You are hereby notified that the Walton County Board of County Commissioners will hold a Public Workshop on Wednesday, March 16, 2016 from 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM or soon thereafter. The meeting will be held at the Emerald Coast Middle School located at 4019 US HWY 98, Santa Rosa Beach, FL.
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss public access to the beach.
Walton County adheres to the American with Disabilities Act and will make reasonable modifications for access to the meetings upon request. Please call (850) 892-8115 to make a request. For hearing impaired, please call 1-800-955-8771 (TDD), 1-800-955-8770 (VOICE). Requests must be received at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to allow time to provide the requested services.
Replies
509
Beach Fanatic
Nothing occurs in a vacuum. I am sure John G is correct that a lack of enforcement of the rules, vendors out of control and draconian rules to enforce property rights are a contributing factor to our current difficulties. However, the truth is the public has always used the white sand part of the beaches and our economy is based in large part on this fact. That is the definition of customary use and the county must fight for these rights to protect the livelihood of a majority of its citizens. This problem has been coming for years and everyone knew it but did not want to deal with it. Because dealing with it will make no one happy and could be political suicide. But we are now to the tipping point where a failure to deal with it will seriously harm the county and its citizens. It would be in everyone's long-term interest to compromise. Allow people to use and traverse the entire beach without harassment but allow the owners to regulate vending, bringing large amounts of property and doing destructive things like digging holes. Code Enforcement should rigorously enforce all the rules of the beach on public and private property, more money should be spent on cleanup and law enforcement should assist property owners in maintaining their property. TDC should aggressively acquire more beachfront to take the pressure off the private owners and those properties should have sufficient amenities to attract the bulk of tourists and locals who do not own beachfront. Advertising should be targeted to educating the public on beach rules and etiquette. There is no magic bullet that will fix the problem but several small improvements to the situation combined can make things better and preserve our way of life.
On the other hand, doing nothing will continue to inflame the situation and is political suicide and taking a hard line for the property owners will seriously harm the economy and is political suicide as well. There are far more voters north of 30-A and old 98 than there are south. But taking a hard line against the property owners will result in dozens of lawsuits and years of costly litigation. Nobody wins and the bitter feelings will linger for a long time. We need to work together to find an effective compromise.
On the other hand, doing nothing will continue to inflame the situation and is political suicide and taking a hard line for the property owners will seriously harm the economy and is political suicide as well. There are far more voters north of 30-A and old 98 than there are south. But taking a hard line against the property owners will result in dozens of lawsuits and years of costly litigation. Nobody wins and the bitter feelings will linger for a long time. We need to work together to find an effective compromise.
Beach Fanatic
The reason we don't utilize the state parks is because there is no lifeguard. I have 2 kids so when we go to the beach, I want to be near the lifeguard station.Thanks. This is helpful!
Beach Fanatic
Nothing occurs in a vacuum. I am sure John G is correct that a lack of enforcement of the rules, vendors out of control and draconian rules to enforce property rights are a contributing factor to our current difficulties. However, the truth is the public has always used the white sand part of the beaches and our economy is based in large part on this fact. That is the definition of customary use and the county must fight for these rights to protect the livelihood of a majority of its citizens. This problem has been coming for years and everyone knew it but did not want to deal with it. Because dealing with it will make no one happy and could be political suicide. But we are now to the tipping point where a failure to deal with it will seriously harm the county and its citizens. It would be in everyone's long-term interest to compromise. Allow people to use and traverse the entire beach without harassment but allow the owners to regulate vending, bringing large amounts of property and doing destructive things like digging holes. Code Enforcement should rigorously enforce all the rules of the beach on public and private property, more money should be spent on cleanup and law enforcement should assist property owners in maintaining their property. TDC should aggressively acquire more beachfront to take the pressure off the private owners and those properties should have sufficient amenities to attract the bulk of tourists and locals who do not own beachfront. Advertising should be targeted to educating the public on beach rules and etiquette. There is no magic bullet that will fix the problem but several small improvements to the situation combined can make things better and preserve our way of life.Constructive suggestion, Danny. I think the question is what qualifies as use vs. bringing large amounts of property? It seems much of this conflict started with vendors and tents that give beach goers the idea that they can stay in the sun/on the beach for hours on end; therefore, they bring the large amounts of property that allow them to stay for all those hours or even all day. This is even more problematic in areas that have no bathroom facilities. All day with food and drinks with no bathrooms? Use your imagination.
On the other hand, doing nothing will continue to inflame the situation and is political suicide and taking a hard line for the property owners will seriously harm the economy and is political suicide as well. There are far more voters north of 30-A and old 98 than there are south. But taking a hard line against the property owners will result in dozens of lawsuits and years of costly litigation. Nobody wins and the bitter feelings will linger for a long time. We need to work together to find an effective compromise.
