Public vs Private Beach [threads merged]

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I agree 100% save the dunes !!!!! BUT YOU only own to the MHWL !!.....

....You can't have it ALL just what is deeded......

Finally a love fest. Are you saying you finally see things my way?

....Wait till the BIG ONE you'll wish you had agreed to renourisment.

Now brace yourself. Make sure you're holding on to something and take a deep breath. Ready?
.
.
.
.
Really ready?
.
.
.
.
I fully agree with you if the dry sandy beach is reduced to the point that it cannot be enjoyably used. By the way, I'd say in terms of erosion, we had 2 BIG ones (big enough) back to back + tropical storms and the beach recovered, not fully of course, but quicker than anyone thought.

Peace and love be with you.

 

[Mike Jones]

The dunes and beach have not built back up as they did in the past. I firmly believe this is due to the number of people on the beaches.

If you mean that too many dunes have been destroyed and replaced by buildings and that more people come here then you are right. If you mean that the number of people recreating on the sand has anything to do with it is just wrong. The amount of beachfront development has destroyed the ecosystem and the ability of the beaches to repair themselves. Just look at the state of the beaches in the state parks compared to areas where dunes have been replaced by buildings.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

If you mean that too many dunes have been destroyed and replaced by buildings and that more people come here then you are right. If you mean that the number of people recreating on the sand has anything to do with it is just wrong. The amount of beachfront development has destroyed the ecosystem and the ability of the beaches to repair themselves. Just look at the state of the beaches in the state parks compared to areas where dunes have been replaced by buildings.

Mike, FWIW, I agree for the most part - probably surprisingly to others. And of course and unfortunately, much of this observation is in hindsight by most. And our area is not unique to many of America's coastal communities.

I know you didn't bring it up, but this particular discussion is probably more appropriate for another thread.

 

[steel1man]

Mike, FWIW, I agree for the most part - probably surprisingly to others. And of course and unfortunately, much of this observation is in hindsight by most. And our area is not unique to many of America's coastal communities.

I know you didn't bring it up, but this particular discussion is probably more appropriate for another thread.

Bay-grunt who die and made you queen??

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I previously mentioned a link to a post from 2007 in the thread, "Led Away in Handcuffs". In my opinion, it's worth reposting it below in its entirety as it very accurately hits the nail on the head regarding a significant part of the "blame" on the current situation.

From 1st in 59 on July 15, 2007:

The problem didn't start with the owners of private beach areas. It started with real estate agents and developers - people like Bobby J & Smiling Joe. When they're selling property down here, one of the perks they love to trumpet is access to the beach. Some developers advertise it before they even have beach access. Examples of that practice are legion on this site.

I doubt even a handful of realtors in the interest of full disclosure are honest enough to tell potential purchasers what "access" really, legally means. Wouldn't that kill a deal instantly if they said, "Yes, you have access, but I need to explain to you that the beach on either side of the access is privately owned and you might not be able to use it?" Ever done that Bobby J or Smiling Joe? I bet not. The profits are better when the buyers have this idylic vision of "their" beach.

I think there's been a lot of incomplete disclosure going on down here for years by knowing real estate agents and developers. They're the ones that have created the problem by over-developoing and over-selling areas that are already congested. And then they want to smugly turn around and blame the Commissioners as the problem for not stopping them. When the tourists come and rent these properties and are crawling over each other on the beaches and spilling over onto private beach property, Bobby J and Smiling Joe stick their chests out as defenders of the very problem they helped create. Please!

Perhaps a stall or even decline in growth is a good thing for the community and the health of the beaches? The only downside I can see is that it gives realtors like Bobby J and Smiling Joe too much time to genreate endless self-righteous, self-serving posts. Maybe a class action suit brought by all the cheated buyers against some of these unscrupulous realtors/developers would do more good than a silly 60's style sit in.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Bay-grunt who die and made you queen??

steel1man, is this the best you can come up with to throw smoke on your false claims of the 3 public beach accesses on Blue Mountain Road that you claimed are private that I'm calling you out on? Trying to diminish my posts and positions with juvenile gibberish is just is not helping your "cause" in my opinion. And honestly I don't know what your cause is anymore.

