Robert 'Bob' Hudson Introduction

[Bob Hudson]

I hope this way of answering questions works for everyone inclined to follow this thread. My thoughts are mine. They are honest answers to some easy and some complex questions. That is who I am , like me, love me or hate me. I will always try to answer in this manner.

I owe the Roadrunner the answers to two follow up questions and will try to get that done quickly.

Bob Hudson

 

[idlewind]

Mr. Hudson;

Thanks so much for your honest responses to these important questions. Regarding use of the beaches, how would you respond to those of us who purchased rental property north of 30-A/98 based on the premise that the beaches were customarily used by everyone, based on years of local history. Isn't it a "taking" of our property rights to make it more difficult for our renters to get to/use the beaches, therefore lowering the value of our property? And what do you say to those locals who have used the beaches unfettered all of their lives? Isn't restricting use of the beaches infringing on their quality of life? I would think it would be in the majority of the voters best interest to have a fairly liberal beach usage policy at the county level. What say you?

 

[Roadrunner]

I hope this way of answering questions works for everyone inclined to follow this thread. My thoughts are mine. They are honest answers to some easy and some complex questions. That is who I am , like me, love me or hate me. I will always try to answer in this manner.

I owe the Roadrunner the answers to two follow up questions and will try to get that done quickly.

Bob Hudson

Thank you for answering my questions.

I promise to hold off on any additional questions until others have had a chance to participate as my purpose is not to be the great inquisitor. I can tell you that your responses are good food for thought.

 

[Bob Hudson]

RR Question - What do you mean by 16 miles of "public beaches?" Is that how much shoreline is in Walton County or are you saying that some of it should not be used by the public? I guess this leads into one of my old questions.

I think I answered this followup at the time that I reposted all of your questions and my responses. If not just let me know and I will make another effort. Please see post #30 and let me know.

RR-Question - Also, you mentioned dedicated cart paths. It seems like roads are already crowded with the bike path and the road. Is there enough room to add another path? Wouldn't it need more signs too?

The latest 30-A study dealt and recommended dedicated cart paths, dedicated cart parking and encouraging restaurants and other businesses to include those in their plans where possible. There are sections of 30-A where that would not be possible. Seaside comes to my mind. I believe that 30-A is a series of "Beach Communities" and that we should explore ways to provide for other forms of transit to highly congested areas. A dedicated cart path like the multi-purpose path would be difficult to connect all of those communities together. I was drawing on my understanding of the 30-A study and trying to think outside the box.

RR - Let me know what other questions you have and anyothers as I feel we are now in sync.

 

[Bob Hudson]

Mr. Hudson;

Thanks so much for your honest responses to these important questions. Regarding use of the beaches, how would you respond to those of us who purchased rental property north of 30-A/98 based on the premise that the beaches were customarily used by everyone, based on years of local history. Isn't it a "taking" of our property rights to make it more difficult for our renters to get to/use the beaches, therefore lowering the value of our property? And what do you say to those locals who have used the beaches unfettered all of their lives? Isn't restricting use of the beaches infringing on their quality of life? I would think it would be in the majority of the voters best interest to have a fairly liberal beach usage policy at the county level. What say you?

I definitely understand your perspective. I am not an attorney, particularly not a land use attorney. My perspective is a layman’s, based on a value system that believes that land ownership and the rights historically associated with it are a true foundation of our society. There were events that occurred within New Jersey and Connecticut where municipalities acquired people’s homes under the eminent domain provisions of the law. They took those parcels not to provide a hospital, school, or road. They took those parcels and then sold them to developers because the tax revenue from the condominiums would be greater than those from the current owners. That bothered me and many others across the nation. Y I did not author the deeds of those parcels that state ownership to the MHW line. It is regrettable that the vision or foresight was not there to provide accommodation for all, but as I said my viewpoint "those individuals will have to be compensated for the take". I believe this issue will be decided in the highest court of the land.

The issue of customary usage of the land is currently under review and I believe that the current law is interpreted that a customary usage would have to be done on a case by case basis. We vacationed here for 42 years. Could I go unfettered almost anywhere on the beaches - yes I could. There were very few homes on the beach and almost no people that were permanent residents to challenge my usage. Things are very different today in that regard. We should explorer all avenues to expand what we have that are undeniably "Public" - Should that be a policy that provides for easier access to all - yes it should!

Honest answers

 

[Trevorr34]

I definitely understand your perspective. I am not an attorney, particularly not a land use attorney. My perspective is a layman’s, based on a value system that believes that land ownership and the rights historically associated with it are a true foundation of our society. There were events that occurred within New Jersey and Connecticut where municipalities acquired people’s homes under the eminent domain provisions of the law. They took those parcels not to provide a hospital, school, or road. They took those parcels and then sold them to developers because the tax revenue from the condominiums would be greater than those from the current owners. That bothered me and many others across the nation. Y I did not author the deeds of those parcels that state ownership to the MHW line. It is regrettable that the vision or foresight was not there to provide accommodation for all, but as I said my viewpoint "those individuals will have to be compensated for the take". I believe this issue will be decided in the highest court of the land.

