• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

Beachlover2

Beach Fanatic
Jun 17, 2005
819
60
SoWal
Can someone let us know please what happened with this issue at the meeting. Thanks
 

jack S

Beach Lover
Jun 12, 2007
173
84
The meeting was a troll fest! Our county commissioners did a good job of trying to protect the peoples access from the selfish trolls. They did not want a parking lot on the beach. The BCC eliminated that option as not cost effective. The trolls then wanted no parking on the county right of way, and no access through the state easement to the nourished peoples beach. They talk of their sugar sand beaches, and teaching the children of the sea. But, only their children! It seems that the lesson they teach is selfish greed! They threatened to sue the county and had lawyers there to mis represent what the easement said. The BCC did a good job of sorting through it and should be commended.
The issue was tabled until next month.
 

scooterbug44

SoWal Expert
May 8, 2007
16,732
3,330
Sowal
What is with people thinking they own the beach?

I was told a condo complex in Blue Mountain is actively trying to make the beach area there private and the sheriff's department is upholding their claim!
 

Jdarg

SoWal Expert
Feb 15, 2005
18,068
1,973
One note of clarification, this project is NOT a federal project and thus no federal funds were used. However, it was cost shared with the state and the County would have to pay back to the state over a million dollars. Furthermore, future funding for this stretch would be highly reduced.

Also, this is one of only two areas with public parking in all 5 miles in western WC, and there are no possibilites to create more without buying land with ad valoreum taxes.

My point is this is VERY important and would set precedent for removing a huge beach access parking area for all residents and visitors.


This is what makes it all interesting and complicated. It was OK to get their beach renourished with state and county money, but now they are not willing to share the publicly funded re-nourished beach.

Purely for effect, the opposition trotted out 2 sweet little old ladies who spoke sweet nothings about the area and beaches and how the county was being a big meanie for planning to improve the parking situation on that stretch of Scenic Gulf Drive.:roll: They were both really cute, but the intent was nauseating.
 
Last edited:

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
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.
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
I just read the NW FL Daily News article, and it reads accurately. It mentions all the green shirts, but I saw two people who started the meeting wearing the green shirts on top of their other shirts. before that part of the meeting they removed their green shirts. It was interesting watching them, as they didn't clap, and looked rather disappointed when the other green shirters were clapping. The Green Shirters kept referring to the parking lot "being built on the beach." I did not see any of the four option plans where this was the case. Commissioners Jones and Brannon, had to keep reminding the public that the no parking on the beach was being proposed. In fact, option 3 includes 45 degree spaces on an parking access road, on the north side of old 98.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter