Beachfront Owners Sue Sheriff and County for Closing Beaches

Are you suing the county ..........

I'm thinking very seriously about suing the county, as every affected private property owner should, assuming the county doesn't appeal the last decision. If the county isn't punished for their wrongdoing, they'll just do it again. It kind of sounds like raising a kid, doesn't it?

@mputnal, you just can't figure out who the real "enemy" is when it comes to constitutional rights (namely private property rights) . So far, TWO MAJOR decisions have gone against the county and you are STILL in complete denial. To you, it's OK if the county were take away private beach property from the rightful owners without compensation but if they were to come after your property, I'm certain you'd be screaming private property rights as well, as you should.

If you follow Facebook, you'll find a VERY CREDIBLE beach front owner who came to the very same conclusion as I did regarding suing the county for the loss of use of one's private property during Covid. And we did so independently of each other. It's a pretty obvious deduction. I'm certain all of that means nothing to you but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway for the intellectually honest reader.

I'm thinking very seriously about suing the county, as every affected private property owner should, assuming the county doesn't appeal the last decision. If the county isn't punished for their wrongdoing, they'll just do it again. It kind of sounds like raising a kid, doesn't it?

@mputnal, you just can't figure out who the real "enemy" is when it comes to constitutional rights (namely private property rights) . So far, TWO MAJOR decisions have gone against the county and you are STILL in complete denial. To you, it's OK if the county were take away private beach property from the rightful owners without compensation but if they were to come after your property, I'm certain you'd be screaming private property rights as well, as you should.

If you follow Facebook, you'll find a VERY CREDIBLE beach front owner who came to the very same conclusion as I did regarding suing the county for the loss of use of one's private property during Covid. And we did so independently of each other. It's a pretty obvious deduction. I'm certain all of that means nothing to you but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway for the intellectually honest reader.

First and foremost...there is NO "enemy". It is your emotional human nature at the center of you against the world but in this case your own county, your neighbors and people (beachgoers) who you can't help but hate because you believe they want something for nothing. Nobody including the county is trying to take anything away from you. All that is being ask of you is to "SHARE" the beach with people who behave respectfully. You are the one who is in denial and I do not understand why. I believe in our constitution and property rights just as you but you are fighting something that does not exist. Again there is NO "enemy" except what your emotion is creating out of fear I assume. So I ask, What is it that you really fear? I understand property tax is expensive, maintaining a home is expensive and insurance is outrageous but those are things we ALL have to deal with. We should be asking our political representatives to do something but instead you fight an enemy that does not exist! Do you really believe your life is so unfair?

Suing anyone to punish them for their "wrongdoing" is ridiculous. It just means that you have let your emotions get control of you. Try not being so judgemental. Trust me I know this is hard but this miracle life on a miracle planet is very short...

First and foremost...there is NO "enemy". It is your emotional human nature at the center of you against the world but in this case your own county, your neighbors and people (beachgoers) who you can't help but hate because you believe they want something for nothing. Nobody including the county is trying to take anything away from you. All that is being ask of you is to "SHARE" the beach with people who behave respectfully. You are the one who is in denial and I do not understand why. I believe in our constitution and property rights just as you but you are fighting something that does not exist. Again there is NO "enemy" except what your emotion is creating out of fear I assume. So I ask, What is it that you really fear? I understand property tax is expensive, maintaining a home is expensive and insurance is outrageous but those are things we ALL have to deal with. We should be asking our political representatives to do something but instead you fight an enemy that does not exist! Do you really believe your life is so unfair?

Suing anyone to punish them for their "wrongdoing" is ridiculous. It just means that you have let your emotions get control of you. Try not being so judgemental. Trust me I know this is hard but this miracle life on a miracle planet is very short...

The definition of greed.

The definition of greed.

When Jesus said "welcome the stranger" he must have heard "build a wall" Or maybe what Jesus said has gotten lost in translation to an entire group of people who also translate the constitution and bill of rights the same way.

Suing anyone to punish them for their "wrongdoing" is ridiculous.

And there you have it.

And there you have it.

