Tampa Bay Times
9/9/18
Hundreds pack meeting on beach access in Florida Panhandle
The issue of 'customary use' becomes part of the political dialogue in the 2018 election.
SANTA ROSA BEACH — Hundreds of people crowded into a high school auditorium Saturday for an emotional meeting in the ongoing political struggle over public access to the Panhandle's pristine beaches.
The crowd of 800-plus at South Walton High School and the intensity of views were the latest signs of how strongly people feel about this quality-of-life issue after Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill that makes it harder for cities and counties to pass local laws protecting public beach access.
The law (HB 631), which attracted little public attention in the 2018 session of the Legislature, is seen as a direct response to Walton County's adoption last year of a beach access law that has been challenged unsuccessfully by private property owners.
"I believe the notion of a 'private beach' is an oxymoron," said Dave Rauschkolb, a Seaside restaurant owner and a leader in the battle to preserve public access to beaches, known as customary use.
Josephine Brown, 92, of Seagrove Beach, wearing a sticker that said "CU at the beach," said her family has been enjoying the beaches of South Walton for six generations with no problems until now.
"We had bonfires. We camped out," Brown testified. "Those days are gone forever, but still, we would like to maintain a little bit of that personal closeness that we always had with the beach."
Lynn Fitzgerald, who has owned a home on Miramar Beach since 1994, said her property deed, like many, extended to the mean high tide water line but that "we never had a problem." Making things worse, she told officials, is the proliferation of commercial vendors renting out beach chairs and umbrellas to sunbathers.
Asked about the governor, she said: "This is going to hurt him. It will also cause tourists to leave Destin and go to Orange Beach (Alabama)."
Scott, who in July signed an executive order that sought to blunt the new law's enforcement, may hear from residents Sunday when he makes a campaign appearance at The Donut Hole in Santa Rosa Beach.
Tom Ballantine, owner of a condominium complex at Seagrove, said: "I'm a Christian. God made the beach and it's open to all of God's people." He got a thunderous round of applause.
Afterward, Ballantine said he did not think the controversy would have any effect on Scott's senatorial ambitions. "I really like Rick Scott," he said.
Avalon Beach homeowner John Vundschow took a different view. He said a proposed new county customary use ordinance is an illegal taking of private property without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
More than 5,000 people have joined a Facebook group, Walton County Ideas for Visioning and Quality of Life, where the beach access issue is by far the major topic of conversation.
More than 7,000 residents have signed affidavits in support of a new county beach access law in an effort organized by a new non-profit group, Florida Beaches for All. The Walton County attorney, Sidney Noyes, said she was overwhelmed by the response.
Saturday's meeting was to have been the first legal step by a Florida local government to comply with the new law.
But the county discovered that 13 affected property owners did not receive legal notices of the meeting as required by law, which could put the county in legal jeopardy if it took any formal action. So a vote was postponed until November and county officials took public comment for nearly three hours instead.
Walton County is solidly Republican, but in interviews, people at Saturday's meeting singled out Scott for criticism and said he should not have signed the bill into law. In casual conversations, people dressed in tropical shirts and flip-flops toss around "HB 631" like an epithet.
Mike Hepner, a Miramar Beach X-ray technician who wore a "UNF Ospreys" T-shirt (his daughter is a student there) and is a registered independent voter, said he's less likely to vote for Scott because of his decision to sign HB 631.
"Definitely," Hepner said. "I believe the beaches were put here by God for our use and we want to keep it that way. I will vote for people who are for keeping customary use."
https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/09/09/hundreds-pack-meeting-on-beach-access-in-florida-panhandle/
Replies
193
Beach Fanatic
DeFuniak Herald/Beach Breeze Nov. 1, 2023
By DOTTY NIST
With the sun setting on Walton County’s court effort, ongoing for almost five years, to affirm a right by the public to customary recreational use of the beach, it appears that there has been a small win for customary use.
Walton County Circuit Court Judge David Green, presiding judge in Walton County customary use court complaint, issued an Oct. 26 order finding that Walton County had established the existence of a right by the public to use a portion of the beach on 95 privately-owned parcels for traversing and sitting on the beach.
The parcels in question were listed in motions for summary judgment that had been filed with the court, with the county’s most recent notice listing the parcels contained in the motions having been submitted on Oct. 25.
Parcels contained in the motions had previously numbered 192. Properties had been dismissed from the lawsuit and removed from the motions after objections on the part of some property owners and a ruling by Judge Green indicating that notification by Walton County had not been sufficient in instances of property owners who had acquired their parcels after the notification process at the start of the lawsuit.
With its original customary use court filing in December 2018, Walton County had sought to affirm a right by the public to customary recreational use on the dry sand area of all privately-owned beachfront parcels in the county, with the complaint applying to 1,194 properties. The lawsuit had been filed in line with the newly-created process contained in House Bill (HB) 631, legislation that had invalidated Walton County’s existing customary use ordinance, with the bill having been codified into law as Section 163.035 Florida Statutes.
