Policy on Personal Beach Chairs vs Vendor

[MRBS]

Mike, you obviously don't read the posts. "Walton [already] marks public beaches [boundaries] were beach vendors can setup chairs and umbrellas."

We live in the now not yesterday and littoral MHWL property owners have all the property rights you have plus some others. I agree, but for different reasons, that the courts have to waste time and tax payers money trying to take recognized private property rights littoral owners have today on a narrow legal doctrine that has little chance of prevailing. But it's not the commissioners money, it's tax payer money, and they can just tax more. Plus they are politicians and they pander to the masses for votes regardless of the Constitutionality of their actions.

Do you know what the criteria is to claim common-law custom? I named one of them in a previous post.

But none of my comments have been about custom. I pointed out M1A1 error about SC property rights; which he still hasn't validated his statement with any facts, your comments about the trespass video and my question; "There are over 6 miles of Walton public beaches and over 5,000 acres of parks with parking, restrooms, and camping. Why could these persons not go there and respect the owner’s property rights?" and your comment that the public does not know where legal property boundaries are.

You still haven't answered the question; "There are over 6 miles of Walton public beaches and over 5,000 acres of parks with parking, restrooms, and camping. Why could these persons not go there [to the public beach park at Ed Wallin] and respect the owner’s property rights?"

And you still didn’t answer the question; “Mike, do you approve of the uninvited persons on private property and the way they handle it once the video started?” Can you explain your reasons too?

Lucas: If I were to lay a towel and put an umbrella and chair on the beach in front of your house, or any house, to read my book and enjoy the beauty, as I have since 1975, would you want me to move?

 

[Lucas Reynolds]

“You've obviously never been to Ed Walline.”[If I’ve never been to Ed Walline how would I know it’s next to the location of the video? I know what it’s like. Why should private property owners have to shoulder the burden of the public demand and give up rights that they earned and pay taxes on?] Please refer to the earlier pictures that show beach access points covered with non-rented chairs at 0630. [You have no idea what the occupancy of Ed Walline was that day. If people want space they can’t take it from owners that have paid for it.]

On those daily jaunts down the beach I would encounter all types of beach "protectors" [of constitutional property rights], like the jerk in the video. What should he [he who? the owner or uninvited persons?] have done? Call the WCSO instead of confronting the people. [Yes the owner should have call the WCSO like I posted before or the people should have respected his property rights and move to the nearby public beach.] See, that whole MHWL has been up for debate for years. [There is NO legal debate. In the state of FL the littoral boundaries have ALWAYS been and will most likely always be the MHWL.] Probably way before some idiot decided to allow you to buy something [I never said I own littoral property. I have just address property rights] that most states think should be public property. [We are in FL. Doesn’t matter what other states think.] The idiot landowner in the video instigates the argument, calls the woman multiple names, and become belligerent before the trespassers. [Wrong again. Might want to watch it again. The woman first calls the older man an a*****e.] It's typical of the beach protectors. [It’s more typical of the uninformed persons to argue about property rights that they have no idea what they are talking about and violate legally recognized property rights. Like in the video.] Outsiders with zero respect for people who have lived at, or visited, those beaches for decades before you ever saw the place. [Wrong again. I and many property owners I know have the utmost respect for those that respect property rights owners have today. You don’t know where I‘m from or how long our family has been here; but probably longer than you. Many littoral owners like the littoral owners that are protecting their rights against Walton commissioners in court today have been here longer than you.] I still remember my first visit in 1973 [I’ve seen photos of the beaches before 30A; and they were private then too]. It didn't look anything like it does today. And it will only get worse as more people like you want to control [their legal private property] the beach. [Agree demand for the beach exceeds supply but taking property rights owners have today, paid for and pay taxes on won’t make it better. That’s unconstitutional and a slippery slope eroding personal rights.]