The issue of customary usage of the land is currently under review and I believe that the current law is interpreted that a customary usage would have to be done on a case by case basis. We vacationed here for 42 years. Could I go unfettered almost anywhere on the beaches - yes I could. There were very few homes on the beach and almost no people that were permanent residents to challenge my usage. Things are very different today in that regard. We should explorer all avenues to expand what we have that are undeniably "Public" - Should that be a policy that provides for easier access to all - yes it should!

Honest answers

Mr. Hudson,
Can you please find a link documenting the above cases you speak of, and that you have strong feelings for? It's been my understanding that no one is trying to take anyone's home. People are just trying to sit with their families unfettered on the beach without risk of arrest.
So, since it is your opinion that the only way the public should have use of a "private beach" above the MHWL is to "compensate those individual's for the take", then why were certain large scale developments allowed small stretches of beach ownership that obviously could not accomodate them due to the occupancy allowed? We are all aware that the high courts must decide this issue, but it seems rather hypocritical of you to say, and refer, to a past case, without referencing it to boot, that those municipalities took people's homes to build condos for higher tax revenue, when the County has allowed these large scale developments to be built in an area with a severly eroded beach comparable to others. I guess tax revenue had nothing to do with that?

 

[Bob Hudson]

Here is one of the news articles on this issue.

New London, Connecticut
Kelo v. New London
Lawsuit Challenging Eminent Domain Abuse in New London, Connecticut


Susette Kelo received notice of condemnation from the NLDC (New London Development Corporation) the day before Thanksgiving 2000.


Susette Kelo dreamed of owning a home that looked out over the water. She purchased and lovingly restored her little pink house where the Thames River meets the Long Island Sound in 1997, and has enjoyed the great view from its windows ever since. The Dery family, down the street from Susette, has lived in Fort Trumbull since 1895; Matt Dery and his family live next door to his mother and father, whose parents purchased their house when William McKinley was president. The richness and vibrancy of this neighborhood reflects the American ideal of community and the dream of homeownership.

Tragically, the City of New London is turning that dream into a nightmare.

In 1998, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer built a plant next to Fort Trumbull and the City determined that someone else could make better use of the land than the Fort Trumbull residents. The City handed over its power of eminent domain—the ability to take private property for public use—to the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private body, to take the entire neighborhood for private development. As the Fort Trumbull neighbors found out, when private entities wield government’s awesome power of eminent domain and can justify taking property with the nebulous claim of “economic development,” all homeowners are in trouble.

The U.S. Supreme Court may have ruled but the fight is not over yet.

here is another link: www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/21/scotus.eminent.domain

Google eminent domain

 

[Trevorr34]

Here is one of the news articles on this issue.

New London, Connecticut
Kelo v. New London
Lawsuit Challenging Eminent Domain Abuse in New London, Connecticut


Susette Kelo received notice of condemnation from the NLDC (New London Development Corporation) the day before Thanksgiving 2000.


Susette Kelo dreamed of owning a home that looked out over the water. She purchased and lovingly restored her little pink house where the Thames River meets the Long Island Sound in 1997, and has enjoyed the great view from its windows ever since. The Dery family, down the street from Susette, has lived in Fort Trumbull since 1895; Matt Dery and his family live next door to his mother and father, whose parents purchased their house when William McKinley was president. The richness and vibrancy of this neighborhood reflects the American ideal of community and the dream of homeownership.

Tragically, the City of New London is turning that dream into a nightmare.

In 1998, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer built a plant next to Fort Trumbull and the City determined that someone else could make better use of the land than the Fort Trumbull residents. The City handed over its power of eminent domain—the ability to take private property for public use—to the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private body, to take the entire neighborhood for private development. As the Fort Trumbull neighbors found out, when private entities wield government’s awesome power of eminent domain and can justify taking property with the nebulous claim of “economic development,” all homeowners are in trouble.

The U.S. Supreme Court may have ruled but the fight is not over yet.

here is another link: www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/21/scotus.eminent.domain

Google eminent domain

Mr. Hudson:
I am quite capable of using google and multiple search engines. Thank you though for the tip. However, I fail to see how this particular case where people were forced from their home and land has anything to do with "customary usage". This is a rather exaggerated and extreme example you provided. Asking to sit on a beach unfettered in a State whose main source of revenue is, and always has been, tourism, is not "nebulous" in the least bit. I am glad you posted your honest answers though. It's become much clearer where you stand.

 

[scooterbug44]

The case was not cited for "customary usage" it was an example of abusive emminent domain for the public good that infringed on individual property owner's rights.

I found his answers quite clear and logical.

 

[rheffron]

Boy, am I glad I did not bid on that communication contract! Motorola should be suing someone for payment by now or is the interest piling up?