Public vs Private Beach [threads merged]

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Danny, good news! After reading the WCSO SOP here on SoWal a little more closely, I won't ever have to be melodramatic again.

".....(NOTE: If the alleged trespasser is far SOP #: 15-004 Page 4 of 7 Effective Date: 05/26/2015 enough away from the wet sand where it is obvious to the officer based on other documents received they are on the owner’s property, a signed and sealed survey not approved by FDEP for purposes of establishing mean high-water line will suffice.)"

That's certainly reasonable and what I was looking for. Sorry for the unnecessary dialogue regarding MHWL.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

So if we rent in old seagrove in the magical forest with multiple beach accesses off 30a where do y'all think we can we place our umbrella and chairs with peace of mind that we will not be asked to move? Thank you. Planning our vacay.

Click here.

It would be nice if they simply had an interactive map but I can understand why they don't.

I know this will be bring tears to LVT, but I hope you have a great vacation and are not accosted by "mean, rich and greedy" beach front owners.

 

[Danny Glidewell]

BMBvagrant the only dispute is over the white sand part of the beach. Once upon a time I was one of those poor people responding to these issues and in the case of a disputed boundary, that limited area was the only issue and the only line we could not enforce. But if someone was in the residence or pool or deck or driveway etc. they went to jail. So, if someone is trespassing on your grass or in your stairwell or wherever, except the white sand part of the beach, your rights will be enforced to the limit of the law. I hope we can somehow find common ground on the disputed issues and the disaster that looms ahead can be avoided. My suggestion to you would be to look for compromise as well.

 

[Lake View Too]

While I am a softy for soft white sand for everybody, I am also a stickler for precise language. I have never mentioned the MHWL, ever. The right of customary use is a much broader principle and is a right that has been established in English law for centuries. The public is not, just now, claiming this right. Certain property owners are, just now, claiming that their rights dissolve this right. May the chips hit the fan.

 

[MRBS]

Click here.

It would be nice if they simply had an interactive map but I can understand why they don't.

I know this will be bring tears to LVT, but I hope you have a great vacation and are not accosted by "mean, rich and greedy" beach front owners.

Okay - that's a list of all accesses to the beach, which once descend the stairs looks wide open, just like it's been for my 40+ years visiting. Thanks!

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

BMBvagrant the only dispute is over the white sand part of the beach. Once upon a time I was one of those poor people responding to these issues and in the case of a disputed boundary, that limited area was the only issue and the only line we could not enforce. But if someone was in the residence or pool or deck or driveway etc. they went to jail. So, if someone is trespassing on your grass or in your stairwell or wherever, except the white sand part of the beach, your rights will be enforced to the limit of the law. I hope we can somehow find common ground on the disputed issues and the disaster that looms ahead can be avoided. My suggestion to you would be to look for compromise as well.

Danny, just curious, has the operating procedure changed since you were "one of the those poor people"? In other words you couldn't make a determination then - but now a deputy can now make a determination today in an "obvious" situation as previously quoted and shown below?

"If the alleged trespasser is far enough away from the wet sand where it is obvious to the officer based on other documents received they are on the owner’s property, a signed and sealed survey not approved by FDEP for purposes of establishing mean high-water line will suffice."

Is this not a compromise regarding the determination of the MHWL? I as much admitted my melodrama as you called it was unnecessary as the southern boundary is enforced by what as I see as a reasonable method. Any "error" will most likely benefit public.

Or are you talking about a compromise to allow the public to use our beach, in general, based on customary use?

 

[Andy A]

I am going to tout my military backround and experience as I highly value it. I, and I imagine thousands of others that have sered, view our pristing white sands bordering the Gulf of Mexico in the same context as our national and state forests. It is there for all American citizens and their guests to use respectifully for their enjoyment and relaxation. If some choose to do otherwise, the authorities should be notified.
When I purchased here in1991, there were no signs littering these beautiful beaches. Nor were there any in 20003 when we moved here permenantly. These signs are a blight on the beauty of our beaches. It should be mandated that they be taken down!