The people on the Isle of Palms not only get unfettered access to the beach [by the grace of the MHWL property owners(?) but what if owners feel like their property rights are being threatened and refused? What would stop the owners? Nothing legally], but are allowed to park in the front yards of the multi-million dollar houses along the beach front [by law? I doubt it. I challenge you to provide the legal basis for your statement. If not it’s just your opinion. Regardless it’s irrelevant in FL]. You see, in 1996, SC decided they had enough of people destroying the beach and began to take steps to control growth along the water. As long as you are 4 feet off the road, you can park in people's front yards [You sure it’s not the public right of way. Sorry, the Government can’t make property owners give their property to others. That’s called a taking.] Imagine that happening in SoWal [it can’t, it’s unconstitutional]. You can walk the beach without hundreds of chairs lined up to block your way. [Sounds like the SC beach sand is not as nice as ours. You stated all SC beaches from the vegetation line is legally public beach. Is it or isn’t it? What facts do you have?]. You can walk in the sand without fear of an armed guard coming out to threaten you away [I have no fear of armed guards and I bet most people don't. Sounds like hyperbole.], even though you are in 6" of water. (As a side note, I was one told I had to get out of the water at Seaside by some rent a cop. I did not and suggested they call the WCSO. WCSO never showed up.)

I suppose it's going to take a CAT 5 enema to clean all the greedy people out and return it to what it once was. [Until then why wouldn’t you respect property rights owners have today and use the 6+ miles of public beaches and 5000 acres of parks?]

 

[Lucas Reynolds]

Lucas: If I were to lay a towel and put an umbrella and chair on the beach in front of your house, or any house, to read my book and enjoy the beauty, as I have since 1975, would you want me to move?

That is an individual property owners right and choice. It does matter what I would do. MRBS, if you were on private property would you deny a private property owner their personal spot on their own property they paid for and pay taxes on and have used and enjoyed continuously since 1975? Would you deny a private property owner next to a 10 foot public access the right for their family to use and enjoy their own property for their family and friends?

 

[m1a1mg]

Sorry, I won't waste any more time with Lucas. You are just another person in favor of selling paradise. Damn shame.

 

[MRBS]

That is an individual property owners right and choice. It does matter what I would do. MRBS, if you were on private property would you deny a private property owner their personal spot on their own property they paid for and pay taxes on and have used and enjoyed continuously since 1975? Would you deny a private property owner next to a 10 foot public access the right for their family to use and enjoy their own property for their family and friends?

I would not deny a beach front homeowner the right to use the beach in front, or as some say, out back, of their house. But to the exclusion of all others to use that beach, yes - the right to exclude others who have peaceably used that sand for decades is not among the bundle of rights conveyed when one buys beachfront property, as opposed to other types. Having said that if there was no room for said beachfront homeowners' towel, umbrella and volleyball court on the beach, then I would certainly move. Are you saying that is the case all over? every square foot is "ate up" by "trespassers"?

Your argument regarding thousands of acres of publicly available state park etc., ignores the fact that only a few acres of that are beach. I get the complaints regarding bad beach goer behavior and there should be and can be an effective mechanism to address that without resorting to scrooging the beach. But I'm afraid this falls on deaf ears.

 

[Lucas Reynolds]

That is an individual property owners right and choice. It does matter what I would do. MRBS, if you were on private property would you deny a private property owner their personal spot on their own property they paid for and pay taxes on and have used and enjoyed continuously since 1975? Would you deny a private property owner next to a 10 foot public access the right for their family to use and enjoy their own property for their family and friends?

Should have said; It does [not] matter what I would do.

 

[Lucas Reynolds]

Sorry, I won't waste any more time with Lucas. You are just another person in favor of selling paradise. Damn shame.

Good I was tiring of pointing out your incorrect or unsubstantiated statements of fact.

 

[Lucas Reynolds]

I would not deny a beach front homeowner the right to use the beach in front, or as some say, out back, of their house. But to the exclusion of all others to use that beach, yes - the right to exclude others who have peaceably used that sand for decades is not among the bundle of rights conveyed when one buys beachfront property, as opposed to other types. Having said that if there was no room for said beachfront homeowners' towel, umbrella and volleyball court on the beach, then I would certainly move. Are you saying that is the case all over? every square foot is "ate up" by "trespassers"?

