Private Beaches in South Walton - Customary Use Updates & SB1622

I do not think you would like the results from Eminent Domain. The lawsuits would not be fun for anyone involved. Trust me. I like No. 2. Unfortunately No. 4 is a real possiblity. Please do not believe anything MH suggested in this forum or in the news or anywhere else. He wanted no part of any compromise. Trust me.

"I do not think you would like the results from Eminent Domain."

Are you saying that if my property was acquired by eminent domain that I would not like the result? That would obviously be a personal matter on my part. But looking at the big picture from public beach access and the beach economy standpoints, eminent domain (again selective parcels) makes the most sense.

IMO, the actual legal process of eminent domain would be immensely cheaper than what the county pissed away on customary use. But the actual settled upon price (in court) for a particular eminent domain taking is what needs to be tested to establish viability.

The real issue is that the county, from my understanding, is sitting on tens of millions of dollars earmarked for beach nourishment that cannot be used for any other purpose. Logically, nourishment makes the most sense from the aspect of expanding public access. But as mentioned, I don't know if the county and state can FORCE nourishment without the upland property owner's permission. Again, this is the next legal battlefield, IMO.


"He wanted no part of any compromise. Trust me."

I don't buy that Huckabee wanted no part of any compromise. But for CERTAIN, neither did Dave Rauschkolb and his cohorts (remember the Grim Reaper, Daniel Uhlfelder?).

When I see waves licking the dunes in a few places in South Walton after a few hours of 20mph SE wind is that critical?

The state parks in our area also have dunes. Yet they are not considered critically eroded based on the FDEP critical erosion map. Why is that?

The state parks in our area also have dunes. Yet they are not considered critically eroded based on the FDEP critical erosion map. Why is that?

Because they don't have seawalls, geotubes, and houses built on their dunes?

Because they don't have seawalls, geotubes, and houses built on their dunes?

That's not the reason they don't consider state parks critically eroded, in my opinion. The county gains NOTHING by nourishing the state park beaches as they already are owned by the State of Florida and available to the public. They could care less if the beach recedes at those locations.

But let's assume that your comment is the case. The "seawalls, geotubes and houses" belong to the beachfront private property owners. Wouldn't it be up to those people to decide if they feel the need for extra protection and then want the government to modify their property via nourishment? Why should the government care if the private property owner does not?

To debate this topic would be ingenuous as we all know the ONLY reason the county wants to nourish the beach is to gain control of the added beach and make it public. And the private property owners do not want to lose their existing control and rights of the beach, ESPECIALLY where it meets the water for obvious reasons. Everyone wants a front row seat at the water when comes to chair placement.

The county DESPERATELY needs more public beach.

Perhaps the legal conditions of beach nourishment could be modified a bit somewhere along the lines that the upland property owner maintain some kind of control / exclusivity near the water's edge, say 25 feet, again for the "front row seat" aspect, similar to the CU settlement on certain parcels. But the public would have access to the rest of the beach, INCLUDING north of the ECL (the existing part of the sandy beach before nourishment). That's quite a bit of beach.

And if the beach were to erode to the ECL, the county would have to re-nourish the beach to maintain the public's access, exactly as it is now with nourished beaches.

I believe that could be a happy median from the public's viewpoint compared to no access at all. And it would be more palatable for the beach front owner.

IMO, because CU left such a bad taste in their mouths, BFOs will fight beach nourishment with everything they've got unless a concession similar to the above is made - OR until we are directly hit with a major hurricane and the beach is truly wiped out, not just deemed "critically eroded".

"I do not think you would like the results from Eminent Domain."

Are you saying that if my property was acquired by eminent domain that I would not like the result? That would obviously be a personal matter on my part. But looking at the big picture from public beach access and the beach economy standpoints, eminent domain (again selective parcels) makes the most sense.

IMO, the actual legal process of eminent domain would be immensely cheaper than what the county pissed away on customary use. But the actual settled upon price (in court) for a particular eminent domain taking is what needs to be tested to establish viability.

