Private Beaches in South Walton - Customary Use Updates & SB1622

[Dawn]

In all the years that I've been vocal on private property rights, I've learned that if an article quotes Dave Raushkolb, then the article is most likely highly biased. But then again, it's that spin that "most people" want to believe. So as long as there's an audience, the so called "journalists" will continue to pump out disinformation.

Dave says the problem is "almost unmanageable". He says, "the county must stop homeowners from intimidating visitors." Asking an uninvited person to leave your private property is not intimidation. However there are a few people who feel entitled based on rhetoric professed by Dave and many, like him, who spout the same kind of rebellious speech. Those people are the ones that typically refuse to leave, argue with the property owner / representative and then must threatened with trespassing charges.

Dave was seen talking the other day to the BCC, crying about how his business has declined. And somehow, this is supposed to translate to private property owners giving up their rights? Of course the very high prices associated with beach rental and restaurants in our area have nothing to do with that, right? Even beach front rentals have declined. What's the reason there? Definitely not the lack of private beach.

Vacation prices in Walton County have continued to increase rapidly. Tourists are balking at that cost and choosing other places. Cancun is cheaper (and they have private beach, BTW).

There is likely more than one reason bookings are down a little. Including Beach front rentals. Lack of access, high prices and overcrowding just to name a fee makes tourism stinky for all business.

 

[bob bob]

Another comment on the article. Once again, CU has been litigated and is now dead. SB1622 does absolutely nothing for that cause in Walton County. But Trumbull puts it in the bill for one purpose only - to appease the constituency. Uninformed people think just because a county can now claim customary use, that it will stick and become permanent law - absolutely not. Property owners would then be the ones who take the county court as opposed to the other way around that happened in Walton County. A government entity must then PROVE that there has been customary use. Of course, Walton County failed to do this. Because of this outcome, IMHO, the cards are stacked against any other government agency trying to do the same thing.

However, the county is now focusing their efforts on the idea of beach nourishment to create public beach. It failed in 2015 because they couldn't get construction easements from property owners. 161.141 F.S. passed in 2016 sets a path for the county to forcibly get construction easements via eminent domain proceedings.

If this is an easy way to force beach nourishment, why didn't the county do this first, using money they wasted losing the customary use case? I'll tell you the reason. The attorneys that the county hired fed the BCC a load of crap regarding being able to prevail on customary use because they stood to make a lot of money in legal fees. That combined with public outcry as well as Dave Rauschkolb and his Florida Beaches for All organization (which pedaled tons of disinformation, BTW, which riled up the public even more) made it impossible for the BCC to walk away from the litigation.

I'm probably giving the previous BCC too much credit, but maybe they thought this out and figured it might have been cheaper at that time to prevail on the customary use case (CU lawsuit initiated in 2018, two years AFTER 161.141 F.S.) rather going through (and paying for) almost 1200 eminent domain proceedings to be able to nourish the beach against the wishes of the property owners.

Now, Walton County has no choice but try to implement beach nourishment. The question is will the property owners bring suit against the state and the county to oppose 161.141 F.S. from using eminent domain proceedings to force construction easements on properties where the owners do not desire or believe they need beach nourishment?

If a beach is deemed critically eroded does that supercede beach front owners rights and allow nourishment whether they like it or not? Kind of a way around the issue and take the beach?

 

[mputnal]

If a beach is deemed critically eroded does that supercede beach front owners rights and allow nourishment whether they like it or not? Kind of a way around the issue and take the beach?

If I were a beach front owner I would take the beach nourishment, never put up a private beach sign and be satisfied that life is good. Just listening to the laughter of a family playing on the beach instead of placing all sorts of sign restrictions on that family makes more common sense. Is that not what Liberty is? Mike Huckabee and a few others started this nonsense by using the fear of "people just want something for nothing" but the truth is just the opposite. I have learned in this forum that some people will never be satisfied and compromise is futile. I think the County has figured that out.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

If a beach is deemed critically eroded does that supercede beach front owners rights and allow nourishment whether they like it or not? Kind of a way around the issue and take the beach?

Fair questions. Absolutely yes to the second one - at least south of a CURRENT and PROPERLY determined ECL.

Can the county force eminent domain proceedings needed for construction easements which are needed for nourishment? 161.141 F.S. seems to provide a path. But just because a statute is in place, doesn't mean that it can't be challenged. If it were to come down to that, I have no idea who would prevail (besides lawyers). But it is curious that this statute was put in place in 2016 just after the nourishment attempt failed due to lack of construction easements in 2015.

