the state
attorney (or what ever he is called) handles prosecution so they may serve
jail time, but there will be no moneys recovered if there is damage to the
property unless the "damaged party" files a separate civil suit.

 

[yippie]

So what happens when/if a big storm, or several big storms remove all of the
TDC-added sand from the beach? Will we be back at square one?

I don't think so, becaues you have to establish a ECL or Erosion Control Line. The basis for the court suit in Destin is whether it is legal to establish and ECL. The ECL is established through a survey on the current conditions. The property owner owns land to the ECL. Anything after that is owned by the state, public.

If the problem happens again, they will refer back to the ECL they established. ECL lines are not established unless there is a beach renourishment project, so right now, none exists unless the survey has been completed.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I don't think so, becaues you have to establish a ECL or Erosion Control Line. The basis for the court suit in Destin is whether it is legal to establish and ECL. The ECL is established through a survey on the current conditions. The property owner owns land to the ECL. Anything after that is owned by the state, public.

If the problem happens again, they will refer back to the ECL they established. ECL lines are not established unless there is a beach renourishment project, so right now, none exists unless the survey has been completed.

I believe I understand that which you are saying, but let's say that the ECL is established, the sand is pumped, the beach is extended 50ft. A powerful set of storms blow in, and remove all of the sand back to the ECL, the line where the original private property was deeded to. Now, the original deeded private property no longer has State beaches in front of it, so wouldn't we be back to where we are now with the legal battles of the public not being able to sit on the dry sand beach, which is landward of the ECL?

 

[BeachSiO2]

I believe I understand that which you are saying, but let's say that the ECL is established, the sand is pumped, the beach is extended 50ft. A powerful set of storms blow in, and remove all of the sand back to the ECL, the line where the original private property was deeded to. Now, the original deeded private property no longer has State beaches in front of it, so wouldn't we be back to where we are now with the legal battles of the public not being able to sit on the dry sand beach, which is landward of the ECL?

Yes, that is true but typically FEMA and the State step in to help restore the beach to the pre-storm condition.

 

[Andy A]

BMBV, I am not yet conversant enough with replies to posts, to use the "Quote with reply" feature of this site to point out the paragraph in your answer but I can assure you my position on public vs. private as far as beaches are concerned, will not change in the near future. You know where I live and I do not know where you are located, but it seems obvious it is close to a public access, possibly the one at Hwy 83. I understand your frustration with public use but it goes with the territory. It is obviously worse than when you and I bought. You don't sit and look at the beach 24 hours a day, however, so I can't understand someone else enjoying it while you're not. What does bug me is easements granted to non beach owners like Redfish Village. The Commissioners sure blew that one, in my opinion.

 

[Paige]

OK, let me ask a simple question that I don't think has been answered. Duchess and others have said that the public can be anywhere on the beach as long as you are at the MHWM or south thereof. Duchess even said that the Sheriff's Deputy stated this. Where does the Sheriff's Deputy say the MHWM is?

There is no way to get the real MHWM without a survey, so what are they enforcing? I'll be there in a couple of weeks and would like to know.