Public Vs Private Beaches and County Govt.

[NotDeadYet]

Subject: PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE BEACHES INFORMATION
>
>As we work to keep you informed regarding issues impacting tourism in
>Beaches of South Walton, we wanted to share the results of the Walton
>County Commission Meeting. Last night the Board of County Commissioners
>(BCC) heard options from the County Attorney, Mike Burke, regarding the
>County's stance on the use of the dry sand portions of the beach. The
>presentation was prefaced with the fact that Western Walton County
>beaches are not affected by these decisions as those areas of beach are
>under different guidelines due to the beach restoration project. As of
>now, all beach south of the erosion control line are available for
>public use. The Florida Supreme Court has heard this case and their
>verdict will determine the future uses of these areas.
>
>As for other areas of the beach, excluding public beach accesses and
>state parks, only the wet sand areas are available for public use. Since
>Florida's doctrine of customary use is looked at on a case by base
>analysis of the degree of ancient use, the following options were
>presented to the BCC:
>(1) Do nothing (In this scenario, the public could be asked to move or
>be arrested; to determine the right to use the beach an individual,
>group or association would have to sue the homeowner to claim the right
>of customary use)
>(2) Follow the Destin Process (Mike refers to as the "Light the Fuse"
>option. In this scenario, the county would follow the process, including
>fact finding, public hearings, etc. to develop an ordinance that
>specifically details customary use of soft sand areas).
>(3) File a class action lawsuit against each beach front homeowner to
>establish customary use for all beaches along 30A (Mike refers to this
>as the detonate the bomb option. Very costly and a long, legal battle)
>(4) BCC seek voluntary easements for public use (In this scenario,
>Walton County will approach all beachfront homeowners and ask that they
>agree to allow public use of the beach and in turn receive ad valorem
>tax advantages)
>
>The BCC agreed to investigate options #2 and #4. The TDC will continue
>to remain engaged on this issue and will you appraised of future
>developments.

 

[NotDeadYet]

Forgot to say, post is an email from the TDC about Tuesday's BCC meeting.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I understand that the message is from the TDC, but it is misleading on at least two points. The first is this statement, "As of now, all beach south of the erosion control line are available for public use." That specifically addresses the western end of Walton County beaches, where beach restoration took place. The article is fairly vague about the specific area of this idea.

Secondly, this statement is inaccurate, "As for other areas of the beach, excluding public beach accesses and state parks, only the wet sand areas are available for public use." I think they are confusing public beaches with public beach accesses. The two are distinctly unique. Beaches dedicated to the public are still available for public use.

Technical issues, but extremely important. My guess is that the County will make no decision from fear of lawsuits. They will eventually let each case be heard individually and ruled on by a Court. Interestinly, the TDC continues to "maintain" the entire stretch of beaches in Walton County, according to the Blue Wave Beaches program information, which means that public dollars are being used to benefit private individuals and is, in my opinion, illegal. If the tax dollars are being used on all stretches of the beach, the beaches should be allowed to be used by the public. It is no different than roads. If roads are paid for with tax dollars, they are not allowed to be gated and private. ;-)

 

[TreeFrog]

I'm just glad they didn't choose option #1.

Of course, depending on how they handle #2 and #4, they could REALLY be choosing to DO #1 by just ineffectively or inactively pursuing #2 or #4. While saying they tried. I.e., being politicians.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. (insert eating popcorn smiley here, where do you guys find that one)

I think #4 needs some kind of a "carrot and stick" approach. Otherwise, some comply, some don't, and you've got an awful mess on your hands, even worse than now.

 

[NotDeadYet]

Good points, SJ. Thank you for noticing that it comes from the TDC, not from me. I am only the messenger.
Option 4 does look pretty messy. I think the "carrot" is some sort of tax break but I wonder if that would even be legal

 

[seacrestkristi]

a tax break for gulf front home owners who share the already public( in most places) beach...hmmm :scratch:Wouldnt this be more costly than #3 in the long run.

 

[NoHall]

I'm just glad they didn't choose option #1.

Of course, depending on how they handle #2 and #4, they could REALLY be choosing to DO #1 by just ineffectively or inactively pursuing #2 or #4. While saying they tried. I.e., being politicians.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. (insert eating popcorn smiley here, where do you guys find that one)

I think #4 needs some kind of a "carrot and stick" approach. Otherwise, some comply, some don't, and you've got an awful mess on your hands, even worse than now.

Don'tcha mean pudding shots? Or am I on the wrong thread again?

Popcorn is under the [More] link in the Smilies. I'm having me a little bag of it right now. Mmm-mmm!

 

[Smiling JOe]

In actuality, the County didn't choose any of these options, therefore, it could be said that they really chose #1 -- do nothing. The County did say that they would look into #2 and #4, but my best guess is that they will do nothing in fear of the lawsuits which will surely follow if they take any action. The County already has enough lawsuits against it, and I don't think that they are willing to spend more money on lawsuits, when they can sit on their hands doing nothing and let the cases be presented on individual basis, allowing the Courts to rule. This is a very tight budget year for the County with the cuts in property appraisals.

One interesting thing to note regarding eminent domain, and the potential taking of the sandy beaches is that while eminent domain allows for the taking of both personal and real estate, eminent domain cannot be used to take property for public use if that use will be recreation, and in my opinion, beach activities is recreational use.

 

[Busta Hustle]

#4 seems to have a potential for the couny to award $$$ (less taxes) to beach front owners for use of "their" beach to the public...

on another note the owners of seawalls on public beaches may be rewarded (in the form of leaving them there) for the use of an eavesment to the beach...

 

[Busta Hustle]

make that easement...i'm so confused i forgot how to spell...are the beach front armor owners Maybe having to compensate the county for the use of the public land the armors are on? will the county maybe reducing taxes on beach front owners who say it is okay for the public to sit in their dry sand?
Government make big problem...government solve big problem...government have big parade...everybody gets medals...