The real issue is that the county, from my understanding, is sitting on tens of millions of dollars earmarked for beach nourishment that cannot be used for any other purpose. Logically, nourishment makes the most sense from the aspect of expanding public access. But as mentioned, I don't know if the county and state can FORCE nourishment without the upland property owner's permission. Again, this is the next legal battlefield, IMO.


"He wanted no part of any compromise. Trust me."

I don't buy that Huckabee wanted no part of any compromise. But for CERTAIN, neither did Dave Rauschkolb and his cohorts (remember the Grim Reaper, Daniel Uhlfelder?).

The Eminent Domain legal process is not what you think it is apparently. It is very costly. Lawyers are the winners and the parties compromise. However if you are in love with that process go for it.

Why in the world would any BFO not want beach nourishment. That makes no common sense. It does make a case for a lack of common sense with a little greed mixed in.

Apparently you did not listen to MH like I did. You have to listen to all their words. False Prophets are gifted at making you believe they have everyone's best interest in mind. They don't. By all means don't trust me without verifying what I am saying. After verifying this it then requires common sense to balance out your emotion. It is the only way any of us can get to the reality of truth.

That's not the reason they don't consider state parks critically eroded, in my opinion. The county gains NOTHING by nourishing the state park beaches as they already are owned by the State of Florida and available to the public. They could care less if the beach recedes at those locations.

But let's assume that your comment is the case. The "seawalls, geotubes and houses" belong to the beachfront private property owners. Wouldn't it be up to those people to decide if they feel the need for extra protection and then want the government to modify their property via nourishment? Why should the government care if the private property owner does not?

To debate this topic would be ingenuous as we all know the ONLY reason the county wants to nourish the beach is to gain control of the added beach and make it public. And the private property owners do not want to lose their existing control and rights of the beach, ESPECIALLY where it meets the water for obvious reasons. Everyone wants a front row seat at the water when comes to chair placement.

The county DESPERATELY needs more public beach.

Perhaps the legal conditions of beach nourishment could be modified a bit somewhere along the lines that the upland property owner maintain some kind of control / exclusivity near the water's edge, say 25 feet, again for the "front row seat" aspect, similar to the CU settlement on certain parcels. But the public would have access to the rest of the beach, INCLUDING north of the ECL (the existing part of the sandy beach before nourishment). That's quite a bit of beach.

And if the beach were to erode to the ECL, the county would have to re-nourish the beach to maintain the public's access, exactly as it is now with nourished beaches.

I believe that could be a happy median from the public's viewpoint compared to no access at all. And it would be more palatable for the beach front owner.

IMO, because CU left such a bad taste in their mouths, BFOs will fight beach nourishment with everything they've got unless a concession similar to the above is made - OR until we are directly hit with a major hurricane and the beach is truly wiped out, not just deemed "critically eroded".

Wow you have gotten so emotional on this subject you are not able to use common sense. State Parks are mostly undeveloped and natural. Mother Nature is the very reason why we have this beautiful planet and beautiful beaches. You are so caught up in this you are not objective. What I am about to say will piss you off but so be it. Why are you not more grateful of owning property on such a beautiful and limited resource? When you purchased or inherited the beach front property why did you not realize you would be sharing it as it should be. That is called customary use. It is a custom or tradition which is superior to laws that protect only one very small group of people. Not saying we do not need laws and rules of conduct. Of course we do but you have gotten so emotional you can only really see this from one perspective and you are willing to believe false prophets and legal mumbo jumbo rather than your own common sense. Do you really believe that customary use threatens your beach front home or that it wants to take something away from you. If it is just about taxes and were up to me I would cut your taxes if you agree to not put up offensive signs to keep off your beach. So you have a responsibility for this miracle life to get along with people and tolerate some things you do not like as I do. The beach going public also have the same responsibility. Respect each other is common sense...

