Customary Use Will Happen On Sowal Beaches

[formosa64]

This whole customary use idea stops dead at the beach vendor's first set of chairs. The facts are the current commission is the same set of characters who complained loudly when steps to address the beach vendor issue and restore some rights to the public on public beaches. At every turn they rationalized supporting the beach vendors. District 5 Tony Anderson said "We are taking a sledgehammer to a fly". Cecilia Jones, who's son owns a beach chair vendor company made every gesture possible to protect the vendors interests. The beach vendors cartel is well protected. But none of the commissioners had any issue with taking away property rights to over 7,000 parcels and devaluing them by as much as 30% with $2 Billion losses in market value, and $18 Million annual loss in tax revenue.

 

[FactorFiction]

We have the same issues in Missouri on our streams.
Advocates worry proposal pits paddlers against property owners on Missouri waterways
Use of sand bars or banks for fishing, picnics etc.

This is interesting and supports the point that several people have made that customary use could end up applying to other waterways besides the Gulf if those waterways became highly sought after recreational spots.

 

[formosa64]

BeachBum: Your arguments are specious. Customary Use existed long before you bought your property. You therefore bought it and own it subject to that use. You have lost NOTHING. You never owned what you are trying to steal.

One of owners' arguments is the threat of spending millions to fight Customary Use. I agree with Commander, Jones, Chapman and Anderson: Bring it on!

You are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. The facts are customary use doctrine was ruled FLA Supreme court case Reynolds that it can only be applied on a case by case basis and on a particular piece of beach - meaning per property owner. Secondly, customary use must be uninterrupted use meaning the property owner did not dispute the use. In many cases there is well documented disputes that go back 50 years. You know nothing of the particular beach area this poster is referencing and have no history on it to state that it is subject to customary use doctrine. There is nothing in the deed (it's what the law goes by --- not some ridiculous power point presentation from that "Dr" showing pictures of Native Indians using the beach and claiming there's been no disputes until the last 10 years --- looks like a high school student put that together). There's no easements on these deeds for public use and the county has been more than happy to assess and collect taxes on it --- so there's nothing factual about your statement "You therefore bought it and own it subject to that use" --- that's your opinion --- that's not supported by any facts. On the contrary these 7,000 parcels have lost a projected $2 billion in value, and up to $18 million in lost annual taxes to the county. Again, calling it "nothing" just shows a lack of basic understanding of property ownership and bundle of rights in this country. I guarantee you want those rights for your own property --- but it seems to just fine with you to take them away from someone else, in fact 7,000 of them. That's hypocritical to say the least.

Let's take a different example and see if it passes your "this land is open and free without borders" test:

There's 250 acres of woods North of 30a which I have hunted for 40 years now and my father and grandfather before that going back five generations back to the Native Indians. It's been owned by several folks, many I've never met, but except for a couple of owners they have all let us hunt this land freely. A few parcel owners have been hunt clubs and they tell us that's their land to hunt and we can't hunt there anymore. There's been a few houses put on one of the parcels and they don't want us hunt there anymore but they said we could walk though their properties to get to the other areas.

Hunting is getting harder and harder these days with all the developments going in and I really don't like hunting on state land - I much prefer to continue using that 250 acres of woods that I know so well. Of course I don't own that land and I've never paid a dime for it or any taxes on it --- I'm told it's "private property" so what can I do, I really want to keep hunting there? So, I went down to the county and complained that I couldn't continue to use the woods like I used to and was getting run off. The county hired some out of town attorney and some Dr put together some of my family photos going way back of me and my kin hunting on the land. The county passed a customary use ordinance that all woodlands North of 30A are open to the public to hunt freely and without interference. Now I can bring all my buddies and we can have hunting parties any place we like. Can't wait to set up our deer stands in the back yard of those houses --- that was once my favorite spot to shoot deer, they have really made it into a nice area with lanes and food plots and the lawn area is kept so nice --- that's now my new favorite spot, I'll be there everyday.

You good with that? See nothing wrong with it? You own property in Walton county?

 

[formosa64]

The simple, obvious answer is that there is more demand than supply. Simple economics. Saying there is thousands of acres of public land and why is that not enough is disingenuous. What is in demand is the square footage of white sandy beach. I know of no huge demand for bay front so that is also a red herring. The demand is for the beach. The beach is why taxable values have increased exponentially in Walton County, is responsible for thousands of jobs being created, is responsible for millions in economic activity and is responsible for the population of Walton County tripling in the last 40 years. The bottom line is that the engine that drives our economy is those square feet of white sand. Everyone that has moved here in the last 40 years knew that before they bought their slice of paradise. The public has used the beaches since I can remember or around 50 years and billions of dollars of property values are derived from the property being in close proximity to that white sand. If the public cannot access the beach in large numbers then inland property values will be negatively effected and jobs will be lost. Lower property values and fewer jobs means the government will have less resources to build and improve infrastructure and thus the economic growth of the county will be negatively impacted. That is a high price to pay for changing the dynamics that have existed for decades.

As to it "not being the beachfront owners problem" that is absolutely wrong. We are a community and so it is everyone's problem. You cannot divorce yourself from those around you.

Then where is your fight to kick the beach chair vendors from consuming 50% of the public beach real estate? You are not consistent in your application of addressing solving a problem you have defined. If we are out of public beach space then why is it that beach chair vendors are allowed to consume up to 50% of the real estate for profit?

And when did public demand run over private property ownership? You sound like you support taking by eminent domain. Where is your house in relation to the beach? I can't wait to hear your permissive views when the county wants to take your property without paying you for it to put in a new development due to demand. It's pretty easy and convenient to be so approving of taking away someone else's property and value as long as it's not yours.

The wheels fall right off the wagon don't they?

 

[Kaydence]

@graytonbeachguy ...

Are you vying for the position as County Attorney? The way you kiss makes you a shoe in.

 

[formosa64]

I agree with your statement, beachfront and bayfront are 2 different animals. Thank you for clearing that up.

Why are they different? Customary use doctrine is customary use period. Beach, woodlands, bay front, your own back yard, a mountain top. That you state it wouldn't apply to 99% of the land in Walton County shows a willingness to support taking from others what you place value in, which has nothing to do with customary use doctrine.

 

[Kaydence]

If we are out of public beach space then why is it that beach chair vendors are allowed to consume up to 50% of the real estate for profit?

Because the County is stuck on stupid. Not only are they allowed to consume 50% of public beaches, (prime real estate that the taxpayers helped spend millions of dollars on) but we give it to them pretty much at NO Charge!

Where else in the known world can someone set up a private business on millions of dollars worth of PUBLIC property for free?

I can't wait to hear your permissive views when the county wants to take your property without paying you for it to put in a new development due to demand.

Not gonna happen, not a big demand for property in NoWal and even less demand in Paxton.

As for Customary Use...lived in Texas most of younger days (South Padre Island specifically) and Texas doesn't have these issues mostly because it was decided long ago people could traverse the beach anywhere to the mean high tide line.

 

[miznotebook]

Seaward of the mean high water line isn't at issue, since the Florida Constitution states, "Sovereignty lands.—The title to lands under navigable waters, within the boundaries of the state, which have not been alienated, including beaches below mean high water lines, is held by the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, in trust for all the people."

 

[Danny Glidewell]

Then where is your fight to kick the beach chair vendors from consuming 50% of the public beach real estate? You are not consistent in your application of addressing solving a problem you have defined. If we are out of public beach space then why is it that beach chair vendors are allowed to consume up to 50% of the real estate for profit?

And when did public demand run over private property ownership? You sound like you support taking by eminent domain. Where is your house in relation to the beach? I can't wait to hear your permissive views when the county wants to take your property without paying you for it to put in a new development due to demand. It's pretty easy and convenient to be so approving of taking away someone else's property and value as long as it's not yours.

The wheels fall right off the wagon don't they?

I do not support eminent domain. My house is about as far from the beach as you can go north and still be in Florida. I do not want to take anyone's property and do not support giving anyone the right to use public land without paying a franchise fee. I am in favor of purchasing every foot of beachfront that the county can reasonably purchase and using that land to build public access. I do believe that a narrow use of the white sand has existed for many, many years and that use allows the public to walk, fish and sunbathe there as has been done for years. We will see what the courts have to say. But I think graytonbeachguy has a point that the vast majority of beachfront owners knew what was customary on the beaches when they purchased their little piece of paradise.

 

[beachmax]

Well, the Florida Supreme Court held in Tona-Rama that customary use is on a parcel-by-parcel basis and not subject to an ordinance like the BCC passed. If a person purchased a lot with a deed to the white sand portion and then kept people off of it the owner would have a good case that the use has not been without interruption.
Additionally, the customary use issue is not about local residents using the beaches. it is all about the developers and their need to screw the locals for short term $$$$$$$$. Just look at the money interests behind the better South Walton joke. If the BCC really wanted to help local residents they would enforce a strong land development code, disband the TDC and keep South Walton weird.