Public vs Private Beach [threads merged]

Hey jkmason, I directly pasted the info regarding "tract by tract basis" from
Accessing the Florida Coast (easy to find).

Perhaps that was an opinion by the one who generated the website. I would imagine they would be well versed on this topic - more than you or me. In addition and as I previously mentioned, the 2nd attorney at the BCC meeting ALSO stated there would be over 1000 lawsuits, not one. I think he probably knows what he's talking about.

Besides, I see the words in your post, "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."

I don't see how the county could file a single case against 1100+ defendants based on the above "requirement"....that "the courts must ascertain in each case the degree ...". The evidence as I see it would be different in each case. And as I mentioned, there "may be" some areas that could be argued with customary use. But to extrapolate one case to the entire beach in Walton County would simply be a taking.

Actually, I wish they would try to take all properties in a single suit. You'll see the wrath of the "rich and greedy" including Seaside, Rosemary, Watercolor, Watersound, etc.

Steel1man, finally you responded to my questions regarding the 3 accesses on Blue Mountain Road that you claimed were private.

Your intial post:

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.

Then your recent post:

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

I gave you a chance to recant your statement, but no...you just double down. Everything you now post is suspect in my book.

Where's the freakin' OUTRAGE from the rest of the community regarding his position? No wonder he didn't make any comment about the sign at 83 and Blue Mountain Road that says "Local Traffic Only" where there are BEACH ACCESSES for use by the PUBLIC.

Everyone, these are YOUR accesses.

From http://www.visitsouthwalton.com/sites/default/master/files/SouthWalton_BeachAndBayAccess.pdf , the following 3 are listed as public accesses:

Gulf Point Road Neighborhood Beach Access
446 Blue Mountain Rd.
Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459
Long: -86.19872115
Lat: 30.33756744


Seagrade Road Neighborhood Beach Access
590 Blue Mountain Rd.
Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459
Long: -86.19649345
Lat: 30.33696339


Blue Lake Road Neighborhood Beach Access
726 Blue Mountain Rd.
Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459
Long: -86.19432151
Lat: 30.33645936

Walton County identifies these access points as neighborhood beach accesses. Most people using these accesses are, in fact, walking from the houses in the neighborhood, old blue mountain beach.

Access points are not the real issue. It's all about lateral access once you get to the beach. There is no point in having an access point if you can't go anywhere or do anything once you get to the beach.

BMBV

I don't really think that the County will sue all the owners. However if they wanted to, they would simply allege that all the beach in the county is so similar that it should be treated as one "beach". Then allege that the proposed use by the beachfront owners, restricting access to the public, is the same for all owners. I think if you look at Florida Civil Procedure any person may be made a defendant who has or claims an interest adverse to the plaintiff. The Court uses the word beach in its opinion not the word tract or parcel. The only time they reference the interest of the individual owner is ascertaining what that particular owner is doing with their land that is adverse to the public use. In this case every owner is doing the same thing, denying the public access. Therefore, I believe it could be brought in one suit. However, I believe it is more likely that the county will do something that will cause the beach front owners to sue them.

Its probably a long shot that all beach in Walton County would be treated the same. However, all the beach in each old neighborhood could be argued to be the same. Blue Mountain, Grayton and Seagrove are probably the best examples. These communities have existed for a very long time and the public has used the beach for a long time. I don't think a court will draw a distinction between each individual property.

I think we are already seeing the wrath of the rich and greedy. We can only hope that all people rich and poor will be treated equally in a court of law.

Walton County identifies these access points as neighborhood beach accesses. Most people using these accesses are, in fact, walking from the houses in the neighborhood, old blue mountain beach.

Access points are not the real issue. It's all about lateral access once you get to the beach. There is no point in having an access point if you can't go anywhere or do anything once you get to the beach.

What a very disappointing post in response to an outright lie by a resident of Old Blue Mountain Beach... a lie designed to spread misinformation on the rights of the public to use those accesses as well as the public beach that goes along with it.

I'm starting to see why the general public is up in arms with beach front owners with behavior such as that.

Disgusting.

What a very disappointing post in response to an outright lie by a resident of Old Blue Mountain Beach... a lie designed to spread misinformation on the rights of the public to use those accesses as well as the public beach that goes along with it.

I'm starting to see why the general public is up in arms with beach front owners with behavior such as that.

Disgusting.

What is the lie?

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"

Walton County identifies these access points as neighborhood beach accesses. Most people using these accesses are,

What is the lie?