Specific customary uses sought to be affirmed with the original lawsuit had included traversing the beach, sitting on the sand in a beach chair or on a towel or blanket, using an umbrella seven feet or less in diameter, sunbathing, picnicking, fishing, swimming, swimming or surfing off the beach, placement of surfing or fishing equipment, and “building sand creations.”
More than 500 property owners had opted to intervene in the lawsuit in opposition to the county effort.
After over four years of hearings, there had been a February 2023 decision by the Walton County Board of Commissioners (BCC) to have their legal team pursue a settlement of the lawsuit and avoid the case going to trial. Judging from limited public comments by the commissioners, interest in avoiding the high cost of a trial was a motivation for the decision, along with advice from legal counsel and the officials’ belief that the court system would not work in favor of their success with a trial.
In a partial settlement agreement approved by the court on June 30, 2023, several dozen parcel owners had signed on for dismissal with conditions for limited use of their property by the public during certain hours within a “Transitory Zone” (TZ) extending 20 feet landward of the wet-dry sand line. However, the vast majority of the parcels that had been part of the lawsuit were dismissed from the case by the county without the owners agreeing to the TZ or conditions for public use on the privately-owned portions of the lots.
In July 2023, Walton County had pledged in a letter to Judge Green to file court motions aimed at “disposing of all matters” related to parcels on which the county would seek a determination of recreational customary use—and at dismissing any parcels not included in the latter motions, with the exception of one property for which a counterclaim was pending. (The BCC recently voted to approve a settlement related to the latter property).
The 95 parcels coming before Judge Green in Walton County’s motions for summary judgment that were part of his Oct. 26 order were the only ones remaining at issue in the lawsuit. The owners of these properties had not intervened in the lawsuit or taken any other action regarding the lawsuit.
With the motions, the county sought an affirmation of only two customary uses, traversing the beach and sitting on the beach, with agreement by the county that the applicable portion of the beach would be as stated in the settlement agreement document (presumably 20 feet landward of the wet/dry sand line).
Section 163.035 Florida Statutes had set the requirement for, in order for local governments to affirm recreational customary use, evidence be provided to prove that the use has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute. These were the standards set forth by the Florida Supreme Court for the doctrine of customary use in the landmark 1974 City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc., decision.
In his Oct. 26 order, Judge Green found that the county had met requirements for granting of summary judgments by providing material for the record that could not be genuinely disputed to support assertions made. He also found that the county’s motions had cited “abundant evidence in support of its positions,” that the uses covered in the motions were ancient, reasonable, continuous, and free from dispute.
He noted that the county had cited in the motions affidavits and other evidence from witnesses describing uses of the beach areas over many year—and had argued without opposition that the evidence established that the use of the dry sand area on the beach parcels or in their general area had been for a period longer than any of the uses described in either the Tona-Rama decision or appellate briefs filed in the Supreme Court proceedings in that case.
Judge Green found that the customary use rights claimed—traversing and sitting on the beach—”are the most basic of uses for beachfront property and are very similar to the uses described in Tona-Rama.”
“The county argues that the requirement that the uses be reasonable has thus been established,” he noted.
Judge Green also found that evidence provided by the county showed “substantial proof of continuing use of the areas claimed for decades without interference, problems, or objection,” thus establishing the remaining two customary use elements of the use being without interruption and free from dispute.
In light of these findings, Judge Green directed that a proposed final judgment be prepared by the county’s legal counsel based on his order and circulated to the attorneys for all intervenors in the lawsuit.
“If no objections are received,” he wrote, “the final judgment, with any revisions made by the court, will be entered seven days after it has been sent by mail to intervenors’ counsel. If objections are received and cannot be resolved by the parties, then the court will consider the objections and prepare an appropriate final judgment.”
The parcels covered in Walton County’s motions are located in Grayton Beach (two parcels), Blue Mountain Beach (20 parcels), Santa Rosa Beach (seven parcels), Seacrest Beach (16 parcels), Seagrove Beach (19 parcels), Beach Highlands Beach (one parcel), Eastern Lake Beach (12 parcels), and Inlet Beach (18 parcels). Parcels numbers are provided in the county Oct. 25 court filing entitled “Walton County’s Third Amended Notice as to Remaining Parcels and Dismissed Parcels.”
Walton County had been one of the first counties to go to court on the basis of the process newly established in HB 631 and Section 163.035 Florida Statutes for affirmation of customary use. A final judgment carrying over from Judge Green’s Oct. 26 order would mark a successful navigation of that process by a local government and would likely serve as a precedent for similar efforts by other governmental entities.