Your argument regarding thousands of acres of publicly available state park etc., ignores the fact that only a few acres of that are beach. I get the complaints regarding bad beach goer behavior and there should be and can be an effective mechanism to address that without resorting to scrooging the beach. But I'm afraid this falls on deaf ears.

MRBS, " the right to exclude others who have peaceably used that sand for decades is not among the bundle of rights conveyed when one buys beachfront property, as opposed to other types." That is where you are wrong. Since 1776 and FL statehood Constitutional property rights (right of possession, the right of control, the right of exclusion, the right of enjoyment and the right of disposition, among others) including all littoral, sometimes referred to as riparian rights, where conveyed to property owners and the seaward boundary was defined as the MHWL. That is a fact. Those are legal property rights FL property owners have had and have today. They are legal property rights that law enforcement recognizes and the US Corps of Engineers recognizes (USACE). When Walton wanted to fortify the beaches with sand that was not as "good" as the original sand, USACE could not just pump sand on private property; they needed an easement and owners could exclude them from their property.

Because you and the majority don't like it does not change that fact. There is a narrow legal doctrine of common-law custom that before 1776 English common-law recognized and is the bases for American common-law. There are multiple criteria a court must consider. All must be valid. Any one can invalidate a custom claim and the custom claim is limited to that property; not the whole county or state of FL. There are about 1,000 littoral property owners in Walton. The likelihood that a 1,000 custom claims will succeed in court is slim and I think the cost to Walton tax payers is in the multi-millions.

Maybe working with and respecting property rights owners have today, educating the public about private property rights and where public beaches are, managing or eliminating chair vending from public beaches (which was the original thread of the comments) is a better way than demanding what is not yours to take, making it an issue of you vs them, and name calling (not you but others).

 

[LarsAtTheBeach]

Sorry, I won't waste any more time with Lucas. You are just another person in favor of selling paradise. Damn shame.

I'm not sure what this means? It's not the property owners fault the county / TDC did not secure more beachfront for residents / tourists.

There has been beachfront property owners in this county since most (probably all) of us have been alive, or at least since most have lived / visited here.

The problems began with over promotion by the TDC and lack of leadership at the county.

The county had PLENTY of opportunity to purchase beachfront decades ago when it was reasonably priced. Then had another opportunity a few years ago when the market tanked.

The county also has (still) the opportunity to write ordaninces that limit beach activities. Including vendors. And an ordanince that keeps Bubba and his 13 cousins from setting up what looks like a tent city refugee camp, including everything that will fit inside or on top of the Suburban, under and around the "tent homestead".

While I agree that beachfront owners should be a bit more tolerant. I submit, Many of those on the beach are slobs who leave garbage and abuse their welcome.

 

[m1a1mg]

The whole mess comes down to this MHWL, which no one is able to show. will personally stand where I wish until you can prove I'm on the wrong side of the MHWL.

I'm not sure what this means? It's not the property owners fault the county / TDC did not secure more beachfront for residents / tourists.

There has been beachfront property owners in this county since most (probably all) of us have been alive, or at least since most have lived / visited here.

The problems began with over promotion by the TDC and lack of leadership at the county.

The county had PLENTY of opportunity to purchase beachfront decades ago when it was reasonably priced. Then had another opportunity a few years ago when the market tanked.

The county also has (still) the opportunity to write ordaninces that limit beach activities. Including vendors. And an ordanince that keeps Bubba and his 13 cousins from setting up what looks like a tent city refugee camp, including everything that will fit inside or on top of the Suburban, under and around the "tent homestead".

While I agree that beachfront owners should be a bit more tolerant. I submit, Many of those on the beach are slobs who leave garbage and abuse their welcome.

True that people have always owned land with sand. But the problem magnifies each year as exponentially greedy people move in. Seaside is the prime example. They'll even harass you standing in the water.