Led away in Handcuffs

[GoodWitch58]

as I said above to Lola, some of us are sorry you were treated so badly and we are trying to work with the local officials to make it better.

We have built a wonderful vacation destination place mainly because of the magic of the beaches and the people here. Unfortunately, both the people and the beaches have changed drastically in the last few years.

It is a difficult situation, hopefully there will be a solution that will prevent what happened to you and your children from becoming the norm.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

.....We felt humiliated by the experience of being removed with our children by police from a beach that is marketed by the county and state as public.

I believe you've hit the nail on the head (underlined part). There seems to be a disregard for private property rights with the majority of commissioners in Walton County and Walton County Tourist Development Council which reports to the commissioners. So much so, that the county conveniently forgets to post signs at accesses stating this simple fact. They don't want the public to know for the obvious fear of harming tourism. The more the commissioners allow the county to grow in questionable ways (i.e. private deeded beach access in a residential neighborhood for remotely located high density developments which puts pressure on the adjacent gulf front private property owners), the more frequent these confrontations will become.

Personally, I am truly so sorry that you or anyone else in your position had to endure that humiliation.

For the others, to intentionally trespass to try and "prove a point" is flat out wrong (plus it's not neighborly). What's worse, is ecouraging others to do so. It is this attitude that causes some private property owners to react the way they do...just simple human nature. If there is disagreement with who owns the beach, it should be settled in the court of law, not by directly challenging the property owner at a personal level.

 

[Bobby J]

Bobby J, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I understand your position with the current situation in Walton County. However, it seems to me that you should not be mixing Surfrider's goals with the general public's perception that ALL of the beach should be public.

We all clearly know tourism is the lifeblood of Florida. But that fact alone, in my opinion, should not give the public carte blanche to anyone's private property without reparation.

Good point. Looking through this thread I was trying to find where I mixed Surfrider's goal? My post is from Bobby J. Local land owner in Walton County who will come sit on any beach.

 

[Darwin]

I am irritated by the property owners arrogance and I am also irritated by what could be considered entrapment by the county encouraging tourist to use the "public" beaches while at the same time enforcing no trespassing laws.

As a visitor to your forum I promise that am not trying to flame and if any one of you says leave and never come back I will. During our many stays in Seagrove I have frequented this community only as a lurker and have come away with the opinion that this is one of the most civil chat communities I have come across. Okay, this leads to my next question that I realize it belongs in its own thread, and I will apologize in advance if I'm opening wounds because I am sure you guys have discussed it in one form or another. My question is if the beaches are private why should state/federal money be used to "re-nourish" them? If the public can not access the beaches why should public money be spent on the re-nourishment?

As a geologist I see beach re-nourishment as a fable. Barrier islands are one of, if not the most dynamic landform on the planet, and to think we can maintain the coastal layout as we now see it is pretty arrogant. If someone built a house on an active volcano people would think they were nuts. As a geologist I see building a house on a barrier island as just as precarious. There is a inherent risk to building on volcanos just as there is a risk to building on the coast. Anyone that builds on these landforms is taking a risk that I believe is the building/land owners risk and no one else's. Is it the publics responsibility to pay for private beach re-nourishment or rebuilding houses on such a landform? No one is talking about rebuilding Harry Truman's now buried house near Mt St Helens.

 

[Bobby J]

Florida Beach Access

Policies

The state constitution says all beaches below the ?mean high-water line,? or the wet sand, are public. Court cases have found that the public has the right to the dry sand parts of beaches in two instances:

• One is if the public has established a ?prescriptive easement,? using a particular beach for the past 20 years without objection from private landowners.
• The other is through ?customary use,? which is the ?ancient,? peaceful use of the beach by the public.

Florida regulations and laws that help shape public beach access policy include Section 161.053, F.S., and Chapter 62B-33, F.A.C. Specifically, the conditions within Chapter 62B-33.0051, F.A.C., prohibit the loss of lateral public access.

 

[Jdarg]

Darwin!!

 

[GoodWitch58]

Darwin, seems to me you are being perfectly reasonable and rational and obviously know what you are talking about. Many here will agree with you--some will not.

Welcome and post often...

 

[yippie]

I am irritated by the property owners arrogance and I am also irritated by what could be considered entrapment by the county encouraging tourist to use the "public" beaches while at the same time enforcing no trespassing laws.

