Led away in Handcuffs

[Bobby J]

In the past I always assumed (dangerous word) the MHWL was established to understand the varying tide changes. If this is not the case why would you need to know the MHWL in areas such as state parks? If the MHWL was only to determine property lines why would we look at it everywhere?

 

[scooterbug44]

We need a surveyor or property attorney to explain this better.

MHWL is just like a Shoreline or Wetland Boundary - it exists as an independent entity and varies based on when you measure it & what the conditions are at that time. Think of it as "average high tide".

You can use it as a way of delineating a property the same way you can use a fence, building, stake, road etc. but it isn't just for property purposes.

Florida law says that the state owns below the MHWL, but it gets murky because they can choose to sell it to a private individual, but not at the expense of the public.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Actually I think I did address them when I said I wasn't a law student, attorney, land use attorney, or judge, but I will try again ;-)

I think that there are areas all along the Blue Mountain Beach area that are privately OWNED. It will be up to others to determine what is PRIVATE. Similar words with varied meanings since something can be privately-owned but not contain the entire bundle of rights another privately-owned piece of property might have. Uh-oh I sounded like an attorney there :leaving:

I think I know which condo/townhome you live in, but actually I wasn't referencing you in my post when I said people aren't as anonymous as they think they are.

I am no expert in the implications of the line. I just know how it is determined and the legal definition of it so you may want to ask SBug for a further explanation.

On a totally unrelated post but since you asked my "help" ;-) I thought I would remind you of public monies spent in Blue Mountain. I remember two specific examples. One was emergency beach scraping after Hurricane Ivan and Tropical Storm Arlene. Also, all the design, engineering, and permitting work that has been conducted as part of the Phase 2 Beach Project on the TDC's website. I would guess at least 2 million dollars have been spent on those efforts along the 30-A corridor, and Blue Mountain Beach has been included in those projects.

Thanks for the reply.

Regarding beach scraping, you're right, we did receive some benefit. How much do you think this truly cost the county per linear foot of beach? I could guesstimate and I'm sure it would not hold a candle to the private money spent on hauling sand in during Ivan and Dennis, not to mention everything else spent on walls and repairs. What's a tractor cost per hour and how many hours were spent per 100 feet of beach? Point is, this cost you describe is minimal in the scheme of things. Question: did that money come out of TDC's budget or the county's budget?

One more thing, we would have scraped the beach ourself at our cost if only we were allowed to.

The second and the most IMPORTANT part:
I (we) haven't asked for any help on beach renourishment yet. Rather than debate the pros and cons of beach renourishment at this time, I'd rather leave it alone until the supreme court makes a ruling since it seems that they will soon. Then we'll start another thread. This thread is sticky enough. Was it not the county's choice to spend the big bucks for the phase II study, not at the request of the majority of gulf-front owners from what I understand? Nobody ever asked us about it, I can assure you of that.

So in the end and practically speaking, I believe Andy A is still correct.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

MHWL:

If you are still a little confused as to how the MHWL is established, take a look at post 904. This is clear and to the point.

But it seems that some of you are debating what a MHWL represents. At least for us, it represents the southern boundary of our gulf-front property.

 

[Smiling JOe]

You're right.


You're right about that, also.


You're right about that, as well.

You're doing good SJ.

However, you haven't answered my question why one would worry about the MHWL when one insists the beach is public. If the beach is public, then one doesn't have to worry about the MHWL.

SJ, the only 2 possible answers I see are simple:
1. The beach is private and one needs to pay attention to the MHWL;
OR
2. The beach is public and it doesn't matter where the MHWL is.

It can't be both or some combination of, IMO.

Here is where the circle of craziness, ask a question, get an answer, acknowledge the answer, then ask why no answer, comes to an end. AGAIN and final time, I never said worry, that is your word, but if you are claiming trespassing, without you proving you property boundaries, it is impossible for the charges to stick. That is a much easier, doesn't even require an attorney, to prove that hiring an attorney, getting testimony from many people for what they remember over the last 20 years. It ain't rocket science, but you sure make it sound as though it is.

 

[Bob]

Thanks for the reply.

Regarding beach scraping, you're right, we did receive some benefit. How much do you think this truly cost the county per linear foot of beach? I could guesstimate and I'm sure it would not hold a candle to the private money spent on hauling sand in during Ivan and Dennis, not to mention everything else spent on walls and repairs. What's a tractor cost per hour and how many hours were spent per 100 feet of beach? Point is, this cost you describe is minimal in the scheme of things. Question: did that money come out of TDC's budget or the county's budget?

One more thing, we would have scraped the beach ourself at our cost if only we were allowed to.

The second and the most IMPORTANT part:
I (we) haven't asked for any help on beach renourishment yet. Rather than debate the pros and cons of beach renourishment at this time, I'd rather leave it alone until the supreme court makes a ruling since it seems that they will soon. Then we'll start another thread. This thread is sticky enough. Was it not the county's choice to spend the big bucks for the phase II study, not at the request of the majority of gulf-front owners from what I understand? Nobody ever asked us about it, I can assure you of that.

So in the end and practically speaking, I believe Andy A is still correct.

When a major hurricane puts the MHWL next to your living room, you may one day be on your knees asking the very public you wish to exclude from the beach to come to your rescue.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Thanks for the reply.

