Beach Property Rights - public/private

[John R]

no, humor with regards to your citing an article entirely devoted to driving on the beach in an attempt to bolster you argument. sad actually.

i do agree with: "The decision went on to express skepticism that beach driving ever can be part of the public's customary rights to beach areas."

 

[Smiling JOe]

"The appellate court's unanimous ruling says in strong terms that Florida governments must respect the rights of beachfront property owners," said Steven G. Gieseler, an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation's Atlantic Center, who represents the landowners. "The court was right to dismiss the idea that property rights end where the sand begins."

see http://www.freedom.org/news/200709/20/plf.phtml

Perhaps you forgot to read the first paragraph very closely. I'll quote:

" In a victory for homeowners and other landowners all along Florida's coasts, a trial court has been ordered to reconsider a case brought by beachfront property owners against Volusia County's practice of letting the general public drive and park on private ocean-front property, even property that hasn't traditionally been open to the public."

You might ask how that differs from SoWal beach uses. SoWal beaches have traditionally been open to the public.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Perhaps you forgot to read the first paragraph very closely. I'll quote:

" In a victory for homeowners and other landowners all along Florida's coasts, a trial court has been ordered to reconsider a case brought by beachfront property owners against Volusia County's practice of letting the general public drive and park on private ocean-front property, even property that hasn't traditionally been open to the public."

You might ask how that differs from SoWal beach uses. SoWal beaches have traditionally been open to the public.

You lost me. I was simply pointing out a possible trend that perhaps the pendelum regarding "customary use" could be reversing.

Also your statement "SoWal beaches have traditionally been open to the public" is suspect.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Callies, David L., and J. David Breemer. “Selected Legal and Policy Trends in Takings Law: Background Principles, Custom and Public Trust ‘Exceptions’ and the (Mis)use of Investment-Backed Expectations"​

Callies and Breemer outline the directions in which takings law has moved after ​

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council,90 including cases dealing with public
access. By invoking custom and public trust, they assert that the courts are treating public access cases involving these doctrines as exceptions to Lucas, thereby constructing a means for states to obtain property rights without paying compensation. They caution that courts must return to the former strict and traditional interpretation of custom and public trust to avoid crossing the fine line of invoking a taking. They conclude that these doctrines cannot be expanded simply to justify acquiring a resource only recently deemed valuable by the public at the expense of long-held property rights.


The above is exactly what I've been saying all along. My guess is that this is a major reason the the Florida Supreme Court is dragging their feet regarding the Walton vs Save Our Beaches decision.


But hey...what do I know?​

 

[Smiling JOe]

You lost me. I was simply pointing out a possible trend that perhaps the pendelum regarding "customary use" could be reversing.

Also your statement "SoWal beaches have traditionally been open to the public" is suspect.

I'll see if I can explain. The article is about driving on the beach in areas where there has not been traditional customary use (people had not been driving on the beach on those properties in the past). The Court ruled that there was not customary use and that the drivers cannot drive on the beach on the privately owned properties where they had not driven established customary use from a long history of driving on the subject properties.

In contrast, the beaches in south Walton, even the ones which are deeded to private parties, have traditionally been open to the public, which opens the potential for customary use by the public. Comparing one of these to the other is a far stretch from the way I understand the article.

I will also add that the comments you quoted in the first post regarding this link were coming from the lawyer, not the Judge.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I'll see if I can explain. The article is about driving on the beach in areas where there has not been traditional customary use (people had not been driving on the beach on those properties in the past). The Court ruled that there was not customary use and that the drivers cannot drive on the beach on the privately owned properties where they had not driven established customary use from a long history of driving on the subject properties.

In contrast, the beaches in south Walton, even the ones which are deeded to private parties, have traditionally been open to the public, which opens the potential for customary use by the public. Comparing one of these to the other is a far stretch from the way I understand the article.

I will also add that the comments you quoted in the first post regarding this link were coming from the lawyer, not the Judge.

SJ, the way I read the article is this...that even where the "public" had been using "private" beach for bathing, that the use of vehicles on private property is not a legitimate use. On TOP of that, the use of vehicles would of course be prohibited on private private beach where the public did not traditionally bath. This conclusion from the first sentence:

"In a victory for homeowners and other landowners all along Florida's coasts, a trial court has been ordered to reconsider a case brought by beachfront property owners against Volusia County's practice of letting the general public drive and park on private ocean-front property, even property that hasn't traditionally been open to the public."

You say I quoted a lawyer? What's wrong with that?;-) (disclaimer...there are some honest lawyers out there).

OK, from the same article - a quote from the JUDGE!!!!.....

"We do not believe that [Florida Supreme Court precedents relating to beach access] intended to announce a right by custom for public use of the entire sandy beach area of the entire State of Florida," wrote Judge Jacqueline R. Griffin, in Friday's ruling. The decision went on to express skepticism that beach driving ever can be part of the public's customary rights to beach areas.