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

While I am a softy for soft white sand for everybody, I am also a stickler for precise language. I have never mentioned the MHWL, ever. The right of customary use is a much broader principle and is a right that has been established in English law for centuries. The public is not, just now, claiming this right. Certain property owners are, just now, claiming that their rights dissolve this right. May the chips hit the fan.

And that attitude combined with the HUGE increase in beach pressure from SO MANY developments in the last 10-15 years has resulted in this problem of private property owners posting their private property.

And quite honestly, that's also the reason nourishment was defeated. The majority of the owners don't trust what the county would do down the road if the beach was allowed to become public (high rises, public beach vending, etc.) The owners chose what they believe to be the lesser of two evils: possible future county legislation that degrades the beach vs. less protection as a result of a hurricane.

What was customary for the private property owners was not to have to compete with the public for space on their own property as mentioned a few times here. It was an absolute non-issue when we bought in 2001. There was hardly anything around.

I am very confident that 20 years ago, the public did not have to venture far away, if at all, from most public accesses to find a spot on the beach.

The occasional trespass in the "old days" was not a problem for some. But now, for some owners, "being nice" in the old days is possibly backfiring in their face. No good deed goes unpunished.

If an owner posted their property way back when, they were considered "mean and greedy" by the public. But at least the public's use was "interrupted" and customary use definitely would not apply.

LVT, I am well aware that I cannot help or make you and some of your supporters see the issue from a private property owner's viewpoint. We are a minority. And customarily, minorities have been oppressed in one form or another during the entire human history. Thank goodness, it's the constitution and the rule of law that keeps things civil in our society, not just what the majority thinks the way things should be.

I'm not all "rich and greedy". I believe that the public can traverse on the sandy part beach as long as the rights of the owners and guests to quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their property are respected. Please don't cry.

 

[Bob Wells]

And that attitude combined with the HUGE increase in beach pressure from SO MANY developments in the last 10-15 years has resulted in this problem of private property owners posting their private property.

And quite honestly, that's also the reason nourishment was defeated. The majority of the owners don't trust what the county would do down the road if the beach was allowed to become public (high rises, public beach vending, etc.) The owners chose what they believe to be the lesser of two evils: possible future county legislation that degrades the beach vs. less protection as a result of a hurricane.

What was customary for the private property owners was not to have to compete with the public for space on their own property as mentioned a few times here. It was an absolute non-issue when we bought in 2001. There was hardly anything around.

I am very confident that 20 years ago, the public did not have to venture far away, if at all, from most public accesses to find a spot on the beach.

The occasional trespass in the "old days" was not a problem for some. But now, for some owners, "being nice" in the old days is possibly backfiring in their face. No good deed goes unpunished.

If an owner posted their property way back when, they were considered "mean and greedy" by the public. But at least the public's use was "interrupted" and customary use definitely would not apply.

LVT, I am well aware that I cannot help or make you and some of your supporters see the issue from a private property owner's viewpoint. We are a minority. And customarily, minorities have been oppressed in one form or another during the entire human history. Thank goodness, it's the constitution and the rule of law that keeps things civil in our society, not just what the majority thinks the way things should be.

I'm not all "rich and greedy". I believe that the public can traverse on the sandy part beach as long as the rights of the owners and guests to quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their property are respected. Please don't cry.

Are you part of the reason for the development or are you a native of Walton County?

 

[steel1man]

I am going to tout my military backround and experience as I highly value it. I, and I imagine thousands of others that have sered, view our pristing white sands bordering the Gulf of Mexico in the same context as our national and state forests. It is there for all American citizens and their guests to use respectifully for their enjoyment and relaxation. If some choose to do otherwise, the authorities should be notified.
When I purchased here in1991, there were no signs littering these beautiful beaches. Nor were there any in 20003 when we moved here permenantly. These signs are a blight on the beauty of our beaches. It should be mandated that they be taken down!

Maybe some of your neighbors should read your post..just sayin..west of BMB public access.