Mike, most Vagrants have been removed from our public beaches

What is the lie?

See post #153 above.

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.

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.

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?

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,

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

The reason people park in neighborhoods and on right-of-way is that there is inadequate parking at the regional accesses and there are not enough regional accesses to begin with. We need more legal, efficient parking areas and strict enforcement of parking laws in the neighborhoods and other areas where parking is not allowed. You cannot stop people from building on their property, that is not realistic. But we can use TDC dollars to purchase more legal parking in areas that will make the beach experience better and keep that traffic away from neighborhoods and private areas.

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.

So true! Neighborhood accesses have become inundated with arrivals by vehicle due to TDC and partner advertising/suggestions, including some hotels with their own overcrowded PRIVATE beach. Instead of being the walking and bike riding accesses for the surrounding neighbors, the areas near the neighborhood accesses have become areas where people unload everything they can fit in their fully loaded SUVs and then park ANYWHERE they think they can that is the least number of steps from the beach access. Once on the beach, many of them set up camp sites where they stay all day eating and drinking and then using the dunes for toileting areas. Some play loud music, some bring dogs (during non-dog hours), and some take up as much geography as they possibly can. If the TDC and marketing partners would back off of treating neighborhood accesses like regional accesses, I wonder if the beachfront owners might feel less of a need to protect their property. Just a thought.

So true! Neighborhood accesses have become inundated with arrivals by vehicle due to TDC and partner advertising/suggestions, including some hotels with their own overcrowded PRIVATE beach. Instead of being the walking and bike riding accesses for the surrounding neighbors, the areas near the neighborhood accesses have become areas where people unload everything they can fit in their fully loaded SUVs and then park ANYWHERE they think they can that is the least number of steps from the beach access. Once on the beach, many of them set up camp sites where they stay all day eating and drinking and then using the dunes for toileting areas. Some play loud music, some bring dogs (during non-dog hours), and some take up as much geography as they possibly can. If the TDC and marketing partners would back off of treating neighborhood accesses like regional accesses, I wonder if the beachfront owners might feel less of a need to protect their property. Just a thought.

And this doesn't even take into consideration that a lot of public beaches are now tagged Private.
Truly the barn is emptying and we can't put the horses back in.

And this doesn't even take into consideration that a lot of public beaches are now tagged Private.
Truly the barn is emptying and we can't put the horses back in.

Not saying you are wrong, but I don't think that deeded public (FL or Walton Co) beach can be tagged private. From what I understand, there have been beaches that were not public, but were treated that way, especially in older neighborhoods where deeds, plats, and records were not as carefully crafted as they are today. Are those the kinds of cases you are referring to?

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.

So in other words I guess you're saying, "Don't bother driving down our public road to see if there's an open parking spot at one of the public accesses because there probably won't be one. And you Redfish Village people riding the shuttle or anybody else, don't come on our road looking to get dropped off at one of those 3 public accesses. Obey our No Through Traffic sign or the wrath of INFLUENCE will be upon you."

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

So I can't use Blue Mountain Road road to avoid traffic by the 4 way stop? I thought this customary use had to do with the beach. Should we start a new thread...."I've been driving down Blue Mountain Road for years and years, long before the No Through Traffic was placed"? Just kidding, I hope.

Seriously, the LEAST you people could do is put the word Please above the "No Through Traffic" part of your sign, especially considering the sign is a request and not the law and the fact it is sitting on public right-of-way.

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.

At least you are admitting your accesses are public unlike your cohort who I've almost given up on. There's a ray of hope after all - thanks.

jkmason, isn't all of this so very complicated?...
public beach vs. private beach vs. privately owned beach with a public easement (RFV),
regional public accesses vs. neighborhood public accesses,
parking on south bound 83 right-of-way vs. no parking on north bound 83 right-of-way,
parking on Blue Mountain Road west of 83 vs. no parking on Blue Mountain Road east of 83?

And ALL of this is within a few hundred feet radius from the intersection of 83 and Blue Mountain Road. I am familiar with this because it's all within the neighborhood where we have a home, Blue Mountain Beach.

It all makes me suspect just how screwed up the rest of the county really is. And I think we all know the answer.

But, again, my rhetorical (and very loaded) question is, "Has anyone not been able to set up on an existing public beach, including the state parks?"

BMBVAGRANT
Was curious how long it would be before we took a hard left turn away from civility.