Beach Fanatic
Location of parking and distance to beach from said parking. Except for Grayton.Does the tram at Topsail help with this situation in your opinion? If not, what do you think could be done to improve the tram situation?
Beach Fanatic
I believe certain state parks are very popular for beach goers. Grayton Beach State Park and Topsail Hill Preserve State Park.... I've seen these places filled with visitors to their beaches many times but not sure about numbers overall. St Andrews State Park in PCB is also very popular.Last year, Walton County arranged free parking from Memorial Day to Labor Day (roughly) at Topsail. Unfortunately, even with that incentive, the parking lot was often almost empty. The tram ran every hour and half hour all day and was very punctual, but still very few vehicles. Bicyclists definitely made a showing though!
Beach Fanatic
Danny, I'm just going to "pick at" some of your comments. Again, I just hope we can have an honest, intelligent dialogue.
The definition of customary use is MUCH MUCH more complex. But of course your argument appeals to those who agree with you already.
There may be some beach locations where the public has used much more than others in the historical past. I can't imagine the public historically and "customarily" treking down 30 to 50 foot dunes in Blue Mountain Beach with chairs, umbrellas and such in tow where there are no stairs or parking. This is in DIRECT CONTRAST in Daytona where the public was/is allowed to drive on the beach with everything nicely packed up in one's car looking for a place to stop and spread out. Heck, I was one of those when I 16 years old (That was just a couple of years ago
).
I totally agree with part of of what you said - "political suicide". That's why the BCC does what they do for the most part - appease the masses, even when it runs against existing rules, regulations and private property rights. Their motto - "So sue us!" Why not, it's not their personal money. And no commissioner is ever held liable. Hopefully you can agree with that,
This is where I disagree. More beach, more people, more businesses, more employees, more tourists, more beach, more people ..... It's a vicious circle. Slow the growth down and things will reach equilibrium. No one is hurting now. Restaurants, as an example, have been going in and out of business LONG BEFORE the beach access became a real issue down here.
To this day, I haven't heard anyone say that they could not find a place on the beach....only that they were run off private beach. And probably they were upset because they were inconvenienced by having their views blocked by umbrellas in front of them....tragic.
I have no problem with traversing as long as the people don't harass those authorized to be on the private beach and just follow simple courtesy.
Again, I agree and disagree with this sentence. Yes they should enforce the regulations on PUBLIC BEACH, not on private. They don't have the authorization to enforce most of these laws on private beach.
Now this is where you and I find GREAT COMMON GROUND!!! And isn't the TDC purchasing a $700,000 lot around Inlet Beach? There are millions of dollars sitting in the beach nourishment fund. I think we should be able to find a way to divert these funds for this purpose even thought the current rules state otherwise. Isn't that what governments are really good at doing?
Again, individual citizens are protected in this great country from the idea that anything can simply occur by just a majority vote. The day this changes is the day we're all in very deep, deep trouble.
.... However, the truth is the public has always used the white sand part of the beaches and our economy is based in large part on this fact. That is the definition of customary use and the county must fight for these rights to protect the livelihood of a majority of its citizens.
The definition of customary use is MUCH MUCH more complex. But of course your argument appeals to those who agree with you already.
There may be some beach locations where the public has used much more than others in the historical past. I can't imagine the public historically and "customarily" treking down 30 to 50 foot dunes in Blue Mountain Beach with chairs, umbrellas and such in tow where there are no stairs or parking. This is in DIRECT CONTRAST in Daytona where the public was/is allowed to drive on the beach with everything nicely packed up in one's car looking for a place to stop and spread out. Heck, I was one of those when I 16 years old (That was just a couple of years ago
).This problem has been coming for years and everyone knew it but did not want to deal with it. Because dealing with it will make no one happy and could be political suicide.
I totally agree with part of of what you said - "political suicide". That's why the BCC does what they do for the most part - appease the masses, even when it runs against existing rules, regulations and private property rights. Their motto - "So sue us!" Why not, it's not their personal money. And no commissioner is ever held liable. Hopefully you can agree with that,
But we are now to the tipping point where a failure to deal with it will seriously harm the county and its citizens. It would be in everyone's long-term interest to compromise.
This is where I disagree. More beach, more people, more businesses, more employees, more tourists, more beach, more people ..... It's a vicious circle. Slow the growth down and things will reach equilibrium. No one is hurting now. Restaurants, as an example, have been going in and out of business LONG BEFORE the beach access became a real issue down here.