Wow you have gotten so emotional on this subject you are not able to use common sense. State Parks are mostly undeveloped and natural. Mother Nature is the very reason why we have this beautiful planet and beautiful beaches. You are so caught up in this you are not objective. What I am about to say will piss you off but so be it. Why are you not more grateful of owning property on such a beautiful and limited resource? When you purchased or inherited the beach front property why did you not realize you would be sharing it as it should be. That is called customary use. It is a custom or tradition which is superior to laws that protect only one very small group of people. Not saying we do not need laws and rules of conduct. Of course we do but you have gotten so emotional you can only really see this from one perspective and you are willing to believe false prophets and legal mumbo jumbo rather than your own common sense. Do you really believe that customary use threatens your beach front home or that it wants to take something away from you. If it is just about taxes and were up to me I would cut your taxes if you agree to not put up offensive signs to keep off your beach. So you have a responsibility for this miracle life to get along with people and tolerate some things you do not like as I do. The beach going public also have the same responsibility. Respect each other is common sense...

I appreciate @BlueMtnBeachVagrant response. He is using the calm, cool logic of his lawyers, and other lawyers and beachfront owners. I do not envy their position, but I can't relate to it either. I don't think anyone should have the freedom to operate a beach chair, bonfire, or any other business between their house and the water. Nor should anyone be allowed to abuse the privilege of using any of our beaches to dig holes, litter, play loud music, abuse the dunes, etc. I also don't think any dunes should have ever been built on. But I am extreme that way. What a wonderful place SoWal would be if Scenic 30A had been built north of the lakes with no development within 1,000 yards of any water!

The legal fight and expense seems to have removed empathy from the process. Do they realize that the response is seen by 99.999% of people as greedy at best and evil at worst? I guess we know how native Americans felt when they were introduced to the concept of property ownership. I believe we should do what the USA did back then and just take what we want. Let us not be banishes to 50 foot "reservations" of public beach. It will be a long bloody fight with a trail of tears on both sides I foresee.

I appreciate @BlueMtnBeachVagrant response. He is using the calm, cool logic of his lawyers, and other lawyers and beachfront owners. I do not envy their position, but I can't relate to it either. I don't think anyone should have the freedom to operate a beach chair, bonfire, or any other business between their house and the water. Nor should anyone be allowed to abuse the privilege of using any of our beaches to dig holes, litter, play loud music, abuse the dunes, etc. I also don't think any dunes should have ever been built on. But I am extreme that way. What a wonderful place SoWal would be if Scenic 30A had been built north of the lakes with no development within 1,000 yards of any water!

The legal fight and expense seems to have removed empathy from the process. Do they realize that the response is seen by 99.999% of people as greedy at best and evil at worst? I guess we know how native Americans felt when they were introduced to the concept of property ownership. I believe we should do what the USA did back then and just take what we want. Let us not be banishes to 50 foot "reservations" of public beach. It will be a long bloody fight with a trail of tears on both sides I foresee.

You make perfect common sense! It is hard to believe what we did to the Native American's. Hard to believe what we do to our natural resources. It is like we can get out of our own way to understand the miracle that we all live on and why it is important to respect it and each other.

The logic of his lawyers and other beachfront owner lawyers are to bill upwards of $450.00 per hour. Why would any of those lawyers want it to settle or compromise anything. They represent themselves generally speaking of course as most of us do in our jobs. I do not blame the lawyers because that is their job. I blame anyone who puts up a sign or builds a fence to keep others off something that belongs to everyone with rules of course. It is like the air we breath in my opinion. I don't care if we cut their property tax for that portion of shared beach but that is not what they really want. They want exclusive use. That is the reality of all this. Why else would they pay lawyers all that money...

You make perfect common sense! It is hard to believe what we did to the Native American's. Hard to believe what we do to our natural resources. It is like we can get out of our own way to understand the miracle that we all live on and why it is important to respect it and each other.

The logic of his lawyers and other beachfront owner lawyers are to bill upwards of $450.00 per hour. Why would any of those lawyers want it to settle or compromise anything. They represent themselves generally speaking of course as most of us do in our jobs. I do not blame the lawyers because that is their job. I blame anyone who puts up a sign or builds a fence to keep others off something that belongs to everyone with rules of course. It is like the air we breath in my opinion. I don't care if we cut their property tax for that portion of shared beach but that is not what they really want. They want exclusive use. That is the reality of all this. Why else would they pay lawyers all that money...

