-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
-
Hello all! We will be performing a website & forum update soon. You may get logged out so now is the time to make sure your email address in your account is correct - go to your account to check it and update it now. Send us a message with your username and/or email address if you need help.
Sanctuary at Redfish
- Thread starter Unplugged
- Start date
NotDeadYet
Beach Fanatic
This has been pretty extensively covered in the papers. The Beach Breeze has had the most comprehensive coverage, but many here do not read it. To make a long story short, the state draws a line in the sand, called the Erosion Control Line or ECL. After renourishment the "new" beach seaward of the ECL becomes public. I would not call it a precedence - it is a statutory requirement. In addition to bed tax money, other public funds are spent on renourishment and so the state has decided it must be public, otherwise it becomes a case of spending huge amounts of tax dollars on private property. Unfortunately in the Miramar Beach area this is being ignored, specifically by Surfside, which has placed two great big signs on the beach, identifying it as private and citing a bogus Florida statute. I spoke to the DEP about this and they agreed there is no question the renourished beach at Surfside is public, but they have no enforcement mechanism to get the signs removed. They have been there since last summer. And I doubt that most people understand the legalities of renourishment, they are probably just intimidated. Also you cannot tell exactly where the ECL is, it is not marked or anything like that.
Furthermore, there is a case before the courts right now in which a few property owners are challenging the whole deal because they do not want a new public beach in front of their private beach. Whatever ruling comes out of that could change the whole ball game.
Which areas exactly would be renourished is pretty much up to the DEP - they have to deem it "critically eroded" and there is criteria for that, hence all the studies and such. It's a long permitting process.
Hope this helps.
NotDeadYet
Beach Fanatic
One further thought - I think the TDC and the county have been hoping renourishment would solve the public vs private dilemma, it the court case doesn't derail the whole thing or produce some new rules. But IMHO they have dropped the ball by allowing those Surfside signs to remain there. 
Smiling JOe
SoWal Expert
It is an important subject, so please post private beach posts in the private beaches threads, otherwise, much useful discussion and info goes unseen by people looking for info on it.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant
Beach Fanatic
SJ, don't worry too much about it. I believe EVERYTHING that is going to be said here has been said elsewhere in one flavor or another.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant
Beach Fanatic
Yea I know...did you see John McCain's face while Romney was endorsing him?
BlueMtnBeachVagrant
Beach Fanatic
POW!!
That's the sound of your hammer hitting the nail on the head.
Your question, "Why not spend the bucks on 4-laning the 331 bridge?" is a great one. The answer is that our bridges don't attract touristas.
How else is one going to "grow" the tourist industry in SoWal if a sginificant amount of the beaches are private?
Hey I know...throw some grains of sand out there and confiscate it.
"But Mr.and Ms. County Comissioner, we've got a beach out here. They seem to be recovering" says the beach front owner. "Can't we wait to do all this renourishment when we REALLY need it?".
Commissioner: "Nope, we need the beach to be public now. Trespassing arrests are bad for business, don't ya know. How else are we going to get away with approving the future Redfish Villages and Nature Walks and other large developments that need your private beach?"
"But Commissioner, I bought into the peace, tranquility and beauty of the area which I thought were protected by my private property rights."
"We don't care. Business is business. How are we going to increase passenger flow to justify a 330 million dollar airport to the federal and state authorities? ......and BTW my biggest "campaign contributor" is a developer who needs work."
kimbug
Beach Lover
Ok...so I have read all of these arguments and just have one question....if I vacation at the Sanctuary at Redfish, use the boat to cross the lake to get to the beach as suggested by owners/mgmt. co. am I going to be trespassing? Apparently in the past "touristas" have contacted the umbrella people and paid for set ups each day and were just fine. I just really need to know and somehow I get the feeling I'll get more honest answers here even though I want to believe what I'm being told by the Sanctuary people. At the very least, could someone make a suggestion as to who I might call...the county, the sheriff's office??
Smiling JOe
SoWal Expert
kimbug, the Sheriff cannot make that ruling, and it is up to the person claiming the property to call the cops and press charges. The plat of that s/d between the 83 access and the outflow of Big Redfish Lake shows the eastern property boundary being the Lake. So, technically, many people have set up their towels on that beach which is deeded. However, I have yet to see anyone run people off from the beach in that subdivision, and the public has been using it for a long time. I will remind you that every day is a new day, and you cannot base tomorrow's decisions based solely on history. I haven't looked at the deeds for the properties to the east of the Lake, but I would guess that the beach in deeded in those cases, too. I guess you could legally set up in the outflow, if it is open, but if you want to play by the rule as written, rather than that which is common, I don't think you could set up on the dry sandy beach at near the outflow.