Court finds that Walton County has proved customary use on 95 beach parcels
By DOTTY NIST
With the sun setting on Walton County’s court effort, ongoing for almost five years, to affirm a right by the public to customary recreational use of the beach, it appears that there has been a small win for customary use.
Walton County Circuit Court Judge David Green, presiding judge in Walton County customary use court complaint, issued an Oct. 26 order finding that Walton County had established the existence of a right by the public to use a portion of the beach on 95 privately-owned parcels for traversing and sitting on the beach.
The parcels in question were listed in motions for summary judgment that had been filed with the court, with the county’s most recent notice listing the parcels contained in the motions having been submitted on Oct. 25.
Parcels contained in the motions had previously numbered 192. Properties had been dismissed from the lawsuit and removed from the motions after objections on the part of some property owners and a ruling by Judge Green indicating that notification by Walton County had not been sufficient in instances of property owners who had acquired their parcels after the notification process at the start of the lawsuit.
With its original customary use court filing in December 2018, Walton County had sought to affirm a right by the public to customary recreational use on the dry sand area of all privately-owned beachfront parcels in the county, with the complaint applying to 1,194 properties. The lawsuit had been filed in line with the newly-created process contained in House Bill (HB) 631, legislation that had invalidated Walton County’s existing customary use ordinance, with the bill having been codified into law as Section 163.035 Florida Statutes.
Specific customary uses sought to be affirmed with the original lawsuit had included traversing the beach, sitting on the sand in a beach chair or on a towel or blanket, using an umbrella seven feet or less in diameter, sunbathing, picnicking, fishing, swimming, swimming or surfing off the beach, placement of surfing or fishing equipment, and “building sand creations.”
More than 500 property owners had opted to intervene in the lawsuit in opposition to the county effort.
After over four years of hearings, there had been a February 2023 decision by the Walton County Board of Commissioners (BCC) to have their legal team pursue a settlement of the lawsuit and avoid the case going to trial. Judging from limited public comments by the commissioners, interest in avoiding the high cost of a trial was a motivation for the decision, along with advice from legal counsel and the officials’ belief that the court system would not work in favor of their success with a trial.
In a partial settlement agreement approved by the court on June 30, 2023, several dozen parcel owners had signed on for dismissal with conditions for limited use of their property by the public during certain hours within a “Transitory Zone” (TZ) extending 20 feet landward of the wet-dry sand line. However, the vast majority of the parcels that had been part of the lawsuit were dismissed from the case by the county without the owners agreeing to the TZ or conditions for public use on the privately-owned portions of the lots.
In July 2023, Walton County had pledged in a letter to Judge Green to file court motions aimed at “disposing of all matters” related to parcels on which the county would seek a determination of recreational customary use—and at dismissing any parcels not included in the latter motions, with the exception of one property for which a counterclaim was pending. (The BCC recently voted to approve a settlement related to the latter property).
The 95 parcels coming before Judge Green in Walton County’s motions for summary judgment that were part of his Oct. 26 order were the only ones remaining at issue in the lawsuit. The owners of these properties had not intervened in the lawsuit or taken any other action regarding the lawsuit.
With the motions, the county sought an affirmation of only two customary uses, traversing the beach and sitting on the beach, with agreement by the county that the applicable portion of the beach would be as stated in the settlement agreement document (presumably 20 feet landward of the wet/dry sand line).
Section 163.035 Florida Statutes had set the requirement for, in order for local governments to affirm recreational customary use, evidence be provided to prove that the use has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute. These were the standards set forth by the Florida Supreme Court for the doctrine of customary use in the landmark 1974 City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc., decision.
In his Oct. 26 order, Judge Green found that the county had met requirements for granting of summary judgments by providing material for the record that could not be genuinely disputed to support assertions made. He also found that the county’s motions had cited “abundant evidence in support of its positions,” that the uses covered in the motions were ancient, reasonable, continuous, and free from dispute.
He noted that the county had cited in the motions affidavits and other evidence from witnesses describing uses of the beach areas over many year—and had argued without opposition that the evidence established that the use of the dry sand area on the beach parcels or in their general area had been for a period longer than any of the uses described in either the Tona-Rama decision or appellate briefs filed in the Supreme Court proceedings in that case.
Judge Green found that the customary use rights claimed—traversing and sitting on the beach—”are the most basic of uses for beachfront property and are very similar to the uses described in Tona-Rama.”
“The county argues that the requirement that the uses be reasonable has thus been established,” he noted.
Judge Green also found that evidence provided by the county showed “substantial proof of continuing use of the areas claimed for decades without interference, problems, or objection,” thus establishing the remaining two customary use elements of the use being without interruption and free from dispute.
In light of these findings, Judge Green directed that a proposed final judgment be prepared by the county’s legal counsel based on his order and circulated to the attorneys for all intervenors in the lawsuit.
“If no objections are received,” he wrote, “the final judgment, with any revisions made by the court, will be entered seven days after it has been sent by mail to intervenors’ counsel. If objections are received and cannot be resolved by the parties, then the court will consider the objections and prepare an appropriate final judgment.”
The parcels covered in Walton County’s motions are located in Grayton Beach (two parcels), Blue Mountain Beach (20 parcels), Santa Rosa Beach (seven parcels), Seacrest Beach (16 parcels), Seagrove Beach (19 parcels), Beach Highlands Beach (one parcel), Eastern Lake Beach (12 parcels), and Inlet Beach (18 parcels). Parcels numbers are provided in the county Oct. 25 court filing entitled “Walton County’s Third Amended Notice as to Remaining Parcels and Dismissed Parcels.”
Walton County had been one of the first counties to go to court on the basis of the process newly established in HB 631 and Section 163.035 Florida Statutes for affirmation of customary use. A final judgment carrying over from Judge Green’s Oct. 26 order would mark a successful navigation of that process by a local government and would likely serve as a precedent for similar efforts by other governmental entities.
Beach Comber
11/9/2023 Order. "The Tona-Rama case nowhere defines ancient. The county argues, >>>without any opposition (the previous opposing memoranda having been withdrawn from consideration by agreement)<<< that the evidence establishes use of the dry sand area of the beach parcels or the general area in which they are located[1] for a period longer than any of the uses described in either the Tona-Roma decision itself or in the appellate briefs filed in the Supreme Court proceedings in that case, and that the uses must therefore necessarily be deemed to be of a duration sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the use be of ancient origin."
"No contrary evidence >>>having been provided to rebut<<< the showing made by the county, ..."
So Walton prevailed on 95 properties by uncontested legal default. Because many of the other hundreds of interveners, previously dismissed without-prejudice (customary use could be litigated again), objected to the Walton summary judgment, and were prepared to dispute CU "ancient" use and other criteria, were (prior to this order) BCC changed to dismissed with-prejudice (customary use can never be litigated by Walton again) along with the many hundreds of original interveners BCC dismissed with-prejudice, left only those 95 parcels (out of 1,194) that did not intervene or have legal representation to object to the summary judgment and "ancient" use, were then adjudged to have public customary use for traversing and sitting on those parcels by legal default. 95 CUs and a few public use agreements and over $8,000,000 of our tax payer money. Leaving law enforcement about 100 piano board of parcels to enforce to the Mean High Water Line (legally not wet sand) for high percentage of parcels east of Topsail State Park.
"No contrary evidence >>>having been provided to rebut<<< the showing made by the county, ..."
So Walton prevailed on 95 properties by uncontested legal default. Because many of the other hundreds of interveners, previously dismissed without-prejudice (customary use could be litigated again), objected to the Walton summary judgment, and were prepared to dispute CU "ancient" use and other criteria, were (prior to this order) BCC changed to dismissed with-prejudice (customary use can never be litigated by Walton again) along with the many hundreds of original interveners BCC dismissed with-prejudice, left only those 95 parcels (out of 1,194) that did not intervene or have legal representation to object to the summary judgment and "ancient" use, were then adjudged to have public customary use for traversing and sitting on those parcels by legal default. 95 CUs and a few public use agreements and over $8,000,000 of our tax payer money. Leaving law enforcement about 100 piano board of parcels to enforce to the Mean High Water Line (legally not wet sand) for high percentage of parcels east of Topsail State Park.
Edited
Beach Fanatic
So Walton prevailed on 95 properties by uncontested legal default.
Thank you for clarifying that. The title of the article, "Court finds that Walton County has proved customary use on 95 beach parcels", baffled me. It does not make any sense especially when one understands that...
"95 parcels (out of 1,194) did not intervene or have legal representation to object to the summary judgment and "ancient" use."
Walton County did not prove anything regarding customary use. Wait a minute... I'm wrong about that. What they did prove is that the county can steal private property rights from a citizen if one does not fight back with an attorney.
Everyone can thank Florida Beaches for All (including the founders), their followers and misguided commissioners, pandering to the majority of their constituents, for all the divisiveness and a total waste of tax payer's money.
SWGB
Thank you for clarifying that. The title of the article, "Court finds that Walton County has proved customary use on 95 beach parcels", baffled me. It does not make any sense especially when one understands that...
"95 parcels (out of 1,194) did not intervene or have legal representation to object to the summary judgment and "ancient" use."
Walton County did not prove anything regarding customary use. Wait a minute... I'm wrong about that. What they did prove is that the county can steal private property rights from a citizen if one does not fight back with an attorney.
Everyone can thank Florida Beaches for All (including the founders), their followers and misguided commissioners, pandering to the majority of their constituents, for all the divisiveness and a total waste of tax payer's money.
None of you willingly show your faces in public, you're all greedy scum hiding behind lawyers. You'll reap what you've sown.
Beach Comber
None of you willingly show your faces in public, you're all greedy scum hiding behind lawyers. You'll reap what you've sown.
Matt J "It would also end the legally required maintenance from the aholes that used to own the one adjacent to the outfall."
Just the most recent examples Matt J has posted out of the 24,350 posts.
3. Chats, Comments, & Message Boards
3.1 You shall not upload to, or distribute or otherwise publish on the chat rooms, comments or message boards any libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, abusive, or otherwise illegal material.
3.2 (a) Be courteous. You agree that you will not threaten or verbally abuse other Members, use defamatory language, or deliberately disrupt discussions with repetitive messages, meaningless messages or "spam."
3.2 (b) Use respectful language. Like any community, SoWal.com chats and message boards flourish only when our Members feel welcome and safe.
3.2 (c) Debate, but don't attack.
For someone who violates these more than anyone that I've read. Hides their SoWal profile (BMBV does not) and name; you do not have much credibility. Wonder if SoWal moderator would allow what you post from BMBV?
What do you mean "You'll reap what you've sown"? Who will reap what, from whom, and what have "they" sown? Sounds like a threat from you to BMBV or beachfront owners to me.
Edited
SWGB
What do you mean "You'll reap what you've sown"? Who will reap what, from whom, and what have "they" sown? Sounds like a threat from you to BMBV or beachfront owners to me.
It means whatever I want it to mean and that definition is none of your business.
You're clutching your pearls too tightly, I think it's cutting off oxygen to your brain.
Beach Fanatic
None of you willingly show your faces in public, you're all greedy scum hiding behind lawyers. You'll reap what you've sown.I have randomly ended up sitting a few seats from you at the bar at the Hurricane Oyster Bar & Grill. Does that count? But I do admit that I like hiding behind my mugs of beer when in public.
Beach Fanatic
Matt J "It would also end the legally required maintenance from the aholes that used to own the one adjacent to the outfall."Anyone pushing people off the beach is not going to get any kindness on a forum with millions of beach lovers. Go somewhere else to kick sand in someone's face.
Just the most recent examples Matt J has posted out of the 24,350 posts.
3. Chats, Comments, & Message Boards
3.1 You shall not upload to, or distribute or otherwise publish on the chat rooms, comments or message boards any libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, abusive, or otherwise illegal material.
3.2 (a) Be courteous. You agree that you will not threaten or verbally abuse other Members, use defamatory language, or deliberately disrupt discussions with repetitive messages, meaningless messages or "spam."
3.2 (b) Use respectful language. Like any community, SoWal.com chats and message boards flourish only when our Members feel welcome and safe.
3.2 (c) Debate, but don't attack.
For someone who violates these more than anyone that I've read. Hides their SoWal profile (BMBV does not) and name; you do not have much credibility. Wonder if SoWal moderator would allow what you post from BMBV?
What do you mean "You'll reap what you've sown"? Who will reap what, from whom, and what have "they" sown? Sounds like a threat from you to BMBV or beachfront owners to me.
Beach Lover
Thank you for clarifying that. The title of the article, "Court finds that Walton County has proved customary use on 95 beach parcels", baffled me. It does not make any sense especially when one understands that...It's good to get a different perspective on customary use. You indicate above that "the county can steal private property rights from a citizen". Which private property rights are being stolen?
"95 parcels (out of 1,194) did not intervene or have legal representation to object to the summary judgment and "ancient" use."
Walton County did not prove anything regarding customary use. Wait a minute... I'm wrong about that. What they did prove is that the county can steal private property rights from a citizen if one does not fight back with an attorney.
Everyone can thank Florida Beaches for All (including the founders), their followers and misguided commissioners, pandering to the majority of their constituents, for all the divisiveness and a total waste of tax payer's money.
SWGB
I have randomly ended up sitting a few seats from you at the bar at the Hurricane Oyster Bar & Grill. Does that count? But I do admit that I like hiding behind my mugs of beer when in public.
Not since you have me confused with someone else. I don't patronize shady businesses that steal from their employees.
Beach Comber
It means whatever I want it to mean and that definition is none of your business."None of your business"? Whose business is it? Only BMBV? I think it is meant as a threat from you and that violates the user agreement, but the mediator enforces that I suppose. Do you think being emotional, angry, and abusive, to others with facts and reason you disagree with, make you superior? If not why do you do make abusive posts?
You're clutching your pearls too tightly, I think it's cutting off oxygen to your brain.
Same for Jane--who kicked sand in anyone's face? Odd emotional post that didn't add anything to the thread except to make her feel superior to others who she may disagree with. Read agreement 3.2 (c).
Might read the user agreement 3.2 again.
3.2 (a) Be courteous. You agree that you will not threaten or verbally abuse other Members, use defamatory language, or deliberately disrupt discussions with repetitive messages, meaningless messages or "spam."
3.2 (b) Use respectful language. Like any community, SoWal.com chats and message boards flourish only when our Members feel welcome and safe.
3.2 (c) Debate, but don't attack.
Edited
Beach Fanatic
This, from the WALTON COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER website:
Your rights and protections include:
Your rights and protections include:
- The right to acquire, possess, and protect your property.
- The right to use and enjoy your property.
- The right to exclude others from your property.
- The right to dispose of your property.
- The right to due process.
- The right to just compensation for property taken for a public purpose.
- The right to relief, or payment of compensation, when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of the state or a political entity unfairly affects your property.
SWGB
This, from the WALTON COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER website:
Your rights and protections include:
- The right to acquire, possess, and protect your property.
- The right to use and enjoy your property.
- The right to exclude others from your property.
- The right to dispose of your property.
- The right to due process.
- The right to just compensation for property taken for a public purpose.
- The right to relief, or payment of compensation, when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of the state or a political entity unfairly affects your property.
There are much more enriching hobbies.
Beach Lover
This, from the WALTON COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER website:Good reference. I missed this one....
Your rights and protections include:
- The right to acquire, possess, and protect your property.
- The right to use and enjoy your property.
- The right to exclude others from your property.
- The right to dispose of your property.
- The right to due process.
- The right to just compensation for property taken for a public purpose.
- The right to relief, or payment of compensation, when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of the state or a political entity unfairly affects your property.
HB 1159 Section 70.002 #3...The right to exclude others from your property. That should be SoWal's new motto.
This Bill was pass 1 year after HB 631.
SWGB
"None of your business"? Whose business is it? Only BMBV? I think it is meant as a threat from you and that violates the user agreement, but the mediator enforces that I suppose. Do you think being emotional, angry, and abusive, to others with facts and reason you disagree with, make you superior? If not why do you do make abusive posts?
Same for Jane--who kicked sand in anyone's face? Odd emotional post that didn't add anything to the thread except to make her feel superior to others who she may disagree with. Read agreement 3.2 (c).
Might read the user agreement 3.2 again.
3.2 (a) Be courteous. You agree that you will not threaten or verbally abuse other Members, use defamatory language, or deliberately disrupt discussions with repetitive messages, meaningless messages or "spam."
3.2 (b) Use respectful language. Like any community, SoWal.com chats and message boards flourish only when our Members feel welcome and safe.
3.2 (c) Debate, but don't attack.
Loosen your pearls, you're gonna have a stroke.
Beach Lover
It's good to get a different perspective on customary use. You indicate above that "the county can steal private property rights from a citizen". Which private property rights are being stolen?I'll take a stab regarding the property rights issue. I read this as the beach front owners who did not intervene, with or without representation in the CU issue, are now faced with the county "claiming" these respective owners' property as open to public use. I could be wrong on this. But if that is the case, these owners still have the liability (and tax responsibility) for their property, even with "uninvited guests" strolling the grounds.
This is something I spoke to Sara Comander about at the beginning of CU issue. And to give her credit, she told me this was a concern and issue for the county.
I guess one could say that "acquiring" the usage of ones property without permission, is the same as the theft of private property rights. Not too far from the old "government land grab".
Beach Lover
I'll take a stab regarding the property rights issue. I read this as the beach front owners who did not intervene, with or without representation in the CU issue, are now faced with the county "claiming" these respective owners' property as open to public use. I could be wrong on this. But if that is the case, these owners still have the liability (and tax responsibility) for their property, even with "uninvited guests" strolling the grounds.
This is something I spoke to Sara Comander about at the beginning of CU issue. And to give her credit, she told me this was a concern and issue for the county.
I guess one could say that "acquiring" the usage of ones property without permission, is the same as the theft of private property rights. Not too far from the old "government land grab".
Yep. I totally get that...."usage of property without permission". Most people would be opposed to that. But frankly I feel there should be a basic understanding that when you buy property on the beach, people are going to be on it. I suspect most people would still buy beachfront property even if they knew in advance that the beach in front of their house was public. It seems the benefits would still far outweigh the inconveniences. But I guess not.
Beach Fanatic
Some property owners may not have intervened in the lawsuit because they are fine with the public using the beach recreationally as has happened for many years.
Beach Fanatic
Some of us just want to be able to do what we've done forever. Bring a chair and umbrella down and read a book for a few hours. Go fishing. Go down for a swim. Watch a sunset. Go for a walk. I won't be changing my behavior.
SoWal Insider
"There is probably no custom more universal, more natural or more ancient, on the sea-coasts, not only of the United States, but of the world, than that of bathing in the salt waters of the ocean and the enjoyment of the wholesome recreation incident thereto. The lure of the ocean is universal; to battle with its refreshing breakers a delight. Many are they who have felt the lifegiving touch of its healing waters and its clear dustfree air. Appearing constantly to change, it remains ever essentially the same.”
March 25, 1974
City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc., 294 So.2d 73 (1974)
March 25, 1974
City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc., 294 So.2d 73 (1974)
SWGB
Let's see how the next few summers go. My predictions:
Lower heads in beds, people have choices and if getting to the beach is going to be a hassle they'll go elsewhere.
The listings are already coming online for houses that don't confirm to the new rental regulations so lots of empty mega homes.
Eventually it will spill over into everything else and the complaints will start that things are closing.
Lower heads in beds, people have choices and if getting to the beach is going to be a hassle they'll go elsewhere.
The listings are already coming online for houses that don't confirm to the new rental regulations so lots of empty mega homes.
Eventually it will spill over into everything else and the complaints will start that things are closing.
Beach Comber
If CU supporters would just read and understand what they post about and not just react with emotion it would be clearer why Walton dismissed almost 1,100 of 1,194 private beachfront properties. Sorry for the length but lots of context.
Context. City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc., 294 So.2d 73 (1974).
Tona-Rama, Inc. (beach amusement park owner too) was the plaintiff and petitioner. McMillan and Wright, Inc. (Space Needle beach amusement) was the defendant. The lower trial and appeal courts ruled for T-R had shown a prescriptive easement (not customary use of private property) on the McM beach space needle and had to remove the competing amusement ride.
The Florida Supreme Court (FSC) ruled AGAINST Tona-Roma prescriptive easement complaint (not a customary use case) against (for) McMillan & Wright. FSC injected on its own comment, suggestion, and observation (in an opinion that is not necessary to resolve the case, and as such, it is not legally binding on other courts).
The FSC T-R sited 1939 White v Hughes. First, White was struck by driver Hughes - “Atlantic Ocean between the high and low water marks”. On PUBLIC foreshore, between the State owned high and low water marks (wet sand), property - NOT private property. Second, FSC restated “The [lower] trial court instructed the jury that the public in using the beach for the purpose of bathing and recreation had "rights at least equal" to the rights of motorists on that part of the beach. This [lower trial court previous] instruction was held to be [in] error, the [lower] Court saying: There is probably no custom more universal ...” FSC stated this lower instruction about public right and vehicle rights on a beach “highway” were in error. Because FSC states the public have a superior right to vehicles on the State's beach highway; not use of private property. CONTEXT is key.
“The Sovereign state may in the interest of the general welfare authorize the beach or shore to be appropriately used as a public highway. And most of our Florida beaches, when the tide is out, afford marvelously perfect highways, ...”
White v Hughes. “For the above reasons we hold that the right of the public to use the beach for bathing and recreational purposes is superior to that of the motorists driving automobiles thereon." 190 So. 446, pp. 448-450.” Nothing about public customary use of private property.
After FSC rejects T-R prescriptive easement FSC recites Tiffany Real Property, (Third Edition), Vol. 3, § 935. Then states with no FL legal precedence (remember FSC is to interpret law, not make it) “If the recreational use of the sandy area adjacent to mean high tide has been [1] ancient, [2] reasonable, [3] without interruption and [4] free from dispute, such use, as a matter of custom, should not be interfered with by the owner.”
1912 Tiffany; The custom, to be valid, "must have continued from [1] time immemorial (not “ancient” which FSC did not define), [2] without interruption, and as of right; [3] it must be certain as to the place, and [4] as to the persons; and it [5] must be certain and [6] reasonable as to the subject matter or rights created.” That's 6 criteria, not 4.
FSC also discussed “rights of a partowner of a land-locked nonnavigable lake” too. Dicta, not law.
T-R vote was 2 Concurs, 2 Dissents, 1 Concurs in part and dissents in part; entering final judgment for defendant (McMillan) against T-R prescriptive easement. Not a resounding ruling for customary use of private property but did not reject CU out right leaving us with the legal mess we have today.
Context. City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc., 294 So.2d 73 (1974).
Tona-Rama, Inc. (beach amusement park owner too) was the plaintiff and petitioner. McMillan and Wright, Inc. (Space Needle beach amusement) was the defendant. The lower trial and appeal courts ruled for T-R had shown a prescriptive easement (not customary use of private property) on the McM beach space needle and had to remove the competing amusement ride.
The Florida Supreme Court (FSC) ruled AGAINST Tona-Roma prescriptive easement complaint (not a customary use case) against (for) McMillan & Wright. FSC injected on its own comment, suggestion, and observation (in an opinion that is not necessary to resolve the case, and as such, it is not legally binding on other courts).