"Do you really believe that customary use threatens your beach front home or that it wants to take something away from you." Short answer to this - YES. We have had to call the sheriff twice in the last year as a result of people ignoring a private beach area sign and threatening my daughters and on another occasion our beach umbrella vendor. Imagine that. And I have politely explained the situation to many that come on our property and they don't want to hear it. Logic falls on deaf ears to the entitlement mentality.

"I blame anyone who puts up a sign or builds a fence to keep others off something that belongs to everyone with rules of course." No one would argue with that point. But the issue is the private beach areas don't belong to everyone. Again, logic.

What has been the response from the WCC when you ask them what they are doing to acquire more beachfront property? Now that they spent $12M+ of "OUR" tax monies on the CU lawsuit.

Questions that the WCC has never answered to my knowledge:

- How many people are affected by the private beach issue? (Other than developers and business owners who would benefit)

- Who is responsible for liability if the public is granted free and unfettered access to private owner's property?

- How many properties has the WCC researched / approached for purchase to alleviate this issue? Why is this not a primary focus?

- What steps is the county taking to make the public beaches more accessible for public use? An example is Grayton Beach State Park. I am on the water there regularly and particularly during the most popular holiday weeks. The beach area there is a little more than ONE MILE LONG. And at 40 yards deep at a minimum, that is an awful lot of beach for people to enjoy. And I have never seen that beach loaded wall to wall with sunbathers. Even on July 4th and Memorial Weekend. Parking could be an issue, but that is an issue for the WCC to address.

And why is it that the activists are always blaming the individual beach front owners for the problem? I may have missed the comments that would hold the Watercolor Inn, Adagio, etc.... in the same vain. They have STRICT policies in place to prevent public beach goers to just show up and plant an umbrella and chair on their property. And that is ok since it is their property.

A more productive route is to have the WCC working to obtain more beachfront property that is close to existing beach access locations.

"Do you really believe that customary use threatens your beach front home or that it wants to take something away from you." Short answer to this - YES. We have had to call the sheriff twice in the last year as a result of people ignoring a private beach area sign and threatening my daughters and on another occasion our beach umbrella vendor. Imagine that. And I have politely explained the situation to many that come on our property and they don't want to hear it. Logic falls on deaf ears to the entitlement mentality.

"I blame anyone who puts up a sign or builds a fence to keep others off something that belongs to everyone with rules of course." No one would argue with that point. But the issue is the private beach areas don't belong to everyone. Again, logic.

What has been the response from the WCC when you ask them what they are doing to acquire more beachfront property? Now that they spent $12M+ of "OUR" tax monies on the CU lawsuit.

Questions that the WCC has never answered to my knowledge:

- How many people are affected by the private beach issue? (Other than developers and business owners who would benefit)

- Who is responsible for liability if the public is granted free and unfettered access to private owner's property?

- How many properties has the WCC researched / approached for purchase to alleviate this issue? Why is this not a primary focus?

- What steps is the county taking to make the public beaches more accessible for public use? An example is Grayton Beach State Park. I am on the water there regularly and particularly during the most popular holiday weeks. The beach area there is a little more than ONE MILE LONG. And at 40 yards deep at a minimum, that is an awful lot of beach for people to enjoy. And I have never seen that beach loaded wall to wall with sunbathers. Even on July 4th and Memorial Weekend. Parking could be an issue, but that is an issue for the WCC to address.

And why is it that the activists are always blaming the individual beach front owners for the problem? I may have missed the comments that would hold the Watercolor Inn, Adagio, etc.... in the same vain. They have STRICT policies in place to prevent public beach goers to just show up and plant an umbrella and chair on their property. And that is ok since it is their property.

A more productive route is to have the WCC working to obtain more beachfront property that is close to existing beach access locations.

What is WCC?

"Do you really believe that customary use threatens your beach front home or that it wants to take something away from you." Short answer to this - YES. We have had to call the sheriff twice in the last year as a result of people ignoring a private beach area sign and threatening my daughters and on another occasion our beach umbrella vendor. Imagine that. And I have politely explained the situation to many that come on our property and they don't want to hear it. Logic falls on deaf ears to the entitlement mentality.

