South Walton's Community Website
Beach Like A Local!
Create Account
New posts

bob1

Beach Fanatic
Jun 26, 2010
347
227
Is it badgering to ask a question on a statement that is contradictory to information posted on the Walton County Appraisal Web Site? According to the Walton County Appraisal District there are no public beaches that became private because of Florida Statute 163.035. If that is wrong, please provide which public beach was made private.
Dave is living in your head. No doubt your phone pings every time he posts something online. And like Pavlov's dog you must respond.

:doh:
 

jodiFL

Beach Fanatic
Jul 28, 2007
2,479
709
SOWAL,FL
Yes, according to the official Walton County Property Appraiser Web Site by Patrick Pilcher cross referencing every parcel in the Exhibit A of the BCC court case for all 1194 properties, not one could be found that was Public prior to 2016 that became private property.
Did you cross reference ALL those since this thread was started? Wow..your good. But I am pretty sure that 1194 is the number of PROPERTY OWNERS....not individual properties....so maybe it wasnt that hard after all.
 

Alex Miles

Beach Comber
Oct 6, 2019
31
39
54
Montgomery
Did you cross reference ALL those since this thread was started? Wow..your good. But I am pretty sure that 1194 is the number of PROPERTY OWNERS....not individual properties....so maybe it wasnt that hard after all.

How sure are you, Jodi?

Here are the facts:

Actually 4,671 tax-paying citizens have been sued by Walton County and Dave Rauschkolb's FBFA, to rob them of their rights of ownership of
1,194 distinct privately owned deeded parcels.

Millions of dollars have already been spent on legal defense expenses.

And the first motion to dismiss has not even been heard by the judge. It's a circus. It's an unfair burden on innocent owners, who are not receiving due process. Meanwhile they're being smeared, attacked, and harrassed in social media for no reason at all other than they were forced to hire an attorney to defend their property that they legally own.

About 200 attorneys have been hired. That should tell you something right there, how ridiculously unfair this land grab is. How ridiculously low the county had been convinced to vastly underestimate the number of BPOs who would intervene against this outrageous land grab. The propaganda and censorship has been extreme and very effective at misleading the community about customary use.

If all you know about customary use is what you read on social media or the biased, ill-informed tabloids, then you have been misled.
 
Last edited:

mputnal

Beach Fanatic
Nov 10, 2009
1,889
466
AM, I agree with you that the sandy beach is not normal real estate. You also explained to us that the property that is officially owned by bfo's is deep down under the sandy beach. In property law as you should know ownership is related to "use". I believe that we would agree that the use in dispute is the dry sandy beach on top of your privately owned real estate deep down under the sandy beach. No matter how much you whine about owning that portion of the sandy dry beach you never have owned it because it does not stay in place like "normal real estate" just like you previously explained in this forum. I am just using your own words as "information" to "inform" myself. The property that you say you own "deep down under the sand" has but one use which is to provide a support for the wet and dry shifting sand. The deeds are only "part" of what constitutes ownership. You can not prove private exclusive use of the dry sandy beach. The deeds will not prove use. The Constitution will not protect a use that is not even possible. Nature provides the "force" that is behind the only "outrageous land grab" that you speak of. The truth is that you have a belief of superiority over nature. Apparently you have been "mislead".

The county has sufficient evidence of public beach use of the dry sandy areas next to the wet sandy areas (which are not in dispute). Are you saying that all those pages of evidence is not true, false and a bunch of lies from people who are expert witnesses? If that is the "information" that you are disputing then you are being "unfair", "smearing", "attacking", "harrassing" and "robbing" good people and decent people and knowledgeable people from the truth of how these dry sandy beaches have always been used. You and a few others are creating a circus of propaganda to avoid the truth of how these dry sandy beaches have always been used.

