Is this just a "jab" or are you serious?
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.
Look at the attachment jkmason's Post #346 . Read paragraphs 5 and 6. It provides the references you're looking for, I believe. Keep in mind, this document was prepared by Mark Davis at that time, who happens to be the current county attorney.
No jab intention here! There are a few other characters on the forum that enjoy the occasional jab.Is this just a "jab" or are you serious?
Do you live in "Old Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision 1" or did I miss something? I was hoping it was a jab.
BTW, I actually found the "bay-grunt" (vagrant) jab by my favorite "factual" poster (not you of course) to be humorously and poetically clever. I give credit where credit is due.
BTW, I actually found the "bay-grunt" (vagrant) jab by my favorite "factual" poster (not you of course) to be humorously and poetically clever. I give credit where credit is due.
FWIW, in case anyone missed it, hippiechick posted this a couple of months ago: Click here
Referenced article from The Florida Bar Journal: Sand for the People: The Continuing Controversy Over Public Access to Florida’s Beaches
I know some "legal" stuff gets posted on this forum that's a little difficult to read/comprehend but this article delves into into the topic of this thread. It's worth a read as it appears very straight forward and informative.
Referenced article from The Florida Bar Journal: Sand for the People: The Continuing Controversy Over Public Access to Florida’s Beaches
I know some "legal" stuff gets posted on this forum that's a little difficult to read/comprehend but this article delves into into the topic of this thread. It's worth a read as it appears very straight forward and informative.
Last edited:
Yes I do. Don't toilet paper my house!Do you live in "Old Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision 1" or did I miss something? I was hoping it was a jab.
BTW, I actually found the "bay-grunt" (vagrant) jab by my favorite "factual" poster (not you of course) to be humorously and poetically clever. I give credit where credit is due.
jkmason......Please try not to take this the wrong way. I'd rather save it for more important things.
Side note: I was just listening to comments at the March 16th meeting on youtube. It is so easy to take sides in this corrosive debate...non-beach front owners and their predictable cheer-leading section vs. beach front owners/lawyer making factual statements (and of course) followed by the usual deathly silence / sneers.
I admit that I've jumped down the throat of Andy A regarding his desire that all the beaches should be public. It is a noble cause and position that he is taking and one that I am not willing to give up as easily. BUT....the beach that he is "part owner of" is not his in its entirety to be given to the public in the first place. I've challenged him more than once to see if his association felt the same as him. You can imagine the response (or lack of). It's easy to "give to something away" that you don't own outright. And even if he did have full ownership and gave it to the county, the "public" use wouldn't affect him as the public would have no "real access" to his part of the beach without walking hundreds and hundreds of feet. Basically he is insulated - a nice predicament if one is a beach front owner, regardless of possible customary use or possible beach restoration/nourishment and the resulting public beach south of the ECL.
Now, I mention the above because even though I respect your position of customary use, I have to ask, do your neighbors feel the same way you do? For the benefit of the other members of this forum, all the owners/guests of Old BMB Subdivision 1 have full and exclusive use of BMB to the east of BMB Regional Access all the way to the end of Blue Mountain Road with the exceptions of the areas directly south of the 3 neighborhood accesses. This, again, is something that a "certain poetic individual" doesn't want the public to know.
But, jkmason, even though I know it's a loaded question, I think you'll be honest and forthright in your response.
I'm proud to call you a neighbor and you'll be one regardless of where all this ends up. I hope that statement doesn't cause one of our acquaintances to start to cry.
Side note: I was just listening to comments at the March 16th meeting on youtube. It is so easy to take sides in this corrosive debate...non-beach front owners and their predictable cheer-leading section vs. beach front owners/lawyer making factual statements (and of course) followed by the usual deathly silence / sneers.
I admit that I've jumped down the throat of Andy A regarding his desire that all the beaches should be public. It is a noble cause and position that he is taking and one that I am not willing to give up as easily. BUT....the beach that he is "part owner of" is not his in its entirety to be given to the public in the first place. I've challenged him more than once to see if his association felt the same as him. You can imagine the response (or lack of). It's easy to "give to something away" that you don't own outright. And even if he did have full ownership and gave it to the county, the "public" use wouldn't affect him as the public would have no "real access" to his part of the beach without walking hundreds and hundreds of feet. Basically he is insulated - a nice predicament if one is a beach front owner, regardless of possible customary use or possible beach restoration/nourishment and the resulting public beach south of the ECL.
Now, I mention the above because even though I respect your position of customary use, I have to ask, do your neighbors feel the same way you do? For the benefit of the other members of this forum, all the owners/guests of Old BMB Subdivision 1 have full and exclusive use of BMB to the east of BMB Regional Access all the way to the end of Blue Mountain Road with the exceptions of the areas directly south of the 3 neighborhood accesses. This, again, is something that a "certain poetic individual" doesn't want the public to know.
But, jkmason, even though I know it's a loaded question, I think you'll be honest and forthright in your response.
I'm proud to call you a neighbor and you'll be one regardless of where all this ends up. I hope that statement doesn't cause one of our acquaintances to start to cry.
That's not a deed. That is a page from a pleading in a civil action. The only legal description posted so far is in the platted subdivision, and it states the subdivision extends to the bluff line. I would just like to know what the original deed granting the property to the corporation says
Ok, again I have to ask; are we fighting about all SoWal Beaches or is this now all about Blue Mtn. Beach and the spoiled owners there?
If this is such a County wide crisis, where's the outcry at Seaside, Rosemary, or other condos/homes on the Gulf?
How about Andante Condos (seacrest area)? They have signs and designated areas? Anyone upset over that way?
If this is such a County wide crisis, where's the outcry at Seaside, Rosemary, or other condos/homes on the Gulf?
How about Andante Condos (seacrest area)? They have signs and designated areas? Anyone upset over that way?
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "all the spoiled owners there" (at BMB). But I can take a guess.
Your point is very well taken. That's why I mentioned what I did in post #60 (click). And BMB is just a "canary in the mine".