Public vs Private Beach [threads merged]
- Thread starter SoWal Staff
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Speaking of steel1man, not that he owes me a reply, but after a couple of attempts on my part to ask him to clarify his comment he chooses not to:
Unless there's something that has recently occurred that I'm unaware of, he's dead wrong about who owns the 3 beach accesses on Blue Mountain Road where the single homes are.
Some of you should be up in arms regarding this statement. I made a snarky comment (yes, I admit) that they sure had really nice Trex walkovers if they were privately funded. But he didn't reply. And I'm guessing because I'm right.
As hard as "everyone" is arguing for public beach via customary use (which is definitely an uphill battle and is supposedly on a track by track basis), why in the world would those in the know, arguing customary access here, allow steel1man to get away with claiming the 3 public accesses on Blue Mountain Road as private?
And doesn't it bother some of you that the sign at 83 and Blue Mountain Road states "Local Traffic Only" to Old BMB where these public accesses are located?
And take a look at parking where these accesses are located - VERY little to be had. The county could easily provide more parking on the right away like they do on 83 and Blue Mountain Road near the regional access. But no, there are NO PARKING signs up and down the road east of the main regional access.
Oh, did I mention there are influential people who reside there (and I'm not talking about Huckabee)?...probably just a coincidence.
Unless there's something that has recently occurred that I'm unaware of, he's dead wrong about who owns the 3 beach accesses on Blue Mountain Road where the single homes are.
Some of you should be up in arms regarding this statement. I made a snarky comment (yes, I admit) that they sure had really nice Trex walkovers if they were privately funded. But he didn't reply. And I'm guessing because I'm right.
As hard as "everyone" is arguing for public beach via customary use (which is definitely an uphill battle and is supposedly on a track by track basis), why in the world would those in the know, arguing customary access here, allow steel1man to get away with claiming the 3 public accesses on Blue Mountain Road as private?
And doesn't it bother some of you that the sign at 83 and Blue Mountain Road states "Local Traffic Only" to Old BMB where these public accesses are located?
And take a look at parking where these accesses are located - VERY little to be had. The county could easily provide more parking on the right away like they do on 83 and Blue Mountain Road near the regional access. But no, there are NO PARKING signs up and down the road east of the main regional access.
Oh, did I mention there are influential people who reside there (and I'm not talking about Huckabee)?...probably just a coincidence.
Misty when is the next BCC meeting?
There are three key factors that have driven this need to first rope off the beach and now for some, attempt to lawfully acquire title:
1). Beach Vendors - I don't ever remember this being such a problem three or four years ago.
2). Enforcement - never had an issue getting service for problems on the beach. I remember when beach deputies would stop and warn women wearing thongs. TDC code enforcement's a joke, over paid joke.
3). Different class of tourist in town.
Solve those problems and the "sky stops falling" for many.
1). Beach Vendors - I don't ever remember this being such a problem three or four years ago.
2). Enforcement - never had an issue getting service for problems on the beach. I remember when beach deputies would stop and warn women wearing thongs. TDC code enforcement's a joke, over paid joke.
3). Different class of tourist in town.
Solve those problems and the "sky stops falling" for many.
Add a 4th John G; many of the "old" owners are gone and have been replaced by people who know little about the area and it's history and have spent millions for what they were told and reasonably believe is property that extends to the waters edge. I am not crazy about these statements about "selfish" people. All of us are selfish in that we seek to advance our interests. My interests here lie with preserving jobs and an historic way of life. But I understand that the beachfront owners have different interests and the BCC must finally decide which interests will be honored.
Catmoney said the following regarding bluemtnbeachvagrant's earlier post:
The actual quote from Reynolds is
"In summary, although the doctrine of customary usage of the sandy beach areas of this state, as annunciated in City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc.,294 So.2d 73(Fla. 1974), offers a potential additional ground to support the trial court's ruling, we do not rely on it. That doctrine requires the courts to ascertain in each case the degree of customary and ancient use the beach has been subjected to and, in addition, to balance whether the proposed use of the land by the fee owners will interfere with such use enjoyed by the public in the past. If there is no private fee owner of the sandy beach area involved in the case, that doctrine has no application.
As you can see nowhere in the language does it mention a tract by tract basis. It states courts are required to ascertain in each case the degree of customary and ancient use the BEACH has been subjected to. So what does the court mean by the word beach? I don't know. I guess that is what will be decided sometime in the future. The reason lawyers and commentators believe that it must be decided on a tract by tract basis, is because of the language regarding balancing the proposed use of the land by the fee owners and how it will interfere with the past public use. It appears the proposed use of the land by the fee owners in Walton County is simply to deny the public access. Therefore if 1100+ suits were filed, and the county won the first law suit heard, then the County's attorney could argue that all the beach in Walton County is so similarly situated and the proposed use by the fee owners is so similar, that the initial ruling should apply to the county as a whole and to all beach front fee owners. If the Court agreed the ruling would apply to the entire county and end the other lawsuits.
Or you could look at it another way. The County could sue all the beach front fee owners that are blocking the public’s access to the beach. Then you would have one lawsuit with potentially 1100+ defendants. In that case if every defendant fee owner was proposing the same use of the land, to deny the public access, the court could find that this use unfairly interferes with such use as the public has enjoyed in the past and apply the ruling to all defendants.
Either way I can understand the beach front owners’ complaints about poor behavior and littering. We have laws about these things and they should be enforced. My wife and I come to the beach with one bag two chairs and a cooler. I don’t think we have ever left the beach without picking up more trash than we brought. I wish everyone would do this same thing, then maybe this wouldn’t be such an issue.
The actual quote from Reynolds is
"In summary, although the doctrine of customary usage of the sandy beach areas of this state, as annunciated in City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc.,294 So.2d 73(Fla. 1974), offers a potential additional ground to support the trial court's ruling, we do not rely on it. That doctrine requires the courts to ascertain in each case the degree of customary and ancient use the beach has been subjected to and, in addition, to balance whether the proposed use of the land by the fee owners will interfere with such use enjoyed by the public in the past. If there is no private fee owner of the sandy beach area involved in the case, that doctrine has no application.
As you can see nowhere in the language does it mention a tract by tract basis. It states courts are required to ascertain in each case the degree of customary and ancient use the BEACH has been subjected to. So what does the court mean by the word beach? I don't know. I guess that is what will be decided sometime in the future. The reason lawyers and commentators believe that it must be decided on a tract by tract basis, is because of the language regarding balancing the proposed use of the land by the fee owners and how it will interfere with the past public use. It appears the proposed use of the land by the fee owners in Walton County is simply to deny the public access. Therefore if 1100+ suits were filed, and the county won the first law suit heard, then the County's attorney could argue that all the beach in Walton County is so similarly situated and the proposed use by the fee owners is so similar, that the initial ruling should apply to the county as a whole and to all beach front fee owners. If the Court agreed the ruling would apply to the entire county and end the other lawsuits.
Or you could look at it another way. The County could sue all the beach front fee owners that are blocking the public’s access to the beach. Then you would have one lawsuit with potentially 1100+ defendants. In that case if every defendant fee owner was proposing the same use of the land, to deny the public access, the court could find that this use unfairly interferes with such use as the public has enjoyed in the past and apply the ruling to all defendants.
Either way I can understand the beach front owners’ complaints about poor behavior and littering. We have laws about these things and they should be enforced. My wife and I come to the beach with one bag two chairs and a cooler. I don’t think we have ever left the beach without picking up more trash than we brought. I wish everyone would do this same thing, then maybe this wouldn’t be such an issue.
