One of those sweet little ladies mentioned that the beaches were one of God's creations. My thought was that if it was God's creation, it should continue to be enjoyed by anyone who wants to visit it. According to the both sides, Seascape has been allowing the public to use this stretch of beach for some length of time, yet now that the beach is replenished, they want it to be private. If the County illiminates the parking spaces, they will owe a check of $1.2 million back to the Fed Gov't, from which the County received money for renourishment of the beaches. Did I mention that the cost of both Options 1 and 3, the only two existing options for the new parking on the County's property, would be $300,000 to $400,000 less than it the check that they would have to write for removing existing parking? It is so. Also, the money loss wouldn't stop there. According to Mr Pickel, the County would no longer be able to receive future renourishment funding for that length of beach, and that amount could be extremely costly.
The issue is tabled until the County gets legal advice on who technically owns the beach. There will be some very shady gray areas on that issue, since Seascape has not prevented the public from using the property. In the state of Florida, Squatters' Rights exists, and this could get interesting. Regardless, the new parking doesn't need to be on the property of Seacrest. According to the County, it will fit within the existing right of way. There may need to be an easement from Seascape to allow a common boardwalk to enter the beach, rather than all of the cattle trails currently being used down the face of the dunes along that entire stretch. That will only help maintain the dunes and will be beneficial to all.
I don't want to rehash the private beach details of Walton County. It is a long story and vary greatly from property to property. The next meeting should be interesting.
If I were a voting commissioner, I would vote for Option 3.