You do understand that most people do not have the means to "sue" every time they think they are wronged and yes unfairness exists for all of us including you. So right off the bat you are using a privilege that most people (families that want to enjoy the beach) do not have access to. The county represents the people so in essence you are suing families that just want to respectfully enjoy the beaches. The question you will have to prove is "how" have you been wronged. Mostly I hear you say it is about property tax and constitutional rights. If that is a correct assumption there are other means of resolving the issue rather than sue baby sue. One such option is for you to call the property appraiser and ask for a reassessment and/or file an appeal. I do not believe you have lost your constitutional right to use the property. Exclusive use of this natural resource is coming from a false since of privilege which is all emotion. My point is if you use reason instead of emotion it is a better process and the community is better for it. And there you have it...

I do not believe you have lost your constitutional right to use the property.

Uhhh, yeah.... One loses EXCLUSIVE USE and QUIET ENJOYMENT. Why don't you just give up and call it a day? Or you could take a possibly defensible stand and state that private property rights (EXCLUSIVE USE and QUIET ENJOYMENT) should just be thrown out the window because of the "good" in people and therefore the beaches should be open to all.

From Google AI:
Core Property Owner Rights
Within these constitutional frameworks, property owners generally have the following rights, though they are subject to government police powers (e.g., zoning, public health and safety regulations):

• Right to Possession and Exclusive Use: The ability to occupy, control access to, and use one's property for lawful purposes.
• Right to Quiet Enjoyment: Protection from unreasonable interference from neighbors or external factors that significantly diminish the ability to enjoy the property.
• Right to Dispose of Property: The freedom to sell, lease, mortgage, or transfer property to others.
• Right to Improve Property: The ability to make improvements within the bounds of local building codes and permits.

Uhhh, yeah.... One loses EXCLUSIVE USE and QUIET ENJOYMENT. Why don't you just give up and call it a day? Or you could take a possibly defensible stand and state that private property rights (EXCLUSIVE USE and QUIET ENJOYMENT) should just be thrown out the window because of the "good" in people and therefore the beaches should be open to all.

From Google AI:
Core Property Owner Rights
Within these constitutional frameworks, property owners generally have the following rights, though they are subject to government police powers (e.g., zoning, public health and safety regulations):

• Right to Possession and Exclusive Use: The ability to occupy, control access to, and use one's property for lawful purposes.
• Right to Quiet Enjoyment: Protection from unreasonable interference from neighbors or external factors that significantly diminish the ability to enjoy the property.
• Right to Dispose of Property: The freedom to sell, lease, mortgage, or transfer property to others.
• Right to Improve Property: The ability to make improvements within the bounds of local building codes and permits.

Uhhh, NO...You do NOT have a constitutional right to "possess" or have "exclusive use" of the coastline. You can deny this as long as you are alive and feel cheated and unhappy and angry or you can accept that it is just an illusion that any of us have complete control over our properties. The only way for mankind to enjoy this life is to learn how to share our existence with each other. When you fight this hard against the doctrines of public trust (beach access) and moral behavior (treat others like you want to be treated) you will never be satisfied and probably angry. Is it worth it...

Privaye beaches are a tragedy for south walton and anywhere else. Property rights that allow anyone to own a natural resource is a mistake and needs to be corrected.

Privaye beaches are a tragedy for south walton and anywhere else. Property rights that allow anyone to own a natural resource is a mistake and needs to be corrected.

I fully agree with you. If we do protect our access to natural resources eventually we will lose them to elite wealth and power. It is easily proven that elite wealth wants nothing to do with the golden rules of life and everything to do with exclusive enjoyment of every natural resource they can acquire. In this forum you can find the truth of elite wealth and power from the words of Mike Huckabee who believes that God bestows such exclusive use on the chosen. In our American History, Manifest Destiny in another example of how wealth, power and religion justified the inhumane treatment of Native Americans and the lands they occupied. The Walton County private beach owner who used a power drill to bully and intimidate another human being for enjoying the beach is just another recent example. Humans believe what they want to believe and are very good at justifying poor behavior. The mistake is in our belief of self importance and the hope is in our ability to correct or at least recognize it to be a flaw of human character. We are all flawed but only some of us are aware...

