Private Beaches in South Walton - Customary Use Updates & SB1622

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Hey @mputnal , just like years ago, your posts are disintegrating into disrespectful, condescending rhetoric. BFOs are - greedy, fearful, have no common sense, should allow access to their property because people are generally good, shouldn't put up signs, etc., etc., etc.

New flash!! CUSTOMARY USE IS DEAD.

Everything you mention above and most of your posts are YOUR emotional justifications for customary use which did absolutely nothing to bolster the county's CU litigation.

So please, give it rest.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Maybe I'm simple but if I bought a house on a golf course and my deed extended on to the course I wouldn't make people stop playing golf. Before you say it's different, it's not.

Very interesting comment. Let's think about that for a minute.

The game of golf... typically 18 holes encompassing acres and acres of property (that's why I lose so many balls). Only x number of people are allowed per hole, of course, to keep the game moving. So the actual usage density is EXTREMELY LIGHT.

Let's say the golf course paid tens of millions for marketing. Even if they were wildly successful, they would not be able to cram in more people onto the course. In essence, the usage becomes self limiting due to the nature of the sport.

So on any given day, you, as a home owner on a golf course, would never see the crowds of people who were turned away due no tee times as a result of that marketing campaign.

Unlike golf, the only usage limitation at the beach, is how many people the beach can hold.

The TDC has been very successful at marketing the beach via the millions and millions they've spent and continue to spend. But unlike golf, the number of beach goers can be overwhelming as evidenced by crowded accesses and no parking.

A private beach owner next to or near a public access would have a very difficult time to quietly enjoy their property without enforcing private property rights. They should not be asked to give up that right without compensation.

So just over 20 years ago or so, beach usage in our area was relatively light compared to today. Similar to your golf course analogy, the light beach usage wasn't a real problem. Again, TDC helped grow the area immensely with millions of dollars thrown at marketing. As a result it's definitely a problem now, as we ALL know.

 

[Jimmytown]

Hey @mputnal , just like years ago, your posts are disintegrating into disrespectful, condescending rhetoric. BFOs are - greedy, fearful, have no common sense, should allow access to their property because people are generally good, shouldn't put up signs, etc., etc., etc.

New flash!! CUSTOMARY USE IS DEAD.

Everything you mention above and most of your posts are YOUR emotional justifications for customary use which did absolutely nothing to bolster the county's CU litigation.

So please, give it rest.

No need to be rude. We have a good community with problems like everywhere else. Solutions are in the middle not the extremes. You come across as the guy on the deck of his multimillion dollar home holding a shotgun.

Very interesting comment. Let's think about that for a minute.

The game of golf... typically 18 holes encompassing acres and acres of property (that's why I lose so many balls). Only x number of people are allowed per hole, of course, to keep the game moving. So the actual usage density is EXTREMELY LIGHT.

Let's say the golf course paid tens of millions for marketing. Even if they were wildly successful, they would not be able to cram in more people onto the course. In essence, the usage becomes self limiting due to the nature of the sport.

So on any given day, you, as a home owner on a golf course, would never see the crowds of people who were turned away due no tee times as a result of that marketing campaign.

Unlike golf, the only usage limitation at the beach, is how many people the beach can hold.

The TDC has been very successful at marketing the beach via the millions and millions they've spent and continue to spend. But unlike golf, the number of beach goers can be overwhelming as evidenced by crowded accesses and no parking.

A private beach owner next to or near a public access would have a very difficult time to quietly enjoy their property without enforcing private property rights. They should not be asked to give up that right without compensation.

So just over 20 years ago or so, beach usage in our area was relatively light compared to today. Similar to your golf course analogy, the light beach usage wasn't a real problem. Again, TDC helped grow the area immensely with millions of dollars thrown at marketing. As a result it's definitely a problem now, as we ALL know.

You're working way too hard to justify a losing position in the court of public opinion. Face facts. You're the villain in the story of South Walton.

 

[mputnal]

Hey @mputnal , just like years ago, your posts are disintegrating into disrespectful, condescending rhetoric. BFOs are - greedy, fearful, have no common sense, should allow access to their property because people are generally good, shouldn't put up signs, etc., etc., etc.

New flash!! CUSTOMARY USE IS DEAD.

