wrobert
Beach Fanatic
Study your history - when the Constitution was written only white male property owners were allowed to have certain rights - among them voting. Thus, making landownership one of the prerequisitives to drive a vehicle on the beach does NOT violate the Constitution.
I've never heard anyone complain that they couldn't drive on the beach because they didn't own property - more that they didn't have the appropriate vehicle.
Owning beach land isn't the criteria, owning land anywhere in Walton County (yes, even north of the bay) is the criteria. Since one could argue that a family in Freeport is more likely to own a 4 wheel drive vehicle than a family in Seaside, your attempt to make it a class issue falls flat. A lack of land ownership does not preclude anyone from enjoying the beach, merely driving on it!
And as far as ecological damage, that is why you can only drive your vehicle on one small part of the beach.
So just to make sure I understand your position, it is okay to destroy the environment on one small piece of sand?
Land ownership is bestowing a set up rights on a class of land owners. What about full time renters? They get the benefit of paying higher taxes than most landowners, at least those with homesteaded property, yet they do not get a key benefit that only a landowner gets. I say, let them eat cake!
