Public vs Private Beach [threads merged]

[lazin&drinkin]

Bob,

I live directly beachfront in a non-rental building. Nobody got BP money for lost rental income. One got money for decreased value of his condo sold during that period. Some got money specifically for decreased enjoyment of our deeded private beach during the time in question.

I suspect that BP made a case by case determination in responding to individual applications for lost rental income. For those with no rental income from their non-rental property, I imagine it would be hard to convince BP to reimburse them money they never lost. For owners of rental properties who demonstrated losses, I have no issues with their being compensated for those losses.

To apply for compensation for rental income loss related to a non-rental property would have constituted fraud, and since the U.S.P.S. was used in the BP compensation applications and reimbursements, you could add wire fraud to the charges that could attend such a criminal activity.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

This is Walton County's description of the old blue mountain beach accesses:

"Neighborhood Beach Access - Neighborhood beach access is primarily for walk-up traffic. Many of these also have flags indicating current surf conditions"

NO KIDDING!!! As I've harped on, there is "practically" no parking allowed on Blue Mountain Road in your neighborhood with all the No Parking signs in and around your subdivision. So you and steel1man are clearly implying and confirming my position that you guys simply don't really want the public to use the public accesses in Old Blue Mountain Beach.

Steel1man even resorts to lies to perpetuate this attitude.

And what about the "LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY" sign? Why don't you comment on that?

And what's with the all the No Parking signs on the east side of 83 but not on the west down from the Ice Creamery? There are homes on both sides. Seems to me there's plenty of room on the east side right of way as well. Why isn't the public screaming at the BCC to remove the no parking signs there? This is the main road to Regional Access. And it wouldn't cost the county a single penny except to simply remove the signs.

The reason as I've mentioned before is influence by some of those in Old Blue Mountain Beach. The entire neighborhood is fortressed with No Parking signs. And yet the county pays for the walkovers in the neighborhood. It's shameful.

Now, after a taking a breather, I do understand where steel1man (and you since you're not calling him out on his lies) are coming from as I am a beach front owner.

But there's absolutely no excuse to prevent or discourage the public's right to use EXISTING public accesses via no parking signs, "LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY" sign and of course lies, period.

You simply want your cake and eat it.

 

[Teresa]

I don't think anyone is lying here. It's complicated. But interesting. It's 2016 in a very beautiful Florida beach town. Who is in charge?

 

[jkmason]

To me the "local traffic only" signs make sense. There is no parking available in "old blue mountain beach". The signs save people from wasting their time trying to find a non existent parking space.

Yes, there are two marked parking spaces near the sea grade walk over and there are a few shoulder parking spaces near the walk overs that people use, but once the lots adjacent to those parking spaces are built out, those spaces will be gone.

The beach walk overs in old blue mountain beach are great for walking access to the beaches, but not vehicle access.

People from Redfish Village, Lakeside at Blue Mountain, Preserve Place Condos and Preserve at Grayton Beach use our walk overs. I know this for a fact. I lived at the Preserve Place condos for a year and my preferred access was the walkover at the end of Gulf Point Rd.

 

[Bob Wells]

Bob,

I live directly beachfront in a non-rental building. Nobody got BP money for lost rental income. One got money for decreased value of his condo sold during that period. Some got money specifically for decreased enjoyment of our deeded private beach during the time in question.

I suspect that BP made a case by case determination in responding to individual applications for lost rental income. For those with no rental income from their non-rental property, I imagine it would be hard to convince BP to reimburse them money they never lost. For owners of rental properties who demonstrated losses, I have no issues with their being compensated for those losses.

To apply for compensation for rental income loss related to a non-rental property would have constituted fraud, and since the U.S.P.S. was used in the BP compensation applications and reimbursements, you could add wire fraud to the charges that could attend such a criminal activity.

I understand.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I don't think anyone is lying here. It's complicated. But interesting. It's 2016 in a very beautiful Florida beach town. Who is in charge?

Teresa, it's pretty simple to me. If steel1man claims they own the 3 accesses but the county is the entity who builds the walkovers and the 3 access are designated public by the county, how complicated could be it possibly be?

If we can't even call a lie a lie, how in the world can there be meaningful dialogue about anything else?

added: If there's something else I should know that makes this complicated and you don't want to make it public, please send me a message.

 

[steel1man]

Teresa, it's pretty simple to me. If steel1man claims they own the 3 accesses but the county is the entity who builds the walkovers and the 3 access are designated public by the county, how complicated could be it possibly be?

If we can't even call a lie a lie, how in the world can there be meaningful dialogue about anything else?

added: If there's something else I should know that makes this complicated and you don't want to make it public, please send me a message.

Vagrant you look like you good use a Snickers

 

[Danny Glidewell]

I thought the theory has always been that the neighborhood accesses were to provide for walking and bicycle traffic to the beach and to take pressure off the regional accesses. The Regional accesses are for those who come by car to the beach. There are just too many visitors for the amount of space available at the accesses. So we need more beachfront purchased to provide additional accesses. We also need more bathroom and picnic facilities at the accesses to meet the demand for such amenities. Not to mention the critical need for parking.

 

[Mike Smith]

Danny - I agree with your statement with the caveat that the Neighborhood Beach accesses remain as they are today. Adding parking and bathrooms to the parks might help satisfy the demand. And maybe the parks could charge for parking in order to keep up with the maintenance the increased traffic would cause.

 

[steel1man]

I thought the theory has always been that the neighborhood accesses were to provide for walking and bicycle traffic to the beach and to take pressure off the regional accesses. The Regional accesses are for those who come by car to the beach. There are just too many visitors for the amount of space available at the accesses. So we need more beachfront purchased to provide additional accesses. We also need more bathroom and picnic facilities at the accesses to meet the demand for such amenities. Not to mention the critical need for parking.

Parking more parking? Have you ever had someone knock on your door with the tag number of the parked car that ran into your car in Your driveway and door off?
These good people saw it and chased the car to get the tag number. WCSO and FHP now tracking the beach guess that parked, destroyed property and fled..
Gotta love public parking on streets at accesses. These visitor and low down locals think they can do anything on the beach they visit and then just drive away for others to take care of. So ALL( Vagrant u 2) get ready to see MORE tow away, no parking signs and LESS parking not more and surely not a park in a neighborhood. # Moratoriumonbuilding