As a visitor to your forum I promise that am not trying to flame and if any one of you says leave and never come back I will. During our many stays in Seagrove I have frequented this community only as a lurker and have come away with the opinion that this is one of the most civil chat communities I have come across. Okay, this leads to my next question that I realize it belongs in its own thread, and I will apologize in advance if I'm opening wounds because I am sure you guys have discussed it in one form or another. My question is if the beaches are private why should state/federal money be used to "re-nourish" them? If the public can not access the beaches why should public money be spent on the re-nourishment?

As a geologist I see beach re-nourishment as a fable. Barrier islands are one of, if not the most dynamic landform on the planet, and to think we can maintain the coastal layout as we now see it is pretty arrogant. If someone built a house on an active volcano people would think they were nuts. As a geologist I see building a house on a barrier island as just as precarious. There is a inherent risk to building on volcanos just as there is a risk to building on the coast. Anyone that builds on these landforms is taking a risk that I believe is the building/land owners risk and no one else's. Is it the publics responsibility to pay for private beach re-nourishment or rebuilding houses on such a landform? No one is talking about rebuilding Harry Truman's now buried house near Mt St Helens.

Oh, this is the basis of several law suits and arguments. If public money is used to renourish the beaches, then that part of the beach becomes public.

The lawsuit over the recent renourishment from Sandestin to Henderson State Park has been filed by some property owners who say they have now been denied their rights of the natural accretion of their property.

That was probably worded so wrong, but I think you get the point. That is what the Supreme Court is going to make a ruling on.... soon we think.

BUT, the renourishment had to take place to protect other upland structures.

What I find amazing is the pure arrogance of some of these property owners. Funny, it was OK for them to plop down and use any beach they wanted, but now that they own property, it is no longer OK for anyone else to use the same beach. (NOTE - I said SOME of the property owners)

 

[beachmouse]

Welcome Darwin, and please feel free to contribute to the discussion.

The time I feel like renourishment really makes sense in these parts is to protect critical roadways. For better or worse, there are a couple of places where there are only one or two significant east-west roadways, and one of those roadways was built too close to the coast (see Scenic 98 near Pompano Joe's restaurant) , or the only place they could really put a road was in a fragile area (see US 98 between Destin and Ft. Walton Beach)

Until renourishment happened, whether on public or private property, Scenic 98 really was one bad storm away from being undermined in a couple different spots. Should the road have been built where it was to begin with? Probably not, but it's there, and renourishment is probably more cost-effective than trying to move the roadway inland another 100 yards.

 

[Bobby J]

I am irritated by the property owners arrogance and I am also irritated by what could be considered entrapment by the county encouraging tourist to use the "public" beaches while at the same time enforcing no trespassing laws.

As a visitor to your forum I promise that am not trying to flame and if any one of you says leave and never come back I will. During our many stays in Seagrove I have frequented this community only as a lurker and have come away with the opinion that this is one of the most civil chat communities I have come across. Okay, this leads to my next question that I realize it belongs in its own thread, and I will apologize in advance if I'm opening wounds because I am sure you guys have discussed it in one form or another. My question is if the beaches are private why should state/federal money be used to "re-nourish" them? If the public can not access the beaches why should public money be spent on the re-nourishment?

As a geologist I see beach re-nourishment as a fable. Barrier islands are one of, if not the most dynamic landform on the planet, and to think we can maintain the coastal layout as we now see it is pretty arrogant. If someone built a house on an active volcano people would think they were nuts. As a geologist I see building a house on a barrier island as just as precarious. There is a inherent risk to building on volcanos just as there is a risk to building on the coast. Anyone that builds on these landforms is taking a risk that I believe is the building/land owners risk and no one else's. Is it the publics responsibility to pay for private beach re-nourishment or rebuilding houses on such a landform? No one is talking about rebuilding Harry Truman's now buried house near Mt St Helens.

I also struggle with beach re-nourishment. It is a disaster in St. Augustine. Also, the state will never be able to keep funding it. The problem is the only real solution seems impossible. Retreat. We made a mistake and built/paved too close to the waters edge... Beach re-nourishment seems the only viable option unless the state wanted to buy out homeowners. In the long haul that may prove to be the cheaper route.