I know this has been discussed, but does anyone else find private beaches offensive? For 30+ years, my family rented beachfront houses in Panama City Beach and exclusive beach access never crossed our minds. It felt like a privilege just to walk out onto the sand. Given the county-level difference in property law (Bay vs. Walton).
We've vacationed here four times, but never again. Our condo's convenient boardwalk, previously leading to open beach, now funneled us into a tiny, packed zone. Cones blocked access, forcing us to walk along the water to reach the 'public' area. The sight of miles of deserted beach on either side was infuriating. For the price, we're taking our business elsewhere.
Palmer T
54,062 views
Replies
232Beach Fanatic
I can't seem to click on your avatar to determine how long you've been on SoWal. But I'm going to guess not long. So a guess is that you have no idea as to the history between Dave (and friends) and myself (and other beach front owners) for the past 20 years or so here on SoWal. I have never appreciated his hypocrisy, documented several times here on SoWal. I never understood how the people could be so gullible, especially when it came to Florida Beaches for All and the mistruths they pedaled. Of course they were in the majority and I was in the minority. And as such, they continually painted me in such a negative light as a beach front owner that I really struggled not to take it personally.Are you fair game? If you are then explain why you are obsessed with how families enjoying the beach is ruining your happiness or liberty or freedom or whatever it is that causes your "duty to shine a light on yet another mistruth". I think you are obsessed with these issues and are unable to see the truth. Or maybe you have replaced TRUTH with fear. I am aware that we all have some hypocrisy in our life but your hypocrisy about how people just want something for nothing is off the charts! You would never be satisfied with absolute control of what you believe is your private beach. When mother nature takes it you will be angry. When families walk on your private beach you will be angry. When the county tells you that you have to pay taxes on your property that is located on the beach you will be angry. Nothing that I say or anyone else will change that. Dialog does not work. Reason does not work. Common sense does not work. If I were a county administrator I would see you and those who think like you as a lost cause. But, I am a human being and do not want to stop trying to understand why you harbor all this negativity about certain people and county administrators and finally a family who just wants to enjoy the beach...
If Dave continues to insert himself into private / public beach issue at BCC meetings, then he's more than fair game on social media. You call that an obsession. I call it my duty to shine a light when yet another mistruth is spoken.
I only read Facebook but do not post. Unlike the wonderful message format here on SoWal, it's sometimes difficult to follow or find a topic on Facebook. But I know most people have left here and have gone over to Facebook over the years.
And the way they delete many others from one of the Walton County FB pages (can you say Karen version?), you're right, I wouldn't last a day because they truly don't want anyone to post anything that doesn't fit their narrative. So I don't try. Heck, I probably wouldn't last on the non-Karen version as even the "level headed" administrators there are so public beach oriented that you hardly don't see anyone like going against the narrative. Censored media is bad for everyone except for those who don't want to have a true dialog and hear differing opinions (or fact, many times).
Soooo..... continue to use the beach. Nobody is stopping you as long as you're at one of the public accesses and state parks (free during the summer).
Regarding "I could care less about tourist dollars", I'd suggest that you don't share that idea with Dave (or most people for that matter in Walton County).
Beach Lover
The developers and county administrators have been successful in convincing most people that the problem with beach access is the "greedy beach front owners". It is their shiny object that takes the light off of their true goal which is more development.
Period.
Name an instance where the public is upset with the Watercolor Inn or Adagio for keeping public beach goers away from their umbrella setups. Those complexes have the same rights as any beach front owner regarding their property, but no one seems to mind when it is a large complex / development and people are informed that the area is private. Why is that?
But it seems as if all the pearl-clutchers will continue to bash beach front property owners as they follow the shiny object. Just as the developers and county hope they will do.
They'd be better served to follow the money.
Period.
Name an instance where the public is upset with the Watercolor Inn or Adagio for keeping public beach goers away from their umbrella setups. Those complexes have the same rights as any beach front owner regarding their property, but no one seems to mind when it is a large complex / development and people are informed that the area is private. Why is that?
But it seems as if all the pearl-clutchers will continue to bash beach front property owners as they follow the shiny object. Just as the developers and county hope they will do.
They'd be better served to follow the money.
Beach Fanatic
The developers and county administrators have been successful in convincing most people that the problem with beach access is the "greedy beach front owners". It is their shiny object that takes the light off of their true goal which is more development.Dumb straw man attempt. Local development is greedy but can't distract from greed from Beach tyrants.