My English interpretation: just because the "public" prevailed with the Tona-Rama case (Daytona), this does not imply carte blanche access to the rest of the beaches in Florida (vehicle or otherwise).

SJ, all I was trying to imply is that the interpretation of "customary use" is tightening....no denying this.

AGAIN, that is why the State Attorney General said that customary use must establish on a case by case (lot by lot, owner by owner).

 

[Smiling JOe]

The only part with which I agree with you is your last paragraph above. In WalCo, we aren't trying to establish public driving on the beach on privately deed property, by saying that the sunbathing public had established a customary use. The use is not changing, as it did in the Case to which you refer. By the way, is Judge Jacquiline R Griffin a Florida Supreme Court Judge? Supreme Courts don't like to be toyed with like that. Read the statements of the Supreme Court Judges in the Tona-Rama case.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

The only part with which I agree with you is your last paragraph above. In WalCo, we aren't trying to establish public driving on the beach on privately deed property, by saying that the sunbathing public had established a customary use. The use is not changing, as it did in the Case to which you refer. By the way, is Judge Jacquiline R Griffin a Florida Supreme Court Judge? Supreme Courts don't like to be toyed with like that. Read the statements of the Supreme Court Judges in the Tona-Rama case.

Well hell...one paragraph is better than no paragraphs. I won't give up on you that easily.

You don't like lawyer quotes. I give you a judge's quote. Then you don't like the judge's quote because she may not be on the Supreme Court. Throw me a rotten bone...please! I interpret the judge's quote. You disagree yet you don't throw in your own interpretation.

SJ, its no secret that you want my (our) private property for yourself and your buds. I just want to know why you think you're entitled other than "customary use" which, by the way, nobody has defined for me (i.e. frequency of visitation, quantity of people, repeatability of the same people visiting, time window in years, and of course - accurate record keeping requirements).

Your general and vague statement that the beaches in Sowal have been open to the public doesn't fly in my book and probably won't at the judicial level. I've been trying to shed a little light regarding this here in FLORIDA (not Oregon, Hawaii or Texas).

 

[Smiling JOe]

Well hell...one paragraph is better than no paragraphs. I won't give up on you that easily.

You don't like lawyer quotes. I give you a judge's quote. Then you don't like the judge's quote because she may not be on the Supreme Court. Throw me a rotten bone...please! I interpret the judge's quote. You disagree yet you don't throw in your own interpretation.

SJ, its no secret that you want my (our) private property for yourself and your buds. I just want to know why you think you're entitled other than "customary use" which, by the way, nobody has defined for me (i.e. frequency of visitation, quantity of people, repeatability of the same people visiting, time window in years, and of course - accurate record keeping requirements).

Your general and vague statement that the beaches in Sowal have been open to the public doesn't fly in my book and probably won't at the judicial level. I've been trying to shed a little light regarding this here in FLORIDA (not Oregon, Hawaii or Texas).

-The lawyer's quote made it sound like he was the law, not the lawyer.
-The Judge is saying something contrary to the Florida Supreme Courts written comments on a closed case.
- I already gave my interpretation of it twice.
-I don't want your property.
-On numerous occasions, I have spoken on the specific questions you have regarding customary use. I see no point in repeating the same thing over an over again. That is just silly.
-I do not recall having mentioned customary use of beaches in Oregon, Hawaii, nor Texas.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

"-The Judge is saying something contrary to the Florida Supreme Courts written comments on a closed case. "
I quote a judge's quote verbatim from this past September and you say the judge is contradicting a closed case? What's it take to make a point?

"- I already gave my interpretation of it twice. "
Well I guess we see what we want to see.

"-I don't want your property."
Then what's the point of all this?

"-On numerous occasions, I have spoken on the specific questions you have regarding customary use. I see no point in repeating the same thing over an over again. That is just silly."
No its not silly. At least I'm not laughing. Its the core of the argument of this thread, SJ. It's the core on why people are getting arrested. Its the core why TDC sees this as a threat to tourism and the overall economy in SoWal. Its the core why beach renoursihment is being tied up in the Supreme Court that could affect all renourishment projects in Florida. It is the core reason why you and I and others are butting heads.

If you did answer, it surely did not resonate with me.

You are without a doubt the most verbose person on this board. Surely you could endulge me once more with your interpretation of customary use and save me (us) the time of searching for your numerous previous answers.

Again what conditions does your interpretation of customary use meet and what are the values? (frequency, quantity, documentation, etc.)


"-I do not recall having mentioned customary use of beaches in Oregon, Hawaii, nor Texas."
You're right...you didn't, I did. Just pointing out that Florida is a different state (with some different legal interpretations) than the other states that made the beaches public...that's all.


SJ, as you know, I don't take private property rights lightly. Sorry for the heavy-handed tone. Night.