Everything you mention above and most of your posts are YOUR emotional justifications for customary use which did absolutely nothing to bolster the county's CU litigation.

So please, give it rest.

You could not be more wrong about my posts. I have an opinion just like you and we both repeat ourselves a lot yes. The difference in us is that I try to find common ground from which to communicate and that requires self reflection. If you listen to my posts rather than react you will find that I believe we are more alike than not. The human element is emotional with capability to reason. Your post have become all emotion. Using all caps with the word's "customary" and "dead" reveals that emotion. You are better than that...

 

[mputnal]

Very interesting comment. Let's think about that for a minute.

The game of golf... typically 18 holes encompassing acres and acres of property (that's why I lose so many balls). Only x number of people are allowed per hole, of course, to keep the game moving. So the actual usage density is EXTREMELY LIGHT.

Let's say the golf course paid tens of millions for marketing. Even if they were wildly successful, they would not be able to cram in more people onto the course. In essence, the usage becomes self limiting due to the nature of the sport.

So on any given day, you, as a home owner on a golf course, would never see the crowds of people who were turned away due no tee times as a result of that marketing campaign.

Unlike golf, the only usage limitation at the beach, is how many people the beach can hold.

The TDC has been very successful at marketing the beach via the millions and millions they've spent and continue to spend. But unlike golf, the number of beach goers can be overwhelming as evidenced by crowded accesses and no parking.

A private beach owner next to or near a public access would have a very difficult time to quietly enjoy their property without enforcing private property rights. They should not be asked to give up that right without compensation.

So just over 20 years ago or so, beach usage in our area was relatively light compared to today. Similar to your golf course analogy, the light beach usage wasn't a real problem. Again, TDC helped grow the area immensely with millions of dollars thrown at marketing. As a result it's definitely a problem now, as we ALL know.

The golf course is an excellent analogy! Your emotion does not allow you to really think about it. You focus on whatever makes your case seem viable. Density is not the issue. Exclusivity is the issue. You do not see any picture but yours. If greedy and selfish are not the correct choice of words please correct me with better words!

 

[SUP View]

"You're the villain in the story of South Walton."

You've said the quiet part out load.

The open border - open beach group needs a "villain" in which to rally against.

Facts regarding private property are irrelevant. As such, a villain has to be created for "group think" and outrage.

The developers/investors and County administrators have made the BFO's the shiny object of impasse. And the mostly uninformed public has swallowed the bait.

 

[mputnal]

You've said the quiet part out load.

The open border - open beach group needs a "villain" in which to rally against.

Facts regarding private property are irrelevant. As such, a villain has to be created for "group think" and outrage.

The developers/investors and County administrators have made the BFO's the shiny object of impasse. And the mostly uninformed public has swallowed the bait.

Your signs, your actions and your words have informed the "public" and the public is responding. Nothing good comes from grouping into sides. We are all just people and community. All of us are part of community. Why is that concept so hard? Why is it so hard to understand that public beach with rules make everyone happy. It just feels like you don't like people and want more than you need to be happy. I really hope I am wrong but every post seems to confirm. Prove me wrong.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

It's interesting that that the other side can only continue to villafy private property owners because they have no other recourse. Nothing is brought up by them to provide any possible compromise, ever. It's still, "All or none."

Look, I understand everyone's frustration. And no, I personally am not trying to win over public opinion in this matter. At the risk of sounding like @mputnal, human nature (for the majority - not all) prohibits acceptance of the current legal state of the beach. I get it. But to continually lash out at beach front owners only serves to polarize the situation.

I've already mentioned that the next battleground will be beach nourishment. And in general, the public's attitude only serves as absolute motivation for BFO to fight it with everything they have. That's also human nature when attacked.

I'm not trying to win hearts and minds here. For years on SoWal, I've tried to shine a light on the fact that just because one is in the minority of "the court of public opinion", doesn't make one wrong. Walton County backed that up in court.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

You come across as the guy on the deck of his multimillion dollar home holding a shotgun.

Wrong on both counts. I don't own a multimillion dollar home or a shotgun. You'll need to come up with some other imagery to continue villafying me.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Density is not the issue.

It is if one owns property near a beach access, especially a regional beach access.