Led away in Handcuffs

[NotDeadYet]

I guess I didn't look far enough for MHWL. Thank you. Also, it still seems pretty nebulous to me.

It does seem nebulous if you go out there on any given day and want to know where it is. But it is a precise definition that appears to require a surveyor to deliniate. I guess when the statute was written nobody contemplated a need to know on a daily basis. And this definition is important, because I still don't see how a trespassing charge could be proven without a survey, unless some assumption is made about where the MHWL is/was at any moment in time.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Probably not, but what I have learned is that people are not nearly as anonymous as they think they are

You be right again!;-)

I think SJ and Bobby J have a good idea who I am and I have a good idea who they are. Oh yea, I have a good idea who you are as well. So we all know each other.

I have tried to keep things civil through ordinary discourse. Unlike greeenroomsurfer and a couple of others, I have not threatened anyone with bodily harm. Nor do I try to intimidate anyone.

I haven't said anyone's mother wears army boots.

I don't call people "liars" when I don't have the facts.

I only post observations, opinions and hopefully accurate facts (although I have been wrong on occasion as well, I admit). You yourself stated that I was "a stickler for details" back in the summer.

Bobby J puts out his comments for all to see (and very vocally so by his "plop my @@s down" comment more than once). I have no problem with that. He also puts out in no uncertain terms what his profession is, even using this medium as a marketing tool. I have no problem with that as well.

But I'm just here to provide some temperance in regards that everything is not always black and white, kettle calling the pot black, etc., etc - especially when it involves private property rights.

If one knowingly profits from selling private beach, then, in my opinion, one is part of the problem (assuming you think private beaches are a problem of course).

Perhaps Bobby could start a new independent group that caters ONLY to those who feel that private property should be for public use as well. He might put the others out of business....kind of a "greenie" movement in real estate here in SoWal. However, I want a "piece" of the action if he's successful for coming up with the idea.

In my last post, I stated that there were two things that I hate. This is not to be misconstrued that there are people out there that I hate. No "hate" language here.

SJ asked why I restarted this thread after several months of inactivity.

It was because he would not ever directly answer my question on what he thought the definition of "customary use" was on the other thread...only that he stated his position several times. Nor would he provide any links (see post). I don't think this is "busy work" as I believe it is part of the core issue.

A search for SJ's posts revealed nothing but it did bring me back to this thread. And I thought it appropriate to bring everyone up to speed regarding the latest news on BMB and the private property graphic I generated last summer on this thread which you (rightfully) challenged me on.

I hope you don't find this post to be offensive or hateful or disrespectful. If so, provide some constructive feedback and I'll take a look.

In the meantime, since I'm the only vocal gulf-front private property rights advocate owner on this thread, I'll continue to remain the target of others' hate speech and physical threats. That's Ok.

It's the internet and I fully expect that from some of the others. And thanks to Kurt for providing this conduit for exchange and monitoring the posts for decency. We sometimes forget that.

 

[elgordoboy]

I retract my post about your attempting to intimidate, you cleared up my misconstruing with a later post. So turn that frown upside down .

 

[Bobby J]

You be right again!;-)

I think SJ and Bobby J have a good idea who I am and I have a good idea who they are. Oh yea, I have a good idea who you are as well. So we all know each other.

I have tried to keep things civil through ordinary discourse. Unlike greeenroomsurfer and a couple of others, I have not threatened anyone with bodily harm. Nor do I try to intimidate anyone.

I haven't said anyone's mother wears army boots.

I don't call people "liars" when I don't have the facts.

I only post observations, opinions and hopefully accurate facts (although I have been wrong on occasion as well, I admit). You yourself stated that I was "a stickler for details" back in the summer.

Bobby J puts out his comments for all to see (and very vocally so by his "plop my @@s down" comment more than once). I have no problem with that. He also puts out in no uncertain terms what his profession is, even using this medium as a marketing tool. I have no problem with that as well.