To this day, I haven't heard anyone say that they could not find a place on the beach....only that they were run off private beach. And probably they were upset because they were inconvenienced by having their views blocked by umbrellas in front of them....tragic.
Allow people to use and traverse the entire beach without harassment
I have no problem with traversing as long as the people don't harass those authorized to be on the private beach and just follow simple courtesy.
Code Enforcement should rigorously enforce all the rules of the beach on public and private property, more money should be spent on cleanup and law enforcement should assist property owners in maintaining their property.
Again, I agree and disagree with this sentence. Yes they should enforce the regulations on PUBLIC BEACH, not on private. They don't have the authorization to enforce most of these laws on private beach.
TDC should aggressively acquire more beachfront to take the pressure off the private owners and those properties should have sufficient amenities to attract the bulk of tourists and locals who do not own beachfront.
Now this is where you and I find GREAT COMMON GROUND!!! And isn't the TDC purchasing a $700,000 lot around Inlet Beach? There are millions of dollars sitting in the beach nourishment fund. I think we should be able to find a way to divert these funds for this purpose even thought the current rules state otherwise. Isn't that what governments are really good at doing?
On the other hand, doing nothing will continue to inflame the situation and is political suicide and taking a hard line for the property owners will seriously harm the economy and is political suicide as well. There are far more voters north of 30-A and old 98 than there are south. But taking a hard line against the property owners will result in dozens of lawsuits and years of costly litigation. Nobody wins and the bitter feelings will linger for a long time. We need to work together to find an effective compromise.
Again, individual citizens are protected in this great country from the idea that anything can simply occur by just a majority vote. The day this changes is the day we're all in very deep, deep trouble.
Beach Lover
Before 30A was built people drove their vehicles down the beach to get to Destin and points in between.
Beach Fanatic
Before 30A was built people drove their vehicles down the beach to get to Destin and points in between.Before space program there was no Teflon or #TeflonH
Beach Lover
Yeah but before Teflon there was no customary use of Teflon........
Beach Fanatic
There may be some beach locations where the public has used much more than others in the historical past. I can't imagine the public historically and "customarily" treking down 30 to 50 foot dunes in Blue Mountain Beach with chairs, umbrellas and such in tow where there are no stairs or parking.
I have to disagree because Blue Mountain Beach is exactly where we went to the beach growing up. We parked at the end of 83 and walked down the dunes to the beach with our towels and blankets. When I was a teenager we continued to go to this beach without the adults but with coolers. Before Eloise the dunes were more extensive and we lost even more in Opal. If I were picking a beach that my family had "customarily used" over the last 50+ years Blue Mountain would be it. I have photos of my family using this beach before I was born. I also have photos of company parties my Father's company had at Grayton when I was a small boy. My Great-Grandfather brought his family over by boat to camp on the beach around where Ed Waline is now before the bay bridge was constructed. Be careful when you start refreshing memories of the old families around here.
Banned
LETTER: Selfish beachfront property owners threaten Walton's economy
The public’s right to use the sandy beaches of South Walton is under assault by beachfront property owners who are claiming the beaches for their own private and exclusive use. Beaches where we grew up fishing, swimming and sunbathing are now littered with “No Trespassing” and “Private Beach” signs and over a hundred fences put up by these selfish owners. The Walton County Sheriff has been called on numerous occasions about alleged “trespassing.”Walton County’s entire economy is in grave danger. If this is allowed to continue, tourists will go elsewhere. Homeowners within walking distance of the beach are not exempt as they also are being treated as trespassers. Without the tourist economy, businesses will close, jobs will be lost, vacation rental income will decline and property values will follow for all but the privileged few who can afford beachfront.A recent Board of County Commissioners meeting held for the purpose of discussing this situation was attended by over 400 people who spoke in favor of public beaches 10-to-1.There is a remedy, the Customary Use Doctrine, which protects public use of the beaches. At the next BCC meeting, commissioners are expected to consider hiring an attorney who is an expert in the field. If you want to protect your job, your property values, please attend and voice your support.
- CATHERINE HOFFER, Santa Rosa Beach
Copied from NWFL Daily News
The public’s right to use the sandy beaches of South Walton is under assault by beachfront property owners who are claiming the beaches for their own private and exclusive use. Beaches where we grew up fishing, swimming and sunbathing are now littered with “No Trespassing” and “Private Beach” signs and over a hundred fences put up by these selfish owners. The Walton County Sheriff has been called on numerous occasions about alleged “trespassing.”Walton County’s entire economy is in grave danger. If this is allowed to continue, tourists will go elsewhere. Homeowners within walking distance of the beach are not exempt as they also are being treated as trespassers. Without the tourist economy, businesses will close, jobs will be lost, vacation rental income will decline and property values will follow for all but the privileged few who can afford beachfront.A recent Board of County Commissioners meeting held for the purpose of discussing this situation was attended by over 400 people who spoke in favor of public beaches 10-to-1.There is a remedy, the Customary Use Doctrine, which protects public use of the beaches. At the next BCC meeting, commissioners are expected to consider hiring an attorney who is an expert in the field. If you want to protect your job, your property values, please attend and voice your support.
- CATHERINE HOFFER, Santa Rosa Beach
Copied from NWFL Daily News
Beach Comber
I'm with Danny, I live in Covington County, AL, but my family has resided in Walton County for five generations and I still own the family land there. I grew up going to blue mountain beach because that is where my mom grew up going. She went there and Grayton because that is where her dad went. His mom went by boat just like Danny's family. I really don't know about her mom and dad. My wife and I go down almost every weekend in the Summer. I figure my family has been using the beach from Seagrove to Grayton for over one hundered years, and I intend to keep up the custom. When I was a kid we walked down the dune to get to the gulf. At some point the county started building beach walkovers. Why did the county spend the money on the beach walkovers if no one was using the beach? They built them in these locations because these were the places where the public customarily went to the beach. That seems pretty simple to me.
Beach Fanatic
I have to disagree because Blue Mountain Beach is exactly where we went to the beach growing up. We parked at the end of 83 and walked down the dunes to the beach with our towels and blankets. When I was a teenager we continued to go to this beach without the adults but with coolers. Before Eloise the dunes were more extensive and we lost even more in Opal. If I were picking a beach that my family had "customarily used" over the last 50+ years Blue Mountain would be it. I have photos of my family using this beach before I was born. I also have photos of company parties my Father's company had at Grayton when I was a small boy. My Great-Grandfather brought his family over by boat to camp on the beach around where Ed Waline is now before the bay bridge was constructed. Be careful when you start refreshing memories of the old families around here.
It certainly must have been breath takingly gorgeous in those days. It probably had the same feel as one gets today when driving through Gulf Islands National Seashore.
I can imagine that the locations you mention provided some form of vehicle access and parking as you mentioned. And all 3 of the places currently have public beaches and access (Blue Mountain Beach, Grayton and Ed Walline).
I say this very conservatively... there might be areas that could possibly be argued using customary access where there was convenient access. An occasional boat trip to a beach location and camping would probably would not be one of them. The end of 83 and Grayton would be.
In your great-grandfather's day, your grandfather's day and even your father's day, they probably didn't have to venture very far from these "access" points to find plenty of space.
Beach Fanatic
Catmoney, thanks for your input. And as I mentioned above, " ...there might be areas that could possibly be argued using customary access where there was convenient access." And I'll clarify my statement a bit by adding the following - "and there still is." Customary use supposedly cannot be interrupted from what I understand.
The following is more for lawyers but it clarifies what one of the attorneys said to the BCC... if the county pursues customary use across the entire beach, the county will have 1100+ lawsuits on its hands, not just one.
The FL Supreme Court has recognized, in a limited way, the “custom doctrine” (as applied to a specific area of a particular beach) in City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama Inc., 294 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1974). However, in Reynolds v. County of Volusia, 659 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), the Fifth District Court of Appeal clarified the geographic scope of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Tona-Rama. The court stated that the doctrine of custom requires "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." Therefore, unlike Oregon, the doctrine of custom according to Reynolds is applied on a tract-by-tract basis in Florida.
The following is more for lawyers but it clarifies what one of the attorneys said to the BCC... if the county pursues customary use across the entire beach, the county will have 1100+ lawsuits on its hands, not just one.
The FL Supreme Court has recognized, in a limited way, the “custom doctrine” (as applied to a specific area of a particular beach) in City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama Inc., 294 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1974). However, in Reynolds v. County of Volusia, 659 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), the Fifth District Court of Appeal clarified the geographic scope of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Tona-Rama. The court stated that the doctrine of custom requires "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." Therefore, unlike Oregon, the doctrine of custom according to Reynolds is applied on a tract-by-tract basis in Florida.
Beach Fanatic
LETTER: Selfish beachfront property owners threaten Walton's economy
To steal from steel1man:
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Beach Fanatic
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.
So glad I live in Old BMB, owners own ALL (3) access points( state of Florida approved not TDC)..they put those silly PVC vendor only signs between two of our accesses pointing toward each other over 800' of beach. They came back in a few days and removed ALL signage TDC/ code enforcement have NO sign authority own our neighborhood beaches. FYI we have a few lots left to build on just sayin.
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.