In a previous post I asked a question basically inquiring what criteria does Florida DEP use to determine "critically eroded" beach. Below is what I have since found:

From Critically Eroded Beaches in Florida, Office of Resilience and Coastal Protection, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, July 2023 :
The department, pursuant to rule 62B-36.002(5), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), defines “critically eroded shoreline” as, “a segment of the shoreline where natural processes or human activity have caused or contributed to erosion and recession of the beach or dune system to such a degree that upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat, or important cultural resources are threatened or lost. Critically eroded shorelines may also include peripheral segments or gaps between identified critically eroded areas which, although they may be stable or slightly erosional now, their inclusion is necessary for continuity of management of the coastal system or for the design integrity of adjacent beach management projects.”

Since the back to back hurricanes in 2004/2005, the beach has recovered nicely with no evidence that it continues to erode, IMHO. Of course, storms can change that.

My problem with the DEP's definition is that it appears to be highly subjective.

Let's take recreational interests. What does that mean? Not enough space on the public beach which are constrained by property lines and great increase in tourism (density)? What benchmark is used to definitively establish this?

Critically eroded shorelines may also include peripheral segments or gaps between identified critically eroded areas which, although they may be stable or slightly erosional now, their inclusion is necessary for continuity of management of the coastal system or for the design integrity of adjacent beach management projects.” Why aren't state parks included?

Not everyone's favorite, but "upland development .... are threatened or lost" is very much negated by the majority of threatened properties already being protected by seawalls or built on pylons to survive a major hurricane.

What is meant by "important cultural resources are threatened or lost"? What is a cultural resource to be protected by potential nourishment?

Perhaps protecting "wildlife habitat" is the most legitimate, IMO, regarding turtle nesting. I would truly like to see someone do some research to determine if Panama City's nourished beaches provide statistically more nesting sites per mile than Walton County's unnourished beaches.

A sincere analysis of FDEP's definition of "critically eroded beach" should lead one to agree that there is a lot of latitude in their interpretation. And without surprise, Walton County will definitely interpret it the way they want to achieve their ultimate goal - more public beach.

It wouldn't surprise me if FDEP is ultimately legally challenged.

 

[leeboy]

Fair questions. Absolutely yes to the second one - at least south of a CURRENT and PROPERLY determined ECL.

Can the county force eminent domain proceedings needed for construction easements which are needed for nourishment? 161.141 F.S. seems to provide a path. But just because a statute is in place, doesn't mean that it can't be challenged. If it were to come down to that, I have no idea who would prevail (besides lawyers). But it is curious that this statute was put in place in 2016 just after the nourishment attempt failed due to lack of construction easements in 2015.

In a previous post I asked a question basically inquiring what criteria does Florida DEP use to determine "critically eroded" beach. Below is what I have since found:

From Critically Eroded Beaches in Florida, Office of Resilience and Coastal Protection, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, July 2023 :
The department, pursuant to rule 62B-36.002(5), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), defines “critically eroded shoreline” as, “a segment of the shoreline where natural processes or human activity have caused or contributed to erosion and recession of the beach or dune system to such a degree that upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat, or important cultural resources are threatened or lost. Critically eroded shorelines may also include peripheral segments or gaps between identified critically eroded areas which, although they may be stable or slightly erosional now, their inclusion is necessary for continuity of management of the coastal system or for the design integrity of adjacent beach management projects.”

Since the back to back hurricanes in 2004/2005, the beach has recovered nicely with no evidence that it continues to erode, IMHO. Of course, storms can change that.

My problem with the DEP's definition is that it appears to be highly subjective.

Let's take recreational interests. What does that mean? Not enough space on the public beach which are constrained by property lines and great increase in tourism (density)? What benchmark is used to definitively establish this?

Critically eroded shorelines may also include peripheral segments or gaps between identified critically eroded areas which, although they may be stable or slightly erosional now, their inclusion is necessary for continuity of management of the coastal system or for the design integrity of adjacent beach management projects.” Why aren't state parks included?

Not everyone's favorite, but "upland development .... are threatened or lost" is very much negated by the majority of threatened properties already being protected by seawalls or built on pylons to survive a major hurricane.

What is meant by "important cultural resources are threatened or lost"? What is a cultural resource to be protected by potential nourishment?

Perhaps protecting "wildlife habitat" is the most legitimate, IMO, regarding turtle nesting. I would truly like to see someone do some research to determine if Panama City's nourished beaches provide statistically more nesting sites per mile than Walton County's unnourished beaches.

A sincere analysis of FDEP's definition of "critically eroded beach" should lead one to agree that there is a lot of latitude in their interpretation. And without surprise, Walton County will definitely interpret it the way they want to achieve their ultimate goal - more public beach.

It wouldn't surprise me if FDEP is ultimately legally challenged.

Losing even 5 feet of beach depth seems critical to me. I do believe most areas have not returned to pre 2005 levels. That is because of development and other storms. We've been lucky not to have a big direct hit. The seawall and geotubes alone will get scattered everywhere and will need state and federal funds for cleanup. I saw how many were hastily and poorly, haphazardly constructed. Many illegally.