But I'm just here to provide some temperance in regards that everything is not always black and white, kettle calling the pot black, etc., etc - especially when it involves private property rights.

If one knowingly profits from selling private beach, then, in my opinion, one is part of the problem (assuming you think private beaches are a problem of course).

Perhaps Bobby could start a new independent group that caters ONLY to those who feel that private property should be for public use as well. He might put the others out of business....kind of a "greenie" movement in real estate here in SoWal. However, I want a "piece" of the action if he's successful for coming up with the idea.

In my last post, I stated that there were two things that I hate. This is not to be misconstrued that there are people out there that I hate. No "hate" language here.

SJ asked why I restarted this thread after several months of inactivity.

It was because he would not ever directly answer my question on what he thought the definition of "customary use" was on the other thread...only that he stated his position several times. Nor would he provide any links (see post). I don't think this is "busy work" as I believe it is part of the core issue.

A search for SJ's posts revealed nothing but it did bring me back to this thread. And I thought it appropriate to bring everyone up to speed regarding the latest news on BMB and the private property graphic I generated last summer on this thread which you (rightfully) challenged me on.

I hope you don't find this post to be offensive or hateful or disrespectful. If so, provide some constructive feedback and I'll take a look.

In the meantime, since I'm the only vocal gulf-front private property rights advocate owner on this thread, I'll continue to remain the target of others' hate speech and physical threats. That's Ok.

It's the internet and I fully expect that from some of the others. And thanks to Kurt for providing this conduit for exchange and monitoring the posts for decency. We sometimes forget that.

Great post. I am sorry about my plop my a** comment directed at you. You hang in quite well. I do not agree with you but you are one tough cookie. I like that "greenie" agent idea.... Keep you posted on that.

 

[Smiling JOe]

update on tonight's BCC mtg -- The Board of County Commissioners didn't adopt the ordinance presented by the attorney for some Gulf Front owners. The BCC states that they will have public hearings to try to hear everyone's input on the public's historical use of the beach.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

It does seem nebulous if you go out there on any given day and want to know where it is. But it is a precise definition that appears to require a surveyor to deliniate. I guess when the statute was written nobody contemplated a need to know on a daily basis. And this definition is important, because I still don't see how a trespassing charge could be proven without a survey, unless some assumption is made about where the MHWL is/was at any moment in time.

If the MHW line was established by a surveyor on a daily basis, would you then agree that property landward of that line was private (where deeded)?

 

[Bobby J]

If the MHW line was established by a surveyor on a daily basis, would you then agree that property landward of that line was private (where deeded)?

No. I would agree that the MHW line was established. Do you feel this line was solely established for gulf front owners?

 

[scooterbug44]

If the MHW line was established by a surveyor on a daily basis, would you then agree that property landward of that line was private (where deeded)?

Will you then refuse all public $ for beach restoration, hurricane relief, and stop building and armoring structures south of the Coastal Control Line?

 

[Smiling JOe]

Will you then refuse all public $ for beach restoration, hurricane relief, and stop building and armoring structures south of the Coastal Control Line?

BMBV, as Bobby J points out, the survey would only determine the MHWM line. It would not define the rights associated with the deed to the property. As I have mentioned before, property rights are not all equal. Some properties have limited use or no use, and some have easements. Commissioner Jones has pointed out that the rights of the deeded beach properties may come with limits.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

BMBV, as Bobby J points out, the survey would only determine the MHWM line. It would not define the rights associated with the deed to the property. As I have mentioned before, property rights are not all equal. Some properties have limited use or no use, and some have easements. Commissioner Jones has pointed out that the rights of the deeded beach properties may come with limits.

And we all know that Commissioner Larry Jones has the last say in everything to do with our county, don't we? PLEASE don't agree with me here.
:roll:

So if the MHW line does "not define the rights associated with the deed to the property" as you mention above, then why in the world is it even discussed by you several times in the past as far the sheriff not being able to determine the delineation?