Regarding beach scraping, you're right, we did receive some benefit. How much do you think this truly cost the county per linear foot of beach? I could guesstimate and I'm sure it would not hold a candle to the private money spent on hauling sand in during Ivan and Dennis, not to mention everything else spent on walls and repairs. What's a tractor cost per hour and how many hours were spent per 100 feet of beach? Point is, this cost you describe is minimal in the scheme of things. Question: did that money come out of TDC's budget or the county's budget?

One more thing, we would have scraped the beach ourself at our cost if only we were allowed to.

The second and the most IMPORTANT part:
I (we) haven't asked for any help on beach renourishment yet. Rather than debate the pros and cons of beach renourishment at this time, I'd rather leave it alone until the supreme court makes a ruling since it seems that they will soon. Then we'll start another thread. This thread is sticky enough. Was it not the county's choice to spend the big bucks for the phase II study, not at the request of the majority of gulf-front owners from what I understand? Nobody ever asked us about it, I can assure you of that.

So in the end and practically speaking, I believe Andy A is still correct.

First, I read from Andy A that no public money was spent on the beaches in BMB. Then, BeachSiO2 reminds us of the scraping. I will add that public funds were also used to pile a crap load of sand on the beach at BMB public access which also went onto the adjacent property. I have photos. Seems like I recall some equipment using that for access to the beach. I wonder if that was Comm. Ro Cuchens? Anyhoo, you follow up BeachSiO2's reminder of the public funds being used for restoration, with a comment about it not being much compared to what the property owners spent. You are correct, but if one penny of public money is used to benefit particular private property owners, it makes no difference how much a landowner spent. All that matters then is that public funds were used for private gain. Still, the public has been using that beach for a long time, without complaints from the property owners. If the property to the east of Hwy 83 access has been privately owned since at least 1973, and the deed showing ownership was recorded only on Sept 20, 2007, and during that time, the public has customarily used the beach in that area (I have many photos, as do other people) during that stretch of time, the FL Supreme Court's rule of the use being twenty years or more, is met.

Regarding your second paragraph, please remember that you do not speak for all Gulf front owners in BMB, as it sounds like you are saying. I am guessing that you are referring only to your condo assoc, but we've been talking generically about BMB. It would be interesting for those property owners to have even built seawalls after 2004 and 2005 storms, because the deed for the beach part of the property wasn't even recorded until Sept 20, 2007. That's a shocker I know, but it is true from what I read at the Clerk of Courts.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Just a point, it sounds like the Gulf Front owners are saying that the beach is their private property and not to be trespassed upon. How is it that people are legally allowed to walk across the beach part of the property if the property owners say that it is private? On an interior lot, like my own, I can have you arrested for walking across my property, unless you are on the road or right of way which happens to be on my property. If this is so, how do Gulf front owners have a right to claim exclusivity to the property?

 

[BeachSiO2]

Thanks for the reply.

Regarding beach scraping, you're right, we did receive some benefit. How much do you think this truly cost the county per linear foot of beach? I could guesstimate and I'm sure it would not hold a candle to the private money spent on hauling sand in during Ivan and Dennis, not to mention everything else spent on walls and repairs. What's a tractor cost per hour and how many hours were spent per 100 feet of beach? Point is, this cost you describe is minimal in the scheme of things. Question: did that money come out of TDC's budget or the county's budget?

One more thing, we would have scraped the beach ourself at our cost if only we were allowed to.

The second and the most IMPORTANT part:
I (we) haven't asked for any help on beach renourishment yet. Rather than debate the pros and cons of beach renourishment at this time, I'd rather leave it alone until the supreme court makes a ruling since it seems that they will soon. Then we'll start another thread. This thread is sticky enough. Was it not the county's choice to spend the big bucks for the phase II study, not at the request of the majority of gulf-front owners from what I understand? Nobody ever asked us about it, I can assure you of that.

So in the end and practically speaking, I believe Andy A is still correct.

My understanding was that the beach scraping was paid for by FEMA, the state and Walton County through the TDC.

As for your second part, I remember a tremendous number of people "adamantly" stating that beach nourishment had to be done and should be done now after the storms hit. Maybe its died down some since 2005 but that's only because 2006 and 2007 were sans hurricanes. I don't believe a poll was taken but I am pretty sure that some of the MOST VOCAL proponents live in Blue Mountain :scratch:I think the gulf-front property owners throughout the 30A area made it extremely clear that in their eyes, it wasn't a "choice" for the County it was a "responsibility" of the County to help them.

This is probably the last post on this for me in the near future so if you have a question and I don't respond, please don't take it personally I'm just over it. Here's to a great Holiday Season.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

My understanding was that the beach scraping was paid for by FEMA, the state and Walton County through the TDC.

As for your second part, I remember a tremendous number of people "adamantly" stating that beach nourishment had to be done and should be done now after the storms hit. Maybe its died down some since 2005 but that's only because 2006 and 2007 were sans hurricanes. I don't believe a poll was taken but I am pretty sure that some of the MOST VOCAL proponents live in Blue Mountain :scratch:I think the gulf-front property owners throughout the 30A area made it extremely clear that in their eyes, it wasn't a "choice" for the County it was a "responsibility" of the County to help them.

This is probably the last post on this for me in the near future so if you have a question and I don't respond, please don't take it personally I'm just over it. Here's to a great Holiday Season.

Points taken.

Merry Christmas to you!