The FSC T-R sited 1939 White v Hughes. First, White was struck by driver Hughes - “Atlantic Ocean between the high and low water marks”. On PUBLIC foreshore, between the State owned high and low water marks (wet sand), property - NOT private property. Second, FSC restated “The [lower] trial court instructed the jury that the public in using the beach for the purpose of bathing and recreation had "rights at least equal" to the rights of motorists on that part of the beach. This [lower trial court previous] instruction was held to be [in] error, the [lower] Court saying: There is probably no custom more universal ...” FSC stated this lower instruction about public right and vehicle rights on a beach “highway” were in error. Because FSC states the public have a superior right to vehicles on the State's beach highway; not use of private property. CONTEXT is key.
“The Sovereign state may in the interest of the general welfare authorize the beach or shore to be appropriately used as a public highway. And most of our Florida beaches, when the tide is out, afford marvelously perfect highways, ...”
White v Hughes. “For the above reasons we hold that the right of the public to use the beach for bathing and recreational purposes is superior to that of the motorists driving automobiles thereon." 190 So. 446, pp. 448-450.” Nothing about public customary use of private property.
After FSC rejects T-R prescriptive easement FSC recites Tiffany Real Property, (Third Edition), Vol. 3, § 935. Then states with no FL legal precedence (remember FSC is to interpret law, not make it) “If the recreational use of the sandy area adjacent to mean high tide has been [1] ancient, [2] reasonable, [3] without interruption and [4] free from dispute, such use, as a matter of custom, should not be interfered with by the owner.”
1912 Tiffany; The custom, to be valid, "must have continued from [1] time immemorial (not “ancient” which FSC did not define), [2] without interruption, and as of right; [3] it must be certain as to the place, and [4] as to the persons; and it [5] must be certain and [6] reasonable as to the subject matter or rights created.” That's 6 criteria, not 4.
FSC also discussed “rights of a partowner of a land-locked nonnavigable lake” too. Dicta, not law.
T-R vote was 2 Concurs, 2 Dissents, 1 Concurs in part and dissents in part; entering final judgment for defendant (McMillan) against T-R prescriptive easement. Not a resounding ruling for customary use of private property but did not reject CU out right leaving us with the legal mess we have today.
Edited
Beach Fanatic
Some property owners may not have intervened in the lawsuit because they are fine with the public using the beach recreationally as has happened for many years.Since you posted the news article titled "Court finds that Walton County has proved customary use on 95 beach parcels", I'll respond to your comment above as I assume you believe the county proved customary use on 95 properties even though those 95 parcels did not intervene. My contention is that the county DID NOT PROVE ANYTHING regarding customary use and the county prevailed only by default. That is my point.
So if one does not intervene, then it's ok for the government to confiscate your private property rights? You're making a BIG ASSUMPTION why some owners (max of 95 out of 1194 parcels) did not intervene... that they are ok with the public using their property.
Here are a few explanations of those who elected not to intervene:
1. Their parcel is located far enough away from a public access that the public cannot conveniently access it anyway. Why spend legal fees on something that in the end won't really change beach usage density on their property?
2. Some people have been owners of beach front property for many, many years. They got in "on the cheap" and don't necessarily have the funds to hire an attorney. On the other hand, you may have a relatively new beach front owner who is financially stretched with increasing insurance rates, taxes, etc. Or you may have an owner who knew they were going to sell and decided not to intervene since the results would not benefit them.
3. With all the somewhat effective hype that customary use has existed since "time immemorial", there were probably some who felt that they would lose the case and decided not to spend the money to fight what they perceived was a losing battle.
4. I'm confident that were some who were misguided as to if the county was to lose the customary use case, that they would somehow benefit without having to hire an attorney.
Fighting the county cost a lot of people a lot of money just to defend their private property rights. It cost us over $50,000 to defend our parcel.
So when you said, "Some property owners may not have intervened in the lawsuit because they are fine with the public using the beach recreationally as has happened for many years", you might be right for a very small few. But the other explanations are more likely.
Beach Comber
There are at least 4 of the 95 that claim that they receive title after December 2018 when the litigation was filed. Walton notified 2018 owners when litigation was filed. Walton never notified individual title holders (but could have-PA knows) after 2018 that their property was part of the Walton litigation. Post 2018 owners did not know about Walton’s litigation and summary judgment until after the order and notified of the summary judgement (SJ) and have made motions to void their property from the CU summary judgment because they were not afforded due process. Motions are, Walton named their parcels in the litigation but not the current title holder (after 2018) to defend their rights. A property "parcel" can not be a defendant in litigation. Walton has to notify an owner of the property to enable a due process legal defense, if they choose. No doubt that happened for all 95 since Walton ONLY named parcels in 2018 litigation; did not notify title holders after 2018. Wonder how many more "non-interveners" just don't know about the summary judgement and will make motions to void SJ? Will be interesting how judge rules on these motions and how that affects other 91 properties.
Beach Fanatic
Welcome to the thread with Buzzards descending on a beloved family member's funeral.
True colors flying.
True colors flying.
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.