Owners Argue "Leave No Trace"

[Smiling JOe]

John R, can they also grow marijuana on their beach property?

 

[ASH]

Get it straight: private beach owners can erect a wall wherever they want, out of any material they want, put put signs with whatever editorial they choose, and will leave their stuff wherever they want, because they can. They're entitled. Hazards to animals or humans, unsightly messes, etc. just don't apply to them. Get off their backs and their beaches.

Oh...I'm sorry. I didn't know that. My bad.

 

[Jdarg]

Everyone needs to pay close attention to the BCC candidates' positions on this issue, which will probably be one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, issue of the next 4 years.

 

[TreeFrog]

Everyone needs to pay close attention to the BCC candidates' positions on this issue, which will probably be one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, issue of the next 4 years.

With reference to the other thread(s) regarding lack of publicized positions and folks being intimidated into not running for BCC seats (lengthy intro, eh?)...

Have any of the candidates taken a position on the "private beach" issue? If so, how about some links to where we can read what they said?

 

[JustaLocal]

[ame="http://sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?t=23167"]Robert 'Bob' Hudson Introduction - SoWal Beaches Forum[/ame]
Bob Hudson addressed private beaches in Post #30. There are several questions and answers, this is toward the end of the post.
"Is the beach public or are some areas private and the public shouldn't use them?"

 

[TreeFrog]

http://sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?t=23167
Bob Hudson addressed private beaches in Post #30. There are several questions and answers, this is toward the end of the post.
"Is the beach public or are some areas private and the public shouldn't use them?"

Thanks.

Looks like he personally wants to be able to continue to walk and use the beach, but doesn't want the county to go toe-to-toe with the owners. "Let the Supreme Court do it" seems to be the position I get. Cake and eat it too?

I take it none of the rest have gone on record?

 

[TreeFrog]

Slightly drifting, I think what they let Redfish Village do in BMBV's neighborhood is wrong. I'd probably take some of the positions he does if that had happened to me.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Slightly drifting, I think what they let Redfish Village do in BMBV's neighborhood is wrong.

I agree. The County had no business approving what is in essence, a commercial property, in a residential neighborhood. I will say that, for Blue Mtn Beach, they screwed it up long before Redfish Village, by allowing the multitude of condos to be built in a low density residential neighborhood.

Regardless, the crap doesn't need to be left on the beach, and if I was a beach front property owner, I'd want the County to enforce the rules about people who leave their crap in my back yard, especially if I lived next door to something like the access for 70+ units.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Here is the newly amended proposed draft, being discussed tomorrow 4pm at the South Walton County Courthouse annex.

http://www.co.walton.fl.us/administration/julyeight/Tab-G.pdf

 

[TreeFrog]

Just read it.

I was pleased to see there doesn't seem to be any making of exceptions for those claiming property rights for their "private beach".

And I would guess that the prerequisite of the state approval before the county grants a permit for an exemption will keep the number of permit applications quite small.

The "abandonment" clause appears to make "remove it or lose it" an apt description, if....

(is this a big deal or do I not understand the process?) There seems to be no mention of who will handle the actual removal, how often, how it will be funded, etc. Without that, it's just a hollow law.