Period.
Name an instance where the public is upset with the Watercolor Inn or Adagio for keeping public beach goers away from their umbrella setups. Those complexes have the same rights as any beach front owner regarding their property, but no one seems to mind when it is a large complex / development and people are informed that the area is private. Why is that?
But it seems as if all the pearl-clutchers will continue to bash beach front property owners as they follow the shiny object. Just as the developers and county hope they will do.
They'd be better served to follow the money.
Beach Fanatic
Dumb straw man attempt. Local development is greedy but can't distract from greed from Beach tyrants.Are you just reiterating what @SUP shared in his post? That "The developers and county administrators have been successful in convincing most people that the problem with beach access is the "greedy beach front owners". ?
If a person didn't want everyone in their neighborhood to come into their your backyard, no rational person would consider that property owner "greedy" (now need to include "tyrant"). Why is the private beach any different besides the obvious? I know I can't make you understand the position of the vast majority of ordinary citizens (thousands, by the way, as evidenced by the CU litigation) who own beach front. You and many others only look at this situation from an emotional standpoint. Why not spend time maybe commenting on the beach nourishment agenda instead? That's something that could perhaps change the tide of things. I've seeded this forum with a few things to discuss, however you (and others) simply continue to desperately hold on to the "greed" aspect. And that honestly doesn't get anybody anywhere other than possibly some personal satisfaction in calling people you disagree with, names.
Edited
Beach Fanatic
Are you just reiterating what @SUP shared in his post? That "The developers and county administrators have been successful in convincing most people that the problem with beach access is the "greedy beach front owners". ?Stop playing the victim. We all know you're the guy sitting on his million dollar balcony with a megaphone and the sheriff on speed dial.
If a person didn't want everyone in their neighborhood to come into their your backyard, no rational person would consider that property owner "greedy" (now need to include "tyrant"). Why is the private beach any different besides the obvious? I know I can't make you understand the position of the vast majority of ordinary citizens (thousands, by the way, as evidenced by the CU litigation) who own beach front. You and many others only look at this situation from an emotional standpoint. Why not spend time maybe commenting on the beach nourishment agenda instead? That's something that could perhaps change the tide of things. I've seeded this forum with a few things to discuss, however you (and others) simply continue to desperately hold on to the "greed" aspect. And that honestly doesn't get anybody anywhere other than possibly some personal satisfaction in calling people you disagree with, names.
Beach Fanatic
Are you just reiterating what @SUP shared in his post? That "The developers and county administrators have been successful in convincing most people that the problem with beach access is the "greedy beach front owners". ?I believe beach front owners such as yourself are equally if not more "emotional" because you have been mislead to believe that people just want something for nothing. We are no longer talking about simple greed that we all have. You believe you are a victim. You are unhappy with people and government always trying to take something away from you. I am not sure there is anything anyone could do or say to change your emotional tide. I wish you would listen to your own post. You will never be satisfied with people or government. You want exclusive control of your world. Good luck...
If a person didn't want everyone in their neighborhood to come into their your backyard, no rational person would consider that property owner "greedy" (now need to include "tyrant"). Why is the private beach any different besides the obvious? I know I can't make you understand the position of the vast majority of ordinary citizens (thousands, by the way, as evidenced by the CU litigation) who own beach front. You and many others only look at this situation from an emotional standpoint. Why not spend time maybe commenting on the beach nourishment agenda instead? That's something that could perhaps change the tide of things. I've seeded this forum with a few things to discuss, however you (and others) simply continue to desperately hold on to the "greed" aspect. And that honestly doesn't get anybody anywhere other than possibly some personal satisfaction in calling people you disagree with, names.
Beach Lover
Stop playing the victim. We all know you're the guy sitting on his million dollar balcony with a megaphone and the sheriff on speed dial.
This is so irrational it is funny to picture.
Beach Fanatic
#1591
Jane said:
Stop playing the victim. We all know you're the guy sitting on his million dollar balcony with a megaphone and the sheriff on speed dial.
You got me!
Stop playing the victim. We all know you're the guy sitting on his million dollar balcony with a megaphone and the sheriff on speed dial.
You got me!
Edited
Beach Fanatic
That about does it.Where's the beach? Critically eroded?