"I blame anyone who puts up a sign or builds a fence to keep others off something that belongs to everyone with rules of course." No one would argue with that point. But the issue is the private beach areas don't belong to everyone. Again, logic.

What has been the response from the WCC when you ask them what they are doing to acquire more beachfront property? Now that they spent $12M+ of "OUR" tax monies on the CU lawsuit.

Questions that the WCC has never answered to my knowledge:

- How many people are affected by the private beach issue? (Other than developers and business owners who would benefit)

- Who is responsible for liability if the public is granted free and unfettered access to private owner's property?

- How many properties has the WCC researched / approached for purchase to alleviate this issue? Why is this not a primary focus?

- What steps is the county taking to make the public beaches more accessible for public use? An example is Grayton Beach State Park. I am on the water there regularly and particularly during the most popular holiday weeks. The beach area there is a little more than ONE MILE LONG. And at 40 yards deep at a minimum, that is an awful lot of beach for people to enjoy. And I have never seen that beach loaded wall to wall with sunbathers. Even on July 4th and Memorial Weekend. Parking could be an issue, but that is an issue for the WCC to address.

And why is it that the activists are always blaming the individual beach front owners for the problem? I may have missed the comments that would hold the Watercolor Inn, Adagio, etc.... in the same vain. They have STRICT policies in place to prevent public beach goers to just show up and plant an umbrella and chair on their property. And that is ok since it is their property.

A more productive route is to have the WCC working to obtain more beachfront property that is close to existing beach access locations.

lol RPP boo hoo.

What is WCC?

Walton County Commissioners

Hey, this was me haha.

So I won't pretend to understand the legality of it all and the quiet claim deeds(or whatever they are called?), but I do think it's an issue that is a lot more murky and less binary than some describe it.

Many people attempt to frame it as a haves with power(beachfront owners who want their private beachees) vs a havenots without power(everyone who wants public use), but I don't think it's nearly that simple.

After all this seems to be a case where the institutional money(or the 'real' money) would favor public beaches. After all, these big developers have, on average, far more money than 90% of the individual gulffront owners(some of whom have a good chunk of their net worth now tied up in their gulffront home). It seems obvious that the big developers would favor public beach access for example. And many more examples(banks/mortgage companies, other institutional and commercial interests, etc).....

Second, I'm curious at the motivation of the beachfront owners who support private beaches. There has to be some play here.....because I can't imagine most of them want the area to suffer, and massive numbers of tourists to go elsewhere. The reason their beachfront home costs 2.5x as much in 30a as it does in say...pensacola beach, is because 30a is seen as a better/more desirable/more attractive area. And as a result of that the rental income potential is much higher, and then as a result of that the real estate is much higher. Surely they can see that if this private beach thing goes on the area as a whole is going to suffer and then rental incomes(even if they in particular don't rent their house) will suffer and then this will in turn drag down values of all property in 30a. Beachfront or not. IOW, peoples beachfront property isn't worth a ton of money in a vacuum. This being such a desirable area that attracts tons of tourists willing to pay a lot of money is part of what makes their beachfront property worth > 10 million.

I've seen reports of some beachfront owners say things like "tourism will be fine" and that some are overhyping the tourism problem which could be looming. I don't think that' s accurate at all.

so with all this in mind, I wonder if the goal of some beachfront owners is to get the county to give them a break on property taxes for some agreement on access. Personally I don't see the county doing that because that's just too big a pill for them to swallow when they see what the quiet titles cost in the first place. A hundred dollars in exchange for 65k dollars yearly isn't something they can swallow, even if they could afford to(and who knows if they can). They might though, I dunno.