 

[Jimmy T]

steel1man, is this the best you can come up with to throw smoke on your false claims of the 3 public beach accesses on Blue Mountain Road that you claimed are private that I'm calling you out on? Trying to diminish my posts and positions with juvenile gibberish is just is not helping your "cause" in my opinion. And honestly I don't know what your cause is anymore.

BMBV & steel1man. With all due respect... You guys are probably neighbors. Kind of remind me of a movie I once saw:

 

[jkmason]

BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACH AND ALL 3 NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESSES ARE PUBLIC!!!

Okay, now that I have your attention, I would like to revisit the public/private beach issue involving the white sand area in Old Blue Mountain Beach. I have a little more information and would like to pass it on to the forum members.

I secured a copy of the original subdivision plat (see attachments). The plat shows that the West Florida Development Company Inc. platted the subdivision and that it was filed with Walton County on October 6, 1948.

The plat clearly identifies and defines the legal boundaries of the Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision No 1, now known as Old Blue Mountain Beach.

On the written legal description of the subdivision, the southern boundary is described as the “bluff line of the Gulf of Mexico”. Yes, please read this phrase a second time and then think about it. On the plat each beach front lot has a fixed southern boundary that corresponds with the marked “bluff line of the Gulf of Mexico”.

This would indicate that the beach front owners do not own any dune or white sand area extending beyond the bluff line, which is also their southern property line. Their stairways, some seawalls and other infrastructure lie beyond their southern boundary.

Now let's go back and look at the quiet title lawsuits used by the beach front owners to get title and, more importantly, control over the white sand beach area. They filed suit against Blue Gulf Corporation, a subsequent owner and developer of the Blue Mountain Subdivision No 1.

Another poster commented that it was the intent of Blue Gulf Corporation to give the beach to the beach front property owners. Did anybody involved in the quiet title lawsuit bother to look at the original subdivision's legal boundary? West Florida Development Company and, later developer, Blue Gulf Corporation never owned the beach in the first place. Those quiet title lawsuits mean absolutely nothing. Neither party to the lawsuit had a title to the beach. You cannot sue for title when the entity you are naming does not have title.

Secondly, let's address the three neighborhood accesses in Old Blue Mountain Beach. The written legal description on the subdivision plat states the following: “and having caused the above described land to be surveyed, sub-divided, and platted into a subdivision named Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision No 1, do hereby dedicate to the perpetual public use all streets, avenues and access areas in said subdivision...” The aforementioned plat does indeed describe the three beach accesses as “access area”.

To summarize, the three neighborhood access are, in fact, public accesses. Furthermore, the white sand beach lies south and outside of the “bluff line of the Gulf of Mexico. Beach front owners southern boundary is the bluff line and is well defined in the original subdivision. Their property does not go beyond the bluff line and into the white sand beach area.

It's time for the County to take ownership and management of all white sand area in Old Blue Mountain beach. Control vendors and beach front homeowners that are interfering with the public's use of the beach.

 

[John G]

I asked in an earlier post specifically which beaches are "public".

The theme of much of this post has focused on Blue Mt Beach.

So am I clear that these are the spoiled, rich, greedy owners I am now supposed to oppose their private property or are there more on 30a?

I'm just trying to see where I should focus my envy and hate.

(Sarc)

 

[James Bentwood]

I asked in an earlier post specifically which beaches are "public".

The theme of much of this post has focused on Blue Mt Beach.

So am I clear that these are the spoiled, rich, greedy owners I am now supposed to oppose their private property or are there more on 30a?

I'm just trying to see where I should focus my envy and hate.

(Sarc)

There is an article in the Beach Breeze this week about Gulf Trace. Gulf front owners there are trying to keep the rest of the owners off the beach and getting sued. The same owners who have septic tanks and drain fields on the beach. Now that I think about it they are probably doing the other owners a favor by trying to keep them off the polluted beach.