View attachment 109122
Beach Fanatic
This is so irrational it is funny to picture.Just listen to your posts. Your own words! A family going to the beach encounters a sign "stay out, private property". Even Fox news explains that going to the beach is good for our health. Property owner yells at family. Family continues to enjoy the natural resource because it is good and honest and natural. Property owner continues to complain and calls for back up. Confrontation continues with county then the courts. All that time and money spent for what...a family enjoying the beach. I can only assume that you have let fear of losing something create irrational behavior. Yet what are you really losing please tell. Is it the frisbees mucking up the beach? Is it the laughter coming from the family? Or is it your ability to see "something" bigger than yourself? The family visiting the beach did not build a house on the beach sand dune creating all sorts of conflict with mother nature. Human beings are connected to each other. We are a social species. We need each other. You can't be happy without other human beings. You can survive maybe but you can't be happy. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is all anyone wants. If you believe that Truth only pertains to yourself then you will find irrational behavior and it is not funny. Maybe learn to listen to yourself first before making assumptions about another person...
Beach Comber
DeSantis is signing the bill today. Press conference at Shunk.
Nothing changes until renourishment
Nothing changes until renourishment
Beach Fanatic
I am not a cheerleader for dredge and fill on the beaches but it has to happen. There should be plenty of defense fund dollars from across the state!
SoWal Insider
I don’t think renourishment will be the panacea people think it will be. A vast majority of the sand that will be added will be landward of the MHWL and therefore will be privately owned and not public beach.
Beach Lover
I don’t think renourishment will be the panacea people think it will be. A vast majority of the sand that will be added will be landward of the MHWL and therefore will be privately owned and not public beach.Any area covered with sand (hint: every square inch) becomes public.
SoWal Insider
That simply isn’t what is written in the amendment that was introduced and passed in the last day before the floor vote.
Beach Lover
| Governor Ron DeSantis signed legislation Tuesday morning returning authority to local governments to recognize customary use of beaches in Walton County, following a six-year dispute that has divided the community and affected local tourism. |
|
| “Senate Bill 1622 will repeal the burdensome state mandates and return decision making power to local governments when it comes to recognizing recreational customary use of beaches,” DeSantis said during the signing ceremony. |
| The legislation repeals a 2018 law that prohibited local governments from affirming public recreational use of dry sand areas on private beaches without first going through a complex and costly judicial process. That law particularly affected Walton County, which had adopted a customary use ordinance in October 2016, just months after the state’s cutoff date. |
| “Back in 2018, when the state passed a law that blocked local governments from recognizing customary use of beaches, no one felt that impact more severely than Walton County,” said Senator Jay Trumbull, who sponsored the legislation. “Overnight, people who had walked the same stretch of beach for generations were being told that they were trespassing.” |
| The economic impact has been significant for the county. Representative Shane Abbott said the legislation addresses broader community needs. |
| “We didn’t run this bill just so Senator Trumbull and I’s families can enjoy the beach. We ran this bill for the thousands of locals and residents here that have spent time on those beaches and should enjoy those beaches and have enjoyed them for generations,” Abbott said. |
|
| The legislation goes beyond simply repealing the 2018 law. It also makes it easier to restore eroded beaches in certain Gulf Coast counties by simplifying how the state sets erosion control lines and allowing the Department of Environmental Protection to move forward with beach restoration projects without securing public easements from private beachfront landowners. |
| “This will ensure the restoration projects can begin very quickly, and that every dollar we invest in rebuilding the beach goes towards actual sand and vegetation, not needless litigation,” DeSantis said. |
| Environmental Protection Secretary Alexis Lambert noted that of Walton County’s 26 miles of beach, nearly 19 miles are now considered critically eroded and in need of nourishment. |
| The bill includes provisions that protect private property rights while advancing public interest projects. DeSantis emphasized that “the state is not expanding its ownership claims beyond what is already constitutionally and legally recognized.” |
|
| The legislation passed the Florida Senate 35-2 and unanimously in the House. It takes effect immediately upon signing. |
Beach Fanatic
Senator Jay Trumbull and Ron DeSantis is using the same slogan as all beachgoer's have wanted to hear for a long time "FREE THE BEACH SIGNED INTO LAW". Senator Trumbull has texted messages to all voters in Walton County calling the bill "freedom-focused" and added that if beachgoers have any problems don't hesitate to reach out to 850-747-5454.
