Private Beaches in South Walton - Customary Use Updates & SB1622

[mputnal]

SIX mentions of the word GREED in just one post. And there's not one mention of private property rights or even that the customary use fell flat its face as I predicted here years ago. Some things never change.

Interesting... Reggie Gaskins aka Mike Huckabee - I never knew.

Sincerely glad to see you're alive and kicking.

You knew. Glad to hear from you too

Greed is a human behavior. That means we all have it. Read all the words and you will see that I do not blame everything on one group of people. I own property. You own property. We all want privacy and that is not greed. Greed (in this context) is when you desire privacy at the expense of others. I think using the word GREED six times in one post might be a bit much. I got it down to four

 

[mputnal]

Immanent domain would require the county pay beach front owners market rates for the property seized, however that would be determined through the court process (via appeals of initial appraisals).

On the other hand, I believe I mentioned years ago on SoWal that the county could strategically seize only adjacent properties next to public accesses to minimize expense and maximize public use. To me, this made the most sense - the county actually paying for something that they are taking.

Eminent Domain would only work if private property owners need or want the money. Wealthy people do not need the money. They want exclusive rights to the beach. Go back and read what Reggie Gaskins aka Huckabee wrote. He believed that he earned the right to keep people off his beach. He used all sorts of reasoning but the one that stuck with me is that he believed his status in life gave him that right...

 

[jeremer]

Immanent domain would require the county pay beach front owners market rates for the property seized, however that would be determined through the court process (via appeals of initial appraisals).

On the other hand, I believe I mentioned years ago on SoWal that the county could strategically seize only adjacent properties next to public accesses to minimize expense and maximize public use. To me, this made the most sense - the county actually paying for something that they are taking.

I don't have a problem with county paying to correct an old mistake of putting deeds on beach - but the state should reimburse the county.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Today, the Florida House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill (SB 1622) that would repeal a 2018 law limiting public access and barring local governments from passing ordinances regarding customary use.

The Florida Senate passed the Customary Use bill last week. With today’s House vote, the measure now goes to Gov.
Ron DeSantis for his signature.

Walton County Commissioner
Tony Anderson praised House Rep.
Shane Abbott, who spearheaded
this legislation. “We owe Rep.
Abbott our deepest thanks. He
worked tirelessly on this bill and
encouraged his House colleagues to
support it. The unanimous vote
illustrates his resolve and
perseverance in getting this done.”


Rep. Abbott noted that this was the top issue for his constituents and this bill goes a long way to helping correct what the Legislature did in 2018.

Most people who debate customary use rely on emotion rather than facts. SB 1622 will DO NOTHING to reinstate customary use as CU has already been litigated and settled in favor of private property owners. However it's great if you're a politician looking for praise and support by letting everyone know you're all about customary use.

Again, the county settled customary use WITH PREJUDICE. So even if the county were to "re-declare" customary use, the property owners would file suit against the county citing the previous customary settlement (did I mention settled WITH PREJUDICE?). At that point, I believe the county would be on the hook for ALL legal fees if it got that far.

CU is dead.

The real hook that SB 1622 has is that it authorizes the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to proceed with beach restoration projects for any area designated by the department as critically eroded in the Critically Eroded Beaches in Florida Report dated August 2024 (Coastal Critical Erosion Areas - click).

But my understanding is that a construction easement is required by the county/state on beach front property before any beach nourishment work can begin. Years ago, the county tried this and well over 90% of the beach front owners refused to provide an easement and ended the beach nourishment attempt.

So the real question at hand is whether or not the state/county can FORCE a construction easement via this bill upon an unwilling property owner who does not feel their beach needs nourishing as they did years ago. IMO, that will be the next wave of racked up legal expenses and the State of Florida / Walton County will be the defendant if they try to force construction easements.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Eminent Domain would only work if private property owners need or want the money.

Absolutely false. All the property owner can do is haggle over the price in court.

BTW, you really need to let go of Mike Huckabee being the focused demon in all of this, for your sanity.

 

[mputnal]

Absolutely false. All the property owner can do is haggle over the price in court.

BTW, you really need to let go of Mike Huckabee being the focused demon in all of this, for your sanity.