I got the idea that that may be a driving factor for all of this because a local real estate agent told me an example of an older about to retire beachfront owner. Over the year's he seen his beachfront property rise to a very high value(9 million or thereabouts?), but the thing is he's not income wealthy. And since he doesn't want to rent out his place for various reasons, he has trouble actually converting that 9-10 million into $$ that he can pay the property tax and insurance bill with. So his options are:

1) sell the property(which he doesn't want to do)
2) short term rent the property(which he doesn't want to do)
3) take a mortgage equity loan out on the property. The problem with doing this is he would have trouble paying this off, and he wants to obviously pass the property on in his inheritance, but thats going to be problematic if there is even a small mortgage out on the property. The children would then have to sell it likely to satisfy that

so the real estate agent's presumption is that facing the above difficulties, he's hoping that he can get a huge break on the tax in exchange for allowing public access(which as I argue above is probably in the $ interest of the beachfront property owners in the first place)

So I dunno......my guess is that the beachfront owners themselves probably have a number of different motivating factors(and some are probably valid an not alltogether greeedy or bad)

Another issue I've wondered about- when they total all the beachfront owners up, they don't include all the seaside/watercolor/rosemary/etc beachfront owners in that mix do they? Because they shouldn't be, as those people(by the very nature of their community's agreement) DO NOT have any more beach access than someone in the very back of those communities. In fact, someone could rent the very farthest back house in Rosemary beach(right up against 98) and have more beachfront access right in front of that person's home than the beachfront homeowner does if they pay for chair service and the homeowner doesn't. I don't know if the rosemary/alys/seaside/watercolor beachfront owners are included in the total or not, but they shouldn't be.

Honestly, I'm just waiting to see how it all plays out. I just hope it plays out in a way that will allow 30a(and especially rosemary and seaside as those are the ones Im interested in) to thrive longterm. Until this issue works itself out and there is some solid resolution(and we see the effects of it either way), I'm going to sit out buying. I know that others(some of whom are looking at properties waaaaaaay more expensive than me) feel the same way.

Well written. And accurate.

Rentals are down slightly this year. And that is true from Gulf Shores, AL to Panama City. It happens.

The 30A stretch will be fine as there are too many good things available to visitors.

Appreciate a level and common sense post.

"Do you really believe that customary use threatens your beach front home or that it wants to take something away from you." Short answer to this - YES. We have had to call the sheriff twice in the last year as a result of people ignoring a private beach area sign and threatening my daughters and on another occasion our beach umbrella vendor. Imagine that. And I have politely explained the situation to many that come on our property and they don't want to hear it. Logic falls on deaf ears to the entitlement mentality.

"I blame anyone who puts up a sign or builds a fence to keep others off something that belongs to everyone with rules of course." No one would argue with that point. But the issue is the private beach areas don't belong to everyone. Again, logic.

What has been the response from the WCC when you ask them what they are doing to acquire more beachfront property? Now that they spent $12M+ of "OUR" tax monies on the CU lawsuit.

Questions that the WCC has never answered to my knowledge:

- How many people are affected by the private beach issue? (Other than developers and business owners who would benefit)

- Who is responsible for liability if the public is granted free and unfettered access to private owner's property?

- How many properties has the WCC researched / approached for purchase to alleviate this issue? Why is this not a primary focus?

- What steps is the county taking to make the public beaches more accessible for public use? An example is Grayton Beach State Park. I am on the water there regularly and particularly during the most popular holiday weeks. The beach area there is a little more than ONE MILE LONG. And at 40 yards deep at a minimum, that is an awful lot of beach for people to enjoy. And I have never seen that beach loaded wall to wall with sunbathers. Even on July 4th and Memorial Weekend. Parking could be an issue, but that is an issue for the WCC to address.

And why is it that the activists are always blaming the individual beach front owners for the problem? I may have missed the comments that would hold the Watercolor Inn, Adagio, etc.... in the same vain. They have STRICT policies in place to prevent public beach goers to just show up and plant an umbrella and chair on their property. And that is ok since it is their property.

A more productive route is to have the WCC working to obtain more beachfront property that is close to existing beach access locations.

Your short answer of "yes" is exactly the reason why you are not able to use common sense. We are all vulnerable to the emotion of fear and your fear that someone or something is trying to take your house away from you is unfounded. There is just no truth in it. False Prophets have manipulated your fear. Your example of why you believe the short answer is yes is also not using common sense. Children are being killed by bullets and bombs and mental illness and your fear of the public taking down your signs with "threatening" behavior is a little hard for me to take you serious. Maybe try removing your signs and see how the public "behave". Just saying...