Back to the EVIDENCE of real people who know these beaches better than you or I. You can dispute the issue all you want on this forum but until you explain how you are more "informed" than "real" people who are part of the "evidence" in the "affirmation process" of customary public use then you are just like anyone else here in this forum who are posting opinions. So you have an opinion. Fantastic. Post that opinion as much as you want but it will not effect the evidence in the affirmation process. I personally believe you are hiding your name because you are working for the same people who pushed the bill thru the legislature that created this affirmation process. IMO these people you work for abuse power. Reveal your identity and purpose and you will at least move up the ladder of having an "informed" opinion.
 

Poppaj

SoWal Insider
Oct 9, 2015
7,748
3,125
Here are the facts:

Actually 4,671 tax-paying citizens have been sued by Walton County and Dave Rauschkolb's FBFA, to rob them of their rights of ownership of
1,194 distinct privately owned deeded parcels.

If all you know about customary use is what you read on social media or the biased, ill-informed tabloids, then you have been misled.
Facts? Seeking remedy through the legal system is not “robbing people” so it appears you are also guilty of spreading misinformation.
 

Stone Cold J

Beach Lover
Jun 6, 2019
150
171
SRB

mputnal

Beach Fanatic
Nov 10, 2009
1,889
466
HB 631 was supposed to create a process by which bfo's could choose to dispute a local government entity's declaration of public customary use of the dry sandy portion of the beach that can not be built on or used exclusively (imo). The dynamics of this natural resource is such that exclusive use is just not possible. It makes sense that it has confused bfo's into thinking that the bill entitles them to exclusive use even though public customary use has always existed. In other words bfo's have generally always shared the dry sandy beach with the public. Either the bill must be repealed or the court will be charged with affirming or denying public customary use. Whatever the lower court decides will be challenged. Instead of bfo's compromising on exclusive use in exchange for rules of behavior, vending and density they have chosen to spend a lot of money to test property rights on the dry sandy beaches. People with money and power pushed this bill thru and had hoped the county would fold like a wet towel. They didn't and the people majority have voiced their support. All this money being spent because those with money and power want exclusive use of this natural resource. This whole thing is a money pit that could have been avoided but for this poorly written bill. Both sides blame each other. What else is new...
 

Reggie Gaskins

Beach Lover
Oct 4, 2018
153
259
58
Blue Mountain Beach
SCJ, FBB, BMBV, WW, AO, AM, and dozens more have asked a simple question that would help align truth and honesty to this discussion. Yet, after being asked 100 times, not one Individual has been able to answer it. Heck, there is still a $1,000 reward for any person to provide proof of FBFA’s loudest claim. Yet, no one has collected, because the claim - it isn’t true.

If you are viewing this and understand the true 30A Legacy and history, watch what happens every time we ask this basic question... not looking for an answer in the form of a question, deflections, talking points. warped opinions, wishful thinking, personal attacks on identities, picking on celebrities, counting political haters on social media. Just a simple parcel number, address, or court case.

Here it is, again...
Please provide an example of one, just one piece of PUBLIC beach that was made PRIVATE by HB631/State statute 163.035, or same for any quiet title action.
 

Dave Rauschkolb

Beach Fanatic
Jul 13, 2005
1,006
790
Santa Rosa Beach
SCJ, FBB, BMBV, WW, AO, AM, and dozens more have asked a simple question that would help align truth and honesty to this discussion. Yet, after being asked 100 times, not one Individual has been able to answer it. Heck, there is still a $1,000 reward for any person to provide proof of FBFA’s loudest claim. Yet, no one has collected, because the claim - it isn’t true.

If you are viewing this and understand the true 30A Legacy and history, watch what happens every time we ask this basic question... not looking for an answer in the form of a question, deflections, talking points. warped opinions, wishful thinking, personal attacks on identities, picking on celebrities, counting political haters on social media. Just a simple parcel number, address, or court case.

Here it is, again...
Please provide an example of one, just one piece of PUBLIC beach that was made PRIVATE by HB631/State statute 163.035, or same for any quiet title action.

Screen Shot 2020-01-12 at 6.56.03 PM.jpg
 
New posts