BMBV, are you seeing a lot of non-owners on the "private" beaches in BMB this spring break?
Public vs Private Beach
- Thread starter BlueMtnBeachVagrant
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
beachsi02, thanks for the thorough explanation on the scraping and post Katrina studies. I was thrown off on the dates. Without having years tagged onto the hurricane names, it's easy to forget which came first.
OK, we're closer in our opinions than it first appeared.
Regarding Citizens insurance IN GENERAL...I do see your concern of tax money being used to supplement wind insurance.
BUT why do you seem to want to single gulf front owners in regards to wind coverage? It all sounds a lot like Ecopal. Otherwise that is a entire topic unto itself for another thread as I just don't see that it has anything to do with private/public issues or beach restoration which affects private/public issues.
I still have visions of Hurricane Andrew leveling a swath in Florida from coast to coast. Neither gulf front owners or inland property owners were spared. See my point?
Regarding beach nourishment...we as private property owners can pay to put up our own retaining wall, but we as private property owners can not pay to renourish our own property; [edit... we cannot extend the beach past the new water line to where the old water line was.]
So the 60 million dollar question is (and try to answer it without too many other distractions)....
Do you think the "public" would get their money's worth if the beaches were renourished using tax money?
edit: I think you've answered no already but I'm throwing it out once more in a possible different light.
Last edited:
Good point. I will put dates with them in the future.
Hard to tell. Our armed-guard, who will check everyone's ID, isn't scheduled to start work until next week.:roll:
The majority of people you see on the beach are non-owners (touristas).
But I'm sure you mean uninvited guests on private beaches. Right? Yes I think I've noticed some "drifting" from the public access, only to get much worse when Redfish Village eventually really kicks in. Does that kid I saw climbing around the dunes establish "customary use"?
no sir bmbv i am against Citizens Insurance across the board for every property...there is a better and more fair way to do it.(i'm not sure what that is but we're working on it) hopefully before a cat 5 hits miami and we are all assessed about 30K each just cuz we also live in the state.
Now if you are asking do i think public money spent to restore beach in front of your private beach would give the Public a benefit...the answer is maybe...if your property has 2 GPS southerly corners clearly stating what is private and in front of that there is x yards are even feet of dry sand added for public use then there would be that obvious benefit for those crazy crowded days of summer and the people who plop there. In other words if adding more beach adds more public beach. If your deed says you own to the water line then obviously no cuz no public access was gained. Would the Public $$$ spent benefit the tourism industry probably, more room for more bodies on the beach might make it a more enjoyable experience. Is there another part of the public that does not benefit at all, yes.
Do i support the idea of nourishing any beach(not for infrastructure of roads and utilities), no, unless there is a county vote and majority rules. Or if state money is used a state vote and so on. There are millions of miles of coastline to enjoy. I like what nature has done without us starting to push sand around on our little pieces (public or private).
Now if you are asking do i think public money spent to restore beach in front of your private beach would give the Public a benefit...the answer is maybe...if your property has 2 GPS southerly corners clearly stating what is private and in front of that there is x yards are even feet of dry sand added for public use then there would be that obvious benefit for those crazy crowded days of summer and the people who plop there. In other words if adding more beach adds more public beach. If your deed says you own to the water line then obviously no cuz no public access was gained. Would the Public $$$ spent benefit the tourism industry probably, more room for more bodies on the beach might make it a more enjoyable experience. Is there another part of the public that does not benefit at all, yes.
Do i support the idea of nourishing any beach(not for infrastructure of roads and utilities), no, unless there is a county vote and majority rules. Or if state money is used a state vote and so on. There are millions of miles of coastline to enjoy. I like what nature has done without us starting to push sand around on our little pieces (public or private).
Last edited:
BMBV you mention Redfish village is that because you believe the beach access for them will not be enough once all of the units are occupied?Hard to tell. Our armed-guard, who will check everyone's ID, isn't scheduled to start work until next week.:roll:
The majority of people you see on the beach are non-owners (touristas).
But I'm sure you mean uninvited guests on private beaches. Right? Yes I think I've noticed some "drifting" from the public access, only to get much worse when Redfish Village eventually really kicks in. Does that kid I saw climbing around the dunes establish "customary use"?
I'm curious to know how your particular deed reads regarding the southern boundary. If it, like many others, states, "to the water's edge," it is my belief that you don't own beyond that, regardless of where that happens to be at any given time. Therefore, adding sand to extend your property to where it was at some historical point in time, is not allowed.
That would be helpful. I was really referring to no one, including myself using dates with the storm names. We had so many in 04 and 05, that the farther we get down the road, the more likely we will forget which came first.
Hard to tell. Our armed-guard, who will check everyone's ID, isn't scheduled to start work until next week.:roll:
The majority of people you see on the beach are non-owners (touristas).
But I'm sure you mean uninvited guests on private beaches. Right? Yes I think I've noticed some "drifting" from the public access, only to get much worse when Redfish Village eventually really kicks in. Does that kid I saw climbing around the dunes establish "customary use"?
You laugh, but not defending that which you call your own property, allowing other people to use it without complaint, builds customary use cases. That is why everyone will tell you that it matters not what your deed reads, but what you allow to happen.
Well alrighty then! I think we finally understand each other.
So basically your position is ....
Yes to private property rights (as long as I buy my own sand for my own sandbox
and clean up after myself)and
No to Citizens Insurance
and
Maybe to beach nourishment.
Fair enough?
As Rod Serling would say....
"Imagine you have an 8000 square foot home. Now imagine you invited over 300 guests. Now imagine each guest brings their own chair and a total of around 50 umbrellas. Now imagine just 10 kids playing frisbee in the middle of this assembly......"
I think you probably already know the answer to your question.
BTW, do you have an interest in the RFV? The only other post you've made was to find out the result of the initial "meeting" such as it was.