I wonder how those who supported private beaches with ropes, signs and chains are reacting to this. It does not take away anything from anyone. It gives hope and joy to many!
I wonder how those who supported private beaches with ropes, signs and chains are reacting to this. It does not take away anything from anyone. It gives hope and joy to many!
Beach Fanatic
The BEACHES ARE. MINE!
Beach Lover
I don't know details of the settlement and don't have time to look into it, but much is being made about the case being settled with many beach front homeowners “WITH PREJUDICE”. "WITH PREJUDICE" just means the case was decided based on the relevant law at the time and cannot be revisited based on the same set of facts and law. If the law changes the issue can be revisited depending on the circumstances.
Not an attorney but given that the law changed and the shoreline is a right that goes back to English common law, the settlement could be reviewable. Since our county attorney is the one that worked on the settlement it would be prudent for an outside firm to review to see if the settlement could be overturned and CU could be reinstated. You'd have no problem at all funding a legal review.
Not an attorney but given that the law changed and the shoreline is a right that goes back to English common law, the settlement could be reviewable. Since our county attorney is the one that worked on the settlement it would be prudent for an outside firm to review to see if the settlement could be overturned and CU could be reinstated. You'd have no problem at all funding a legal review.
Beach Fanatic
I wonder how those who supported private beaches with ropes, signs and chains are reacting to this.Nothing's changed as a result of the bill being passed (here in Walton County) sans the threat of beach nourishment.
Then there's the question, as I have brought up on this thread, are the beaches truly critically eroded and better yet, what is critically eroded? Some Fort Meyers beachfront owners got Florida DEP to back down from the critically eroded designation on their beach:
Watch on YouTube
And since the 2004/2005 hurricanes, I can testify that Blue Mountain Beach has accreted, not eroded, ever since.
And can the state truly "eliminate the need of public easements by private landowners" for nourishment? That is the next legal battle, IMHO.
Obviously most of the readers of this thread want public beach at ANY COST even if the rights of property owners are trampled upon, YET AGAIN, by trying to force a public easement when the property owner doesn't want (or need) beach nourishment.
It is sad that there seems to be no limit to what the government will try to do seize control of desirable private property that the public "feels" entitled to.
Beach Fanatic
I saw a ton of illegal seawalls and geotubes on the beaches in 2005-2006. They were made legal after the fact. It doesn't change that it was wrong and one day they will get hit by a storm and cost millions to cleanup by the public. Even after nourishment dredge and fill which the public will also pay for. Beachfront owners should be grateful for what they have and enjoy instead of wanting more more more.
Beach Fanatic
Nothing's changed as a result of the bill being passed (here in Walton County) sans the threat of beach nourishment.Somehow your emotions have created a blind spot in reality. You can't own mother nature. You can't prevent beach erosion. Homes built on the Sand Dunes have made it worse. Somehow you need to fear that people (government and families) are to blame for taking away your private beach. You did that. You trampled over the sand dunes. You seized control of the beach ecosystem. You are not able to see that you have been a beneficiary of something that can't be owned or controlled. You are not a victim. The fact that you think you are is very sad. Because Government represents all the people not just a few makes you angry. You feel "entitled". The public just want a few hours on the beach with their families. MH messed with your sense of entitlement. Let it go. I promise you will be made whole by just watching those families laugh and play for a few hours and then they go back to their homes while you get to see the glow of the moon, the beautiful sunrises and sunsets and all the beauty of mother nature. Enjoy your life and let others do the same...
Then there's the question, as I have brought up on this thread, are the beaches truly critically eroded and better yet, what is critically eroded? Some Fort Meyers beachfront owners got Florida DEP to back down from the critically eroded designation on their beach:
Watch on YouTube
And since the 2004/2005 hurricanes, I can testify that Blue Mountain Beach has accreted, not eroded, ever since.
And can the state truly "eliminate the need of public easements by private landowners" for nourishment? That is the next legal battle, IMHO.
Obviously most of the readers of this thread want public beach at ANY COST even if the rights of property owners are trampled upon, YET AGAIN, by trying to force a public easement when the property owner doesn't want (or need) beach nourishment.
It is sad that there seems to be no limit to what the government will try to do seize control of desirable private property that the public "feels" entitled to.
Beach Comber
Nothing's changed as a result of the bil
Are you just reiterating what @SUP shared in his post? That "The developers and county administrators have been successful in convincing most people that the problem with beach access is the "greedy beach front owners". ?Luke 12:16-21
If a person didn't want everyone in their neighborhood to come into their your backyard, no rational person would consider that property owner "greedy" (now need to include "tyrant"). Why is the private beach any different besides the obvious? I know I can't make you understand the position of the vast majority of ordinary citizens (thousands, by the way, as evidenced by the CU litigation) who own beach front. You and many others only look at this situation from an emotional standpoint. Why not spend time maybe commenting on the beach nourishment agenda instead? That's something that could perhaps change the tide of things. I've seeded this forum with a few things to discuss, however you (and others) simply continue to desperately hold on to the "greed" aspect. And that honestly doesn't get anybody anywhere other than possibly some personal satisfaction in calling people you disagree with, names.
Luke 16:19-31
Read those. They talk about you.
Repent from your sins of pride and greed. You are extremely prideful and entitled. Were you raised in the jungle or living in a hut all your life? What kind of parents create such an entitled, foolish and blind person? Monkey behavior & classless. I have so many questions. The psychologists should study your kind. Don’t you have any concept of coexistence with others or your parents never educated you that a world exists outside of your narrow perspective? I think you have a control issue. Something must have went wrong in your childhood definitely. Freud would have a field day with you. That desperate need to control everything? Classic sign of anal-retentive personality. What kind of loser spends their time defending such an invalid take?
It’s really bizarre this redneck behavior of yours. It’s not giving freedom or liberty, it’s giving hoarding and mental health issues.
I guess every bum can buy a beachfront, but class and not being raised in the jungle is more difficult to come by.
Hoarding your patch of sand doesn’t make you powerful or a freedom-fighter, you just look psychotic and a total narcissist to normal people.
Beach Fanatic
Luke 12:16-21Awesome 1st post man.
Luke 16:19-31
Read those. They talk about you.
Repent from your sins of pride and greed. You are extremely prideful and entitled. Were you raised in the jungle or living in a hut all your life? What kind of parents create such an entitled, foolish and blind person? Monkey behavior & classless. I have so many questions. The psychologists should study your kind. Don’t you have any concept of coexistence with others or your parents never educated you that a world exists outside of your narrow perspective? I think you have a control issue. Something must have went wrong in your childhood definitely. Freud would have a field day with you. That desperate need to control everything? Classic sign of anal-retentive personality. What kind of loser spends their time defending such an invalid take?
It’s really bizarre this redneck behavior of yours. It’s not giving freedom or liberty, it’s giving hoarding and mental health issues.
I guess every bum can buy a beachfront, but class and not being raised in the jungle is more difficult to come by.
Hoarding your patch of sand doesn’t make you powerful or a freedom-fighter, you just look psychotic and a total narcissist to normal people.
Beach Fanatic
The "public easement" requirement removed by the repeal bill does not appear to be the same as the construction easement requirement. Also the removal of the public easement requirement does not seem to affect public recreational use being allowed seaward of the ECL in beach renourishment project areas.
Here is where the public easement is discussed in Florida Statutes Section 161.141:
"However, prior to construction of such a beach restoration project, the board of trustees must establish the line of mean high water for the area to be restored; and any additions to the upland property landward of the established line of mean high water which result from the restoration project remain the property of the upland owner subject to all governmental regulations and are not to be used to justify increased density or the relocation of the coastal construction control line as may be in effect for such upland property. The resulting additions to upland property are also subject to a public easement for traditional uses of the sandy beach consistent with uses that would have been allowed prior to the need for the restoration project."
www.flsenate.gov
Here is where the public easement is discussed in Florida Statutes Section 161.141:
"However, prior to construction of such a beach restoration project, the board of trustees must establish the line of mean high water for the area to be restored; and any additions to the upland property landward of the established line of mean high water which result from the restoration project remain the property of the upland owner subject to all governmental regulations and are not to be used to justify increased density or the relocation of the coastal construction control line as may be in effect for such upland property. The resulting additions to upland property are also subject to a public easement for traditional uses of the sandy beach consistent with uses that would have been allowed prior to the need for the restoration project."
Chapter 161 Section 141 - 2024 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate
www.flsenate.gov
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.