I have never agreed with the property ownership requirement. I do agree that full time residency is a valid requirement. My reason for disagreeing with the property ownership requirement is the younger generation. I know plenty of twenty and thirty something second or third or fourth or fifth generation kids who have lived and worked here all their lives. Quite a few of them are building businesses and they contribute to the community in many ways every day, but haven't yet bought their own homes. They fish, go boating, kayak, yolo board and should have the same opportunity to launch a boat, which was as I understand it one of the reasons for keeping the Grayton access open to beach driving - a place in SoWal to launch a boat into the Gulf without driving a long distance away. The property ownership requirement discriminates on economic grounds, while residency is a valid requirement. Residency is used across the country in many locations as a qualification for all sorts of local activities and services - library cards, parking permits, etc., and I think the issue of discrimination against renters has come up more than a time or two.
I would favor strict rules for full time residency. Vehicle registration and insurance and driver's license address in Walton County, voter registration likewise, and a limit on the number of permits per residence.
As for the reduced fee for private security firms, it appears that came from Sandestin. They ought to pay their own way at full price, imho, and beyond that I would question why they even need to be driving on the beach.