Beach Fanatic
LETTER: Selfish beachfront property owners threaten Walton's economy
The public’s right to use the sandy beaches of South Walton is under assault by beachfront property owners who are claiming the beaches for their own private and exclusive use. Beaches where we grew up fishing, swimming and sunbathing are now littered with “No Trespassing” and “Private Beach” signs and over a hundred fences put up by these selfish owners. The Walton County Sheriff has been called on numerous occasions about alleged “trespassing.”Walton County’s entire economy is in grave danger. If this is allowed to continue, tourists will go elsewhere. Homeowners within walking distance of the beach are not exempt as they also are being treated as trespassers. Without the tourist economy, businesses will close, jobs will be lost, vacation rental income will decline and property values will follow for all but the privileged few who can afford beachfront.A recent Board of County Commissioners meeting held for the purpose of discussing this situation was attended by over 400 people who spoke in favor of public beaches 10-to-1.There is a remedy, the Customary Use Doctrine, which protects public use of the beaches. At the next BCC meeting, commissioners are expected to consider hiring an attorney who is an expert in the field. If you want to protect your job, your property values, please attend and voice your support.
- CATHERINE HOFFER, Santa Rosa Beach
Copied from NWFL Daily News
Misty when is the next BCC meeting?
Beach Fanatic
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.
Beach Fanatic
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.
Beach Lover
"No part of Florida is more exclusively hers, nor more properly utilized by her people than her beaches."
Quote from Bilzen Sumberg editorial
Quote from Bilzen Sumberg editorial
Beach Comber
Catmoney, thanks for your input. And as I mentioned above, " ...there might be areas that could possibly be argued using customary access where there was convenient access." And I'll clarify my statement a bit by adding the following - "and there still is." Customary use supposedly cannot be interrupted from what I understand.
The following is more for lawyers but it clarifies what one of the attorneys said to the BCC... if the county pursues customary use across the entire beach, the county will have 1100+ lawsuits on its hands, not just one.
The FL Supreme Court has recognized, in a limited way, the “custom doctrine” (as applied to a specific area of a particular beach) in City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama Inc., 294 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1974). However, in Reynolds v. County of Volusia, 659 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), the Fifth District Court of Appeal clarified the geographic scope of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Tona-Rama. The court stated that the doctrine of custom requires "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." Therefore, unlike Oregon, the doctrine of custom according to Reynolds is applied on a tract-by-tract basis in Florida.[/QUOTE
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.
Beach Lover
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.
Beach Fanatic
I wonder how many individual owners of Beach Front property that don't rent their property got funds from BP for losing money by not being able to rent their property?
Beach Fanatic
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:
Vagrant!
Old Blue Mountain Beach Neighborhood is a private, legally deeded community....unique to the area and jealously protected as private property. These are deeded accesses to the beaches
In Old BMB Neighborhood.
We all have Statements to this Fact
Some of our early residence had the foresight to get this passed by the state of Florida. I don't desire to share.
I'm sure if you search you can find it,not sure of the year off the top of my head. I was given my copy at closing. Kind of looks official.
So there isn't any need for parking spots since everyone live so close.
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.
"Your Kinda Not Right"
Beach Lover
Information from the planning department desk via carrie at planning says that a head of code enforcement has been hired recently since JC passed away. He is a retired law enforcement officer who is not from the local area and with no "Local" ties. He is educated, and already has his Florida code enforcement certification. he is supposed to start soon and will hire an additional code enforcement officer once he takes the seat. that will bring the total to 5 code enforcement officers (including supervisor) in planning and hopefully help relieve pressure on the TDC code enforcement.
I personally think all code enforcement should fall under a single head of code enforcement and not split up between the TDC and planning. Then as many as were needed could be detailed especially during peak times and they would all be on the same page with a single POC for the BCC. I think that will bring the total in the county to 8, but I'm not positive. I hear Panama city has over 15. I hope this information helps. It appears for once, they didn't hire somebody's "Buddy" which has always been a problem in "good ole boy" Walton County. I'm sure Cecilia will won't him fired or moved to the TDC to report to her so he can't harass her beach vendor relatives.
I personally think all code enforcement should fall under a single head of code enforcement and not split up between the TDC and planning. Then as many as were needed could be detailed especially during peak times and they would all be on the same page with a single POC for the BCC. I think that will bring the total in the county to 8, but I'm not positive. I hear Panama city has over 15. I hope this information helps. It appears for once, they didn't hire somebody's "Buddy" which has always been a problem in "good ole boy" Walton County. I'm sure Cecilia will won't him fired or moved to the TDC to report to her so he can't harass her beach vendor relatives.
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.