Lawyers may beat Walton County but not mother nature.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

There is likely more than one reason bookings are down a little. Including Beach front rentals. Lack of access, high prices and overcrowding just to name a fee makes tourism stinky for all business.

Yep, I agree. I just pointed out the fact that beach front rentals are down as well (no beach shortage there) just to illustrate that it's not only because of the lack of beach that business is down as Dave Raushkolb so desperately wants everyone to believe in order to support his position. He's still riding on the same lame argument that because the local economy may suffer due to lack of public beach, that somehow private property rights should not exist. I know that for the general public, this is a hard pill to swallow: the impact of a local economy should never transcend private property rights. And it was never a cornerstone for customary use as so many argued for.

If there is a perceived loss in business revenue because the public can't access private beach, then simply put, the private beach should also be perceived as having value, which of course it does. CU advocates were so desperate at one point to justify their position that they said the beach had no value because the property owner did not pay taxes on the beach because it's unbuildable. If you own property, then you know the main thing that affects your property taxes is the appraisal. And the appraisal basically is established by what similar properties in your neighborhood are selling for, not because you "can't build something in your front yard or back yard".

So back on topic, yes, business may be down. And my point is it's not all due to the beach access situation as Dave wants everyone to believe.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

From @leeboy:

We've been lucky not to have a big direct hit.

Something we both can agree upon!

 

[Oldmanbeacher]

Yep, I agree. I just pointed out the fact that beach front rentals are down as well (no beach shortage there) just to illustrate that it's not only because of the lack of beach that business is down as Dave Raushkolb so desperately wants everyone to believe in order to support his position. He's still riding on the same lame argument that because the local economy may suffer due to lack of public beach, that somehow private property rights should not exist. I know that for the general public, this is a hard pill to swallow: the impact of a local economy should never transcend private property rights. And it was never a cornerstone for customary use as so many argued for.

If there is a perceived loss in business revenue because the public can't access private beach, then simply put, the private beach should also be perceived as having value, which of course it does. CU advocates were so desperate at one point to justify their position that they said the beach had no value because the property owner did not pay taxes on the beach because it's unbuildable. If you own property, then you know the main thing that affects your property taxes is the appraisal. And the appraisal basically is established by what similar properties in your neighborhood are selling for, not because you "can't build something in your front yard or back yard".

So back on topic, yes, business may be down. And my point is it's not all due to the beach access situation as Dave wants everyone to believe.

Your obsession with Dave is tiresome. Im guessing you got kicked off fbook.

I Want to use the beach as I have for decades. I could care less about tourist dollars.

 

[UofL]

There is likely more than one reason bookings are down a little. Including Beach front rentals. Lack of access, high prices and overcrowding just to name a fee makes tourism stinky for all business.

I'm grateful that 'my' rental agency - since 2010 - is letting me make monthly payments. I really like visiting there (since '89, staying since '98). We have sometimes visited 3 times a year but with crowds & costs, we're going to limit it to Sept/Oct. Especially not knowing what is going to happen to our savings. We're retired now. Ellen

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Your obsession with Dave is tiresome. Im guessing you got kicked off fbook.

I Want to use the beach as I have for decades. I could care less about tourist dollars.

I can't seem to click on your avatar to determine how long you've been on SoWal. But I'm going to guess not long. So a guess is that you have no idea as to the history between Dave (and friends) and myself (and other beach front owners) for the past 20 years or so here on SoWal. I have never appreciated his hypocrisy, documented several times here on SoWal. I never understood how the people could be so gullible, especially when it came to Florida Beaches for All and the mistruths they pedaled. Of course they were in the majority and I was in the minority. And as such, they continually painted me in such a negative light as a beach front owner that I really struggled not to take it personally.

If Dave continues to insert himself into private / public beach issue at BCC meetings, then he's more than fair game on social media. You call that an obsession. I call it my duty to shine a light when yet another mistruth is spoken.

I only read Facebook but do not post. Unlike the wonderful message format here on SoWal, it's sometimes difficult to follow or find a topic on Facebook. But I know most people have left here and have gone over to Facebook over the years.

And the way they delete many others from one of the Walton County FB pages (can you say Karen version?), you're right, I wouldn't last a day because they truly don't want anyone to post anything that doesn't fit their narrative. So I don't try. Heck, I probably wouldn't last on the non-Karen version as even the "level headed" administrators there are so public beach oriented that you hardly don't see anyone like going against the narrative. Censored media is bad for everyone except for those who don't want to have a true dialog and hear differing opinions (or fact, many times).


Soooo..... continue to use the beach. Nobody is stopping you as long as you're at one of the public accesses and state parks (free during the summer).

Regarding "I could care less about tourist dollars", I'd suggest that you don't share that idea with Dave (or most people for that matter in Walton County).