Beaches Of South Walton TDC agrees to support customary use of beaches

[Creeklover]

There were people using your property before then also but i bet if someone pitched a place on your lawn you would wont them off of it.

I belive that if they paid for the property then they have a RIGHT to not allow others on their property. If they are told they haft to let the public use their property free of charge then the county/state should purchase it. If not then the property owner should have a right to keep people off of his property that he pays taxes on. Now I would think that if the county would forgive the taxes on the "Beach" area that everyone wonts open to the public (which for some is ALOT of money) and provide the property owner a full release of liability then some might allow others on their property. In todays world it is all about Law suits and belive me if someone got hurt and found a lawer who said they could get them some money they would sue them.

Just beacuse the public has been using someones property free of charge does not allow them the rights to take it a public property with out paying the owner for it. (Just my opion i have no case law to back that up) But if this was the case lets all go find a home that is in forclosure and move in and claim ownership..

 

[Matt J]

Why don't we just get a constitutional amendment similar to Hawaii's? Shall we start the leg work?

 

[Here4Good]

The headline is not exactly correct - the article says:

All members, except Don McQuade, voted to support efforts of defining customary use.

They aren't supporting customary use, not yet anyway. They support defining it.

 

[sunspotbaby]

People should know when they buy a beachfront lot, they're buying the view, not the beach. :roll:

 

[Andy A]

Spring must be on the way. The use of the beach issue is raising its head once again. Obviously Creeklove was not here for last year's go around. SWGB has the right idea. If you get something going, let me know. I'm not too old to help but I don't feel like organizing it.

 

[BeachSiO2]

The headline is not exactly correct - the article says:

All members, except Don McQuade, voted to support efforts of defining customary use.

They aren't supporting customary use, not yet anyway. They support defining it.

For further clarification, the actual vote was two parts in one motion. The TDC recommended to the BCC to determine if their had been customary use of the beaches in Sowal, with examples of customary use listed that included walking, fishing, sunbathing, picnicing and others.

Then if it was determined that the customary use doctrine should be applied in Sowal, they requested that the BCC change the current Beach Activity Ordinance to acknowledge the principal of customary use of the shoreline.

 

[Smiling JOe]

There were people using your property before then also but i bet if someone pitched a place on your lawn you would wont them off of it.

I belive that if they paid for the property then they have a RIGHT to not allow others on their property. If they are told they haft to let the public use their property free of charge then the county/state should purchase it. If not then the property owner should have a right to keep people off of his property that he pays taxes on. Now I would think that if the county would forgive the taxes on the "Beach" area that everyone wonts open to the public (which for some is ALOT of money) and provide the property owner a full release of liability then some might allow others on their property. In todays world it is all about Law suits and belive me if someone got hurt and found a lawer who said they could get them some money they would sue them.

Just beacuse the public has been using someones property free of charge does not allow them the rights to take it a public property with out paying the owner for it. (Just my opion i have no case law to back that up) But if this was the case lets all go find a home that is in forclosure and move in and claim ownership..

Need some case law? Try Trepanier et al v. County of Volusia

In summary:

This court declares that the defendant, COUNTY OF VOLUSIA, on behalf of the public, holds a superior claim to possession and use of the beach landward of the mean low water mark of the Atlantic Ocean to the place where there is marked change in material or physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation in accordance with the definition set forth in Fla. Stat. section 161.54(3) (2004).


Plaintiffs are permanently enjoined from impeding public access to the beach or from acting in any manner inconsistent with the free use of the beach by the public, including access by motor vehicle, subject to the regulatory power of the County of Volusia.
​

********************************

p30 from the linked Court Ruling:
"Finally, we agree with the trial court's analysis of the "takings" issue. If the law recognizes that the public has a customary right to drive and park on Appellants' property as an adjunct of its right to other recreational uses of that property, as recognized in Tona-Rama, then no takings claim can be made out.(22)

Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion."

Footnote 22:
"22 In his dissent in Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach, Justice Scalia suggests that a takings claim is not foreclosed if the private land owner can establish that the state's post-hoc announcement of a customary right is "pretextual." 114 S. Ct. at 1334. Justice Scalia appears to be of the view that the Hay court in Oregon so completely failed to adhere to the required elements of the common law of custom that it essentially concocted a made-up law of "custom" whose purpose was to secure public access to private property without compensation. Although the Tona-Rama court cited to Hay, the Florida court recognized the requirements to establish a customary right to use private
property, and with the possible exception of "ancient use" ? an awkward concept in a new world society ? the Tona-Rama court appears to have followed the common law rule. The Tona-Rama court relied on an extensive, fact-intensive record of the nature and extent of the public's customary use of a defined area of beach. Florida may, therefore, avoid the "pretext" problem if this issue arises again with the change in composition of the current United States Supreme Court."

 

[Bob Wells]

I have tried for years what my opinion on beach use is. On the one hand tax money is used to renourish when necessary. On the other hand there were some folks who did not want the beach behind/ front of their homes renourished. Then we have the government writing insurance/ FEMA grants for folks who own homes on the beach. I guess my mind is made up, if you have none of my sand on your beach, and your home is not rebuilt with my money then I will stay off your beach. Come to think of it I might have an interest in some beach front homes.

 

[Smiling JOe]

People should know when they buy a beachfront lot, they're buying the view, not the beach. :roll:

Now that is an interesting statement. If the deed reads mean high water mark as the boundary, they ARE buying the beach, but not necessarily with exclusive use. The reason I bring this up is because as I understand it, if a beach goer is injured on that "privately owned" property, the owner of the property may be paying damages if taken to court.

That is what is so crazy for me to understand. The property owners claiming rights to the beach, have been allowing the public to use the beach, without objection for years, though if the public is injured on that property, the owner may be liable. Also, the property owner is going to pay taxes based on the assessed taxable value, which is usually directly tied to the size of the parcel. I see at least two very big ways a Gulf front owner could benefit by quit claiming the lower beach elevation of the property, and it seems that they are essentially not losing anything, since the public has always been using that property anyway. I really don't understand their side, and would love to hear an objection to the above thought.

If the property owner IS sued for damages resulting from an accident on that beach property, I bet the property owner's attorney argues that the beach property is really the public's, due to case law, as the one I previously posted. That is the irony -- the private Gulf front property owners may be the biggest proponent of public beach, if they are sued for damages. Can you imagine a top notch professional football player, stepping into a deep hole on the beach, snapping his leg in two, never again able to play football? With an annual salary of $10 million, and 15 more years of playing time, that is going to be one hefty lawsuit of damages.

 

[idlewind]

The bottom line is that the public has used the beaches for decades and thus a reasonable person who is considering a purchase of beachfront property would see that the public in fact is using the beach for recreation purposes. Most of the owners used the property themselves prior to their purchase. SWGB has the right idea, amend the constitution to address the issue once and for all. If pregnant pigs deserve protection, those who have always enjoyed the beach do as well.