Honesty is always the best policy. We all make mistakes. We are all hypocrites. We are all just human and we need to reach down in our heart and soul and to become more aware of our flaws. I believe we are all in this miracle of life together. Sharing and caring for other people is our responsibility for life itself. I owe my life to people. You owe your life to people. We have leadership that is telling you that you are special because you own more and have more than others. I am not special. You are not special. We are all "special". Try not to think the worse of people for wanting to enjoy the beach. Take down your signs and feel the freedom of sharing and caring. I am not asking you to do anything that I would not ask of myself. Just asking you to try and feel the positive of inclusion and reject the negative emotion of your earned right to exclusion. I get it. It is hard to accept that people will sometimes behave badly on the beach and it creates a victim mentality when it happens behind your beautiful property on a beautiful resource that you have worked so hard to have. It is very easy to feel victimized and a little more difficult to feel fortunate and grateful so we have to give effort to use our common sense...

Your short answer of "yes" is exactly the reason why you are not able to use common sense. We are all vulnerable to the emotion of fear and your fear that someone or something is trying to take your house away from you is unfounded. There is just no truth in it. False Prophets have manipulated your fear. Your example of why you believe the short answer is yes is also not using common sense. Children are being killed by bullets and bombs and mental illness and your fear of the public taking down your signs with "threatening" behavior is a little hard for me to take you serious. Maybe try removing your signs and see how the public "behave". Just saying...

Honesty is always the best policy. We all make mistakes. We are all hypocrites. We are all just human and we need to reach down in our heart and soul and to become more aware of our flaws. I believe we are all in this miracle of life together. Sharing and caring for other people is our responsibility for life itself. I owe my life to people. You owe your life to people. We have leadership that is telling you that you are special because you own more and have more than others. I am not special. You are not special. We are all "special". Try not to think the worse of people for wanting to enjoy the beach. Take down your signs and feel the freedom of sharing and caring. I am not asking you to do anything that I would not ask of myself. Just asking you to try and feel the positive of inclusion and reject the negative emotion of your earned right to exclusion. I get it. It is hard to accept that people will sometimes behave badly on the beach and it creates a victim mentality when it happens behind your beautiful property on a beautiful resource that you have worked so hard to have. It is very easy to feel victimized and a little more difficult to feel fortunate and grateful so we have to give effort to use our common sense...

Grayt post!

"Do you really believe that customary use threatens your beach front home or that it wants to take something away from you." Short answer to this - YES. We have had to call the sheriff twice in the last year as a result of people ignoring a private beach area sign and threatening my daughters and on another occasion our beach umbrella vendor. Imagine that. And I have politely explained the situation to many that come on our property and they don't want to hear it. Logic falls on deaf ears to the entitlement mentality.

Certainly appreciate your perspective on this issue and taking hits on this forum. I suspect these recent encounters were the result of public hostility toward the current state of beach ownership, trespassing signs, etc.(?) Can you share your experience with the public prior to 2018?

Although I can appreciate and understand the firm positions on private property rights, admittedly I can't yet understand how someone sitting on the beach about 200 feet behind a house can have such an impact on personal rights.

Certainly appreciate your perspective on this issue and taking hits on this forum. I suspect these recent encounters were the result of public hostility toward the current state of beach ownership, trespassing signs, etc.(?) Can you share your experience with the public prior to 2018?

Although I can appreciate and understand the firm positions on private property rights, admittedly I can't yet understand how someone sitting on the beach about 200 feet behind a house can have such an impact on personal rights.

Prior to 2018 it was not a major issue. There were times in the busy seasons that large groups would come on our complex property and cause some issues. Mostly drinking and not respecting small children that were enjoying the beach and water. We would explain the private beach issue to them and "respectfully request" that they find another area the next day. That worked most of the time.

Our complex on a "large beach area" day my have 30 - 35 yards of sand from water to seawall. Other days it is much less.

I would agree that a much larger sand area may not lend itself to many, if any, conflicts with others.

And you are correct that the encounters in the last year were a result of the public hostility and the fact that they are grossly misinformed about the issue. It's one thing to get in my face about this, but to confront young women in a hostile way is bizarre. Low-rent crowd maybe?