That is where people like Mike Huckabee comes in. I do not believe he is a demon. I believe that he is a hypocrite yes. I believe that he does not care about you and I working class human, does not care about this community and finally does not really care about any beach but his.

 

[bob1]

That is where people like Mike Huckabee comes in. I do not believe he is a demon. I believe that he is a hypocrite yes. I believe that he does not care about you and I working class human, does not care about this community and finally does not really care about any beach but his.

Jesus gave it to him.

 

[mputnal]

Most people who debate customary use rely on emotion rather than facts. SB 1622 will DO NOTHING to reinstate customary use as CU has already been litigated and settled in favor of private property owners. However it's great if you're a politician looking for praise and support by letting everyone know you're all about customary use.

Again, the county settled customary use WITH PREJUDICE. So even if the county were to "re-declare" customary use, the property owners would file suit against the county citing the previous customary settlement (did I mention settled WITH PREJUDICE?). At that point, I believe the county would be on the hook for ALL legal fees if it got that far.

CU is dead.

The real hook that SB 1622 has is that it authorizes the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to proceed with beach restoration projects for any area designated by the department as critically eroded in the Critically Eroded Beaches in Florida Report dated August 2024 (Coastal Critical Erosion Areas - click).

But my understanding is that a construction easement is required by the county/state on beach front property before any beach nourishment work can begin. Years ago, the county tried this and well over 90% of the beach front owners refused to provide an easement and ended the beach nourishment attempt.

So the real question at hand is whether or not the state/county can FORCE a construction easement via this bill upon an unwilling property owner who does not feel their beach needs nourishing as they did years ago. IMO, that will be the next wave of racked up legal expenses and the State of Florida / Walton County will be the defendant if they try to force construction easements.

Follow our leader...don't get hung up on facts

Emotion is being used against all of us. One day you will figure this out.

Dead is the end of life. As long as we have human life and beautiful beaches this will be an issue. Elite wealth and unchecked power is not our friend. I have "listened" to many a podcast of this group. They are obsessed with money and power. Not saying you and I do not have obsessions but unchecked power is not something we have. We have more in common than you would like to believe. Instead of a war between customary use and private property rights which could be negotiated in a common sense manner we should be discussing the impacts of over-development and who benefits and who loses and what to do about it.

 

[Jane]

Follow our leader...don't get hung up on facts

Emotion is being used against all of us. One day you will figure this out.

Dead is the end of life. As long as we have human life and beautiful beaches this will be an issue. Elite wealth and unchecked power is not our friend. I have "listened" to many a podcast of this group. They are obsessed with money and power. Not saying you and I do not have obsessions but unchecked power is not something we have. We have more in common than you would like to believe. Instead of a war between customary use and private property rights which could be negotiated in a common sense manner we should be discussing the impacts of over-development and who benefits and who loses and what to do about it.

We all know we have an amazing spot here with an ecosystem that should be revered instead of exploited. What if bed tax dollars focused on respect instead of just fun? Could we improve the behavior of visitors? Ask them to come to experience the wonders of nature?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Dead is the end of life.

To reaffirm my previous comment:

CU is dead.

However there are other ways the county could have addressed the lack of public beach:

1. PAY for it, as previously mentioned, via eminent domain but only on strategically located properties. The biggest question would be how much $$$. How does one value the sandy part of the beach that is connected to upland private property? The county could try a pilot case in court to see how it works out.

2. On appropriate parcels, the county could work out a compromise with willing beach front owners where the public could use private beach in exchange for lower taxes or some other annual compensation. BTW, I mentioned this years and years ago that the back half of the beach was lightly used and that maybe in exchange for compensation, private property owners would let the public use this part of the beach. Mike Huckabee even suggested a similar measure when he was part of a committee to try to come to some compromise. Dave Rauschkolb would have none of it - "ALL OR NONE" and "NO COMPROMISE". He said it reminded him of "go to the back of the bus" days. So right now, the public has none.

3. The county could buy beach front properties and retitle the sandy beach part as public. Then they could resell the beach front property for close to what they paid for it.

4. Or they can just wait. A large enough hurricane will eventually come through that will REDEFINE the DEP's slanted definition of "Critically Eroded". At that point, I'm guessing beach front owners will throw in the towel and settle for beach nourishment and the demise of squeaky white sugar beaches.