Which Beaches are private and which are public?

So is anyone going to fight this so we can hear from blue mt beach vagrant?

Calling John R!

My understanding is that this would limit the use of the beach to owners (and guests I would assume) within the platted subdivision, and also limits the physical access structures to same. It also states that the right to use the beach is a permissive one granted by the gulf-front owners to their neighbors within the subdivision and not a customary use. This would be for the properties between Redfish Lake and the Blue Mountain Beach Regional Access located at the end of CR 83.

I don't want to rehash all the crap I learned about the actual ownership of the beach for that stretch, which all can read on the actual deed, if you actually read in depth about the developer dissolving and reversion of the ownership...yada, yada, yada.

However, Customary Use by the public is an entirely different beast, than rights to ownership. My guess is that some influential owners in that subdivision, are trying to prevent users/owners of Redfish Village from crowding the beach in that area.

I've been using that beach for years, and never been asked to move or leave. Essentially, that is what Customary Use is all about. The public using the property.

I've been using that beach for years, and never been asked to move or leave.

Looks to me like that might change. :shock:

Not unless they want to call the cops and my me and the other frequent users arrested and taken to court. I'm getting a little tired of the mess, and maybe it is time for someone to get arrested for quietly enjoying the beach.

In an attempt to clear up the discussion about the Blue Mountain Beach neighborhood plans I would like to note there are two plans, BMB-1 and BMB-2. The BMB-1 plan mentioned above is a plan being proposed by beachfront property owners that would include just beachfront properties. However, not all beachfront property owners decided to take part in the process. This plan would limit the use of the beach to owners and guests within the platted subdivision. And there is at least one beachfront owner in that area who has asked people sitting on the beach behind his house to move!

The BMB-2 plan is being put forth as a plan for the entire Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision #1. That plan basically mirrors county rules and regulations and says nothing about the beach. It in no way restricts use of the beach. Some individuals involved with the BMB-1 plan have asked to be excluded from the BMB-2 plan but that has not happened, as they are part of the subdivision.

Neither of these plans has been before the Planning Commission so they certainly are not yet about to go before the BCC. If they are on a BCC agenda it is likely because there was an assumption they would have been before the Planning Commission by now. But twice the BMB-1 plan has been scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission but both times the plan has been withdrawn. Presently it is scheduled to be heard by them on April 9th. The BMB-2, which has no impact on the beach, is scheduled to go before the Planning Commission on March 12th.

I can certainly understand wanting to find ways to keep a development further inland from using your neighborhood as the designated access point to funnel all of their guests onto the beach.

I CAN'T understand pitching a fit about someone using the beach near your home when it doesn't preclude your use. I saw one of those "private" signs while walking along their deserted beach - and wished I'd had more liquids before my walk. ;-)

The BMB-2 plan is less restrictive in nature than the one proposed by the beach front owners, IMO. It is also in the the interest of good neighborhood planning and proper land usage. I do not understand how a partial neighborhood plan can be considered for a platted subdivision but I am told that this is the case. If so, it is certainly not in the interest of good neighborhood planning and development as two plans could be at odds with one another in both goals and functionality. This would appear to be the case in these two plans.

Right on Andy A.

ESTABLISHING THAT THE INTENT OF THE PLAN IS TO PRESERVE THE BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACHES FOR USE BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACH SUBDIVISION NO. 1, ESTABLISHING THAT THE USE IS A PERMISSIVE ONE AND VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS SHALL NOT BE ABUSED; ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS FOR VESTED TITLE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS; ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS REGULATING NEIGHBORHOOD BEACH ACCESSES;

I think it is worth posting this section again. I'm no lawyer but it looks like to me like this would codify a precedent into the land development code about beach use being permissive rather than customary. If the BCC were to approve something like this, it would be one more hurdle to get over to establish customary use on the county's beaches, something the TDC has asked the BCC to look into. Owners in other parts of SoWal who think they have "vested property rights" to the beach would then assert their right to grant or deny "permission."
And never mind the larger issue. If I were a second or third tier owner in the subdivision, I would be very worried that my use might be deemed "abusive" one of these days and I would lose my "permission."
And aren't those neighborhood accesses county owned? Is the county going to give over control of them to these beachfront owners??
I sure hope this one goes down.

What I find most interesting about this is that the original Plat for Blue Mtn Beach S/D No. 1, PB2, P41, describes the boundaries of the property, which do not include the beach. The southern boundary is described in the Plat as, "...thence in a northwesterly direction along the bluff line of the Gulf of Mexico."

What I find most interesting about this is that the original Plat for Blue Mtn Beach S/D No. 1, PB2, P41, describes the boundaries of the property, which do not include the beach. The southern boundary is described in the Plat as, "...thence in a northwesterly direction along the bluff line of the Gulf of Mexico."

I love it! Put that in your pipe and smoke it you silly private beach folks! :rofl:

What I find most interesting about this is that the original Plat for Blue Mtn Beach S/D No. 1, PB2, P41, describes the boundaries of the property, which do not include the beach. The southern boundary is described in the Plat as, "...thence in a northwesterly direction along the bluff line of the Gulf of Mexico."

I love it! Put that in your pipe and smoke it you silly private beach folks! :rofl:

In lieu of BMBV's attendance to this discussion, I would recommend you searching the OR on the Clerks site for the first property east of the Blue Mountain Beach Regional Access. I am referring to a summary judgment issued in 2007 and deed recorded on September 12, 2007. The original property lines you described above have been modified to now got to the waters edge. Don't shoot the messenger.

Oh, I've seen that paper trail, but if the original plat of the sub-division never included the beach, how the hell could it suddenly be included later in time?

Good question, SJ. There is a similar situation in Seagrove, west of 395. The original Cube McGee plat didn't include the beach there either - lots went to the bluff. There are four contiguous lots there that now go to the MHW.
I'll be surprised if we don't see more of this.

I am told one of the Blue Mountain Beach beachfront property owners, a former lawyer, went into court stating the developers had 'intended' to give the beach to the subdivision and asked that the judge award him that property seaward of his home to the waters edge. Of course the developers, long since gone, were not there to say otherwise. I'm not sure anyone knew this was happening. At any rate since no one objected, the judge awarded him the property. After that many of the Blue Mountain Beach beachfront property owners marched into court making the same request. They got the same results. Pretty amazing! I am also told some of those new deeds do stipulate ownership on behalf of the subdivision, some don't. Did the developers own the beach to begin with? Hope that gets looked into. Why don't all the deeds read the same, other that they were handled by different lawyers? How do you prove someone intended to do something years ago? Lots of questions.

I am told one of the Blue Mountain Beach beachfront property owners, a former lawyer, went into court stating the developers had 'intended' to give the beach to the subdivision and asked that the judge award him that property seaward of his home to the waters edge. Of course the developers, long since gone, were not there to say otherwise. I'm not sure anyone knew this was happening. At any rate since no one objected, the judge awarded him the property. After that many of the Blue Mountain Beach beachfront property owners marched into court making the same request. They got the same results. Pretty amazing! I am also told some of those new deeds do stipulate ownership on behalf of the subdivision, some don't. Did the developers own the beach to begin with? Hope that gets looked into. Why don't all the deeds read the same, other that they were handled by different lawyers? How do you prove someone intended to do something years ago? Lots of questions.

This my point exactly. Why not acknowledge the root of this problem? Lot lines were drawn without regard for general beach use by the public. I just can not believe that this was an innocent "ignorance" of the long term impact on the local economy and quality of life for residents. To rely on customary use as a safeguard is not much comfort to me. I think the lot lines should be limited to a reasonable distance from your building footprint. If the past can not be fixed, let's at least not continue down this bad path.l

Oh, I've seen that paper trail, but if the original plat of the sub-division never included the beach, how the hell could it suddenly be included later in time?

I don't know the legal ins and outs but Richard covered what I had heard. The final result was the same. In addition to the Summary Judgment, the actual deeds themselves have a different legal description now.

I've read through most of the deeds, and the talk about the beach property going to the deeded beach front owners, then reverting back to the entire subdivision if the developer ever dissolved. It has been a year or two since I read all of that mess, so I may have that reversed, regarding the "ownership" pre and post developer dissolvement. However, I never found anything in the original plat regarding the ownership of the beach, and the beach is certainly not included in the legal description as I read it, in any form or fashion. The original plat does acknowledge that all avenues, streets and accesses (beach and Lake) within the boundary of the sub-division are dedicated to the perpetual public use.

SJ, the link doesn't seem to work.

Thanks, gayboi. Sorry, I forgot that the Clerk of Courts' site isn't user friendly re linking. It may get screwed up in attempting to bypass the disclaimer.

Try this >>>click<<<
Then, in the blue box to the left, select "Book Page."

Under Book Type, select "Plat"

Beside Book, type "2" (only the number, not the " ")

Beside Page, type "41"

A list will pull up and click on the hyperlink for the first item on the list. A new page will pop up. Go to the "settings" at the upper right, and a pop up box will appear. Beside the question, "Which image viewer would you like to use?," select pdf, then click "ok."

Back on the main screen, click "view image."

Remember that you can zoom in to read it closely, and pan around the screen.

Added to SoWal.com home page.