The issue of beach access has really been ginned up by the activist and entitlement groups. Even during a busy time in the summer, there is plenty of public beach available in our small area. But NOT on the front row of the beach. That causes issues for those that come to public beach and look 100 yards east and west and see front row availability. They want to be there and that is fully understandable.

We have routinely welcomed families with small kids to enjoy our beach area if there is not a big crowd. And they usually ask about the private beach issue. The majority of those we speak with understand and appreciate the clarity and facts of the issue.

Unfortunately, it is lost on the entitlement groups that private beach owners have the rights to THEIR property. This would include bringing their family and friends to the area as well as providing renters with the same opportunity.

Hopefully things will be normal this summer, but with the same "lead" activists involved and a misinformed public, I remain skeptical.

Activist is a positive word. Activists are often leaders and role models.

Prior to 2018 it was not a major issue. There were times in the busy seasons that large groups would come on our complex property and cause some issues. Mostly drinking and not respecting small children that were enjoying the beach and water. We would explain the private beach issue to them and "respectfully request" that they find another area the next day. That worked most of the time.

Our complex on a "large beach area" day my have 30 - 35 yards of sand from water to seawall. Other days it is much less.

I would agree that a much larger sand area may not lend itself to many, if any, conflicts with others.

And you are correct that the encounters in the last year were a result of the public hostility and the fact that they are grossly misinformed about the issue. It's one thing to get in my face about this, but to confront young women in a hostile way is bizarre. Low-rent crowd maybe?

The issue of beach access has really been ginned up by the activist and entitlement groups. Even during a busy time in the summer, there is plenty of public beach available in our small area. But NOT on the front row of the beach. That causes issues for those that come to public beach and look 100 yards east and west and see front row availability. They want to be there and that is fully understandable.

We have routinely welcomed families with small kids to enjoy our beach area if there is not a big crowd. And they usually ask about the private beach issue. The majority of those we speak with understand and appreciate the clarity and facts of the issue.

Unfortunately, it is lost on the entitlement groups that private beach owners have the rights to THEIR property. This would include bringing their family and friends to the area as well as providing renters with the same opportunity.

Hopefully things will be normal this summer, but with the same "lead" activists involved and a misinformed public, I remain skeptical.

Do you believe you are not an activist putting up signs to try and keep people off what you consider as exclusive to you? Do you believe you are not entitled to complain about a few encounters when many more people are well behaved and respectful? Again and again there is absolutely no one trying to take anything away from you. Your fear is the only thing keeping you from using common sense. Hopefully you will become more informed about people and their love for just going to the beach. Hopefully you will become more informed about how a family just trying to enjoy the beach may feel like when they encounter your "stay off my beach" signs. Until we all learn to control fear from people who just want to stir up the pot , I remain skeptical as well.

Maybe I'm simple but if I bought a house on a golf course and my deed extended on to the course I wouldn't make people stop playing golf. Before you say it's different, it's not.

Maybe I'm simple but if I bought a house on a golf course and my deed extended on to the course I wouldn't make people stop playing golf. Before you say it's different, it's not.

...or part of a lake...



...or a bayou...

...or part of a lake...

View attachment 108913

...or a bayou...

View attachment 108914

Son of a beach! We got some effed up deeds round here.

Maybe I'm simple but if I bought a house on a golf course and my deed extended on to the course I wouldn't make people stop playing golf. Before you say it's different, it's not.

You probably shouldn't stop there. If that golf course lot owner has a big SUV parked out front on the public street, just go ahead and jump in and take it for a spin. Nobody is using it - what is the harm.

You probably shouldn't stop there. If that golf course lot owner has a big SUV parked out front on the public street, just go ahead and jump in and take it for a spin. Nobody is using it - what is the harm.

Hey @mputnal , just like years ago, your posts are disintegrating into disrespectful, condescending rhetoric. BFOs are - greedy, fearful, have no common sense, should allow access to their property because people are generally good, shouldn't put up signs, etc., etc., etc.

New flash!! CUSTOMARY USE IS DEAD.

Everything you mention above and most of your posts are YOUR emotional justifications for customary use which did absolutely nothing to bolster the county's CU litigation.

So please, give it rest.