This subject just keeps coming around and I feel compelled to say something, I'm not fighting, just putting another take on this issue. I feel sorry for some of these people, seems there's another side of the story that you may not get to hear.
We have friends that sit beach front. We've talked with them about how did this beach issue happen? Here's the info that they gave us: They purchased their property somewhere in the late 70's or early 80's. Lot of area to be had at that time. This area was slowly building. Did Walton County buy in---as you can see not much. We've looked at their property warranty deed, which states a distance of X amount to the mean high water line of the Gulf of Mexico, thence go X amount along the aforesaid mean high water line etc... it reads like these people by deed own their beach. They think that all this mess came about after Dennis. Every beach front property owner that was left standing after this storm had to pay out of their pocket to shore up their property. (This included the sea walls--another issue. In talking with our friends, we found that Walton County didn't have a plan in place to cover the proper way to handle this situation, most were on their own. (Surprised us that Walton Co. never thought a storm would ever affect these people). Storms had affected this area before and FEMA helped to restore the dunes that were washed away by Opal, I believe. It's been a while since we talked about this). Most of the property owners went beyond the call of duty. Sand (another issue) was brought in to rebuild the dune system, plants were planted, and they believe that they did the best they could considering lack of rules for them to use. Some people did some good things and some people did some bad things. They told us they didn't want the seawalls, but had no idea what to do, they were just left standing there. They needed guidance, but there was little to be found.
Any how, here comes the mess. This started people saying that all beach front property owners should be washed into the Gulf of Mexico including their County Commissioner. Shame on the seawalls. Shame on the sand--shame on everything. A lot of property owners sit in complexes and sub-divisions. These areas have been sharing responsibility for the properties for quite sometime. Everyone backed out on this issue and starting saying, that's your property not ours, (seems to me that sums that up by a few people) we're not paying for any of it. So, here we are today. People feeling angry that they were abandoned and also dealing with other people that have the attitude of entitlement, I guess. There is one person in their complex that actually rubs it in their face, that he's sitting on their beach (could sit anywhere else) and it didn't cost him a dime. Kind of hard to take, I'm sure.

Two bits for our friends, they have never asked people to get off the property. They do go down and clean up after people that leave trash and such all over the place. The feel that they have been tagged as the bad guys, when really they don't feel they did anything wrong. They had to do what they had to do.
I can't imagine what would have happened to this area, what if all those gulf front property owners had not dug deep into their pockets and basically rebuilt the beach. Cost of $100,000's of thousands, depending on the area. Life savings, college and retirement money gone, for some, they're still paying for that storm. I would not have wanted to vacation on a beach that was ravaged by mother nature. It was a very sad situation and horrible to look at the destruction caused by Dennis. I just wonder what people would be saying if they had not made an attempt ( good or bad) to restore the coast. Bet a lot tourist dollars would have been lost, as well as jobs, and business. Our friends just sit quietly as people throw stones at this beach front group. As in everything, you have your people that are trying to do right (the largest number I believe) and then you have those that cause the grief (which maybe rightfully so).
IMHO, maybe those who attack these people should have to live (not rent or vacation) on the beach and face the obstacles that come with the turf. I think there are 2 sides to this story and both have their pros and cons. I guess you have to look deep and ask yourself, if that was my home, what would I have done and how would I feel about the negative attacks that come your way. I think some people act nastier than others. Maybe you have to walk a mile in their shoes to understand all the mixed emotions that come with the turf.
Best of luck to our non-trouble causing friends, we hope people will start distinguishing between the trouble makers and others that are just caught up in a bad situation.
Hope this doesn't make you mad that I've talked openly about your problems.

I am not asking the beachfront owners to pay for anything - the reason they had to "shore up their property" wasn't because of our demands, it was because their homes were undercut by the storm surge.

Millions and millions of tax dollars are being spent on beach renourishment projects and the nicest looking stretch of beach in the area is the one where we let nature take its course and fix the beaches naturally.

The only thing I am "asking" of beachfront owners is that they stop constantly biatching about people using the beach, going "mine, mine, mine," and messing with endangered species in violation of existing rules and regulations.

I know that some beachgoers behave inappropriately and cause problems, but those people misbehave wherever they are - frustrating us all.

majah, I think that most people I talk to about the issue agree that a minority of gulf front owners are causing the problem, not the majority. Personally, I think that those gulf front owners remaining silent, while not raising stink about people sitting on the beach, need to speak up against the minority who erect no trespassing signs on the beach, if they wish to continue to be able to go to a grocery store, have their hair done, play golf, eat out, etc. If non-deeded Gulf front people are banned from the beaches, we will see every business around here dry up, and you can forget about services of any kind.