This would never have happened under Lawton Chiles.

This would never have happened under Lawton Chiles.

Or if we had elected Charlie Crist and Gwen Graham. I do believe both parties will eventually understand that we the people will not stand for loss of access to our natural resources like our beautiful beaches. Unfortunately at this moment in time those in power are extremely self serving!

The Walton County private beach owner who used a power drill to bully and intimidate another human being for enjoying the beach is just another recent example.

What a wimpy weapon... at least use a chainsaw.

What a wimpy weapon... at least use a chainsaw.

That is exactly the response that I expected. Anger and hate is your choice. You do not get to blame this on people enjoying the beach...

That is exactly the response that I expected.

Only if you had a sense of humor.

Only if you had a sense of humor.

Fail.

Taxpayers still paying for operation Stop The Sniffles. Wonder how much money the County ends up having to cough up for this.

Only if you had a sense of humor.

Oh, I have not noticed your humor before. Do you think the respectful people trying to enjoy the beach thought the power drill incident was funny?

There is a time and place for humor. This ain't one of those times or places because you and people who support your position have made it so. Threatening litigation is not humor. Threatening people with a power tool is not humor. Complaining ad nauseum is not humor. Misjudging people who just want to respectfully enjoy the beaches is not humor.

If you want humor I have found Jimmy Kimmel, John Fogelsang, Jon Stewart, SNL, David Letterman, etc. to be both hilarious and truthful. John Fogelsang has written a book that is humorous called The Separation of Church and Hate. Let me know if you get a laugh after watching or reading their work!

Walton County is asking a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling, which could force the county to compensate beachfront property owners for losing access to their beach property.

County officials requested the rehearing last week, before the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They are challenging a three-judge panel’s late November decision to side with property owners.

Those owners claim commissioners violated their constitutional rights, essentially taking their property when they closed all beaches to prevent the spread of COVID-19, for 28 days, from April 2nd to April 30th, 2020.

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle originally sided with Walton County, saying the ordinance was a use restriction and did not constitute a taking of property.

Owners appealed to the three-judge panel, who ruled for them, and told the district judge to determine how much compensation they should receive from the county.

That’s on hold until the appeals court rules on this latest motion. Depending on the decision, this case could wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Walton County is asking a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling, which could force the county to compensate beachfront property owners for losing access to their beach property.

County officials requested the rehearing last week, before the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They are challenging a three-judge panel’s late November decision to side with property owners.

Those owners claim commissioners violated their constitutional rights, essentially taking their property when they closed all beaches to prevent the spread of COVID-19, for 28 days, from April 2nd to April 30th, 2020.

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle originally sided with Walton County, saying the ordinance was a use restriction and did not constitute a taking of property.

Owners appealed to the three-judge panel, who ruled for them, and told the district judge to determine how much compensation they should receive from the county.

That’s on hold until the appeals court rules on this latest motion. Depending on the decision, this case could wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Wealth and power is never satisfied. My grandmother use to say that if you give a child an inch they will take a mile. Well it is the same for the rich and powerful except they will take it all...

After reading the decision in its entirety, I don't think it will be overturned even at the Federal Supreme Court. Much is based on their past decisions.

The question now is can the rest of the beach property owners file for a takings settlement once all this has played out.

After reading the decision in its entirety, I don't think it will be overturned even at the Federal Supreme Court. Much is based on their past decisions.

The question now is can the rest of the beach property owners file for a takings settlement once all this has played out.

I believe the federal appeals court will overturn but even if they don't it will not stop the few beachfront owners that will never be satisfied with sharing the beach with respectful families and people. Compensation is probably not the reason for those who filed the lawsuit. It is primarily an exclusive use issue with wealth.

Compensation is probably not the reason for those who filed the lawsuit. It is primarily an exclusive use issue with wealth.

First sentence is correct, IMHO. The very first suit was filed very quickly after the county locked down private beaches. I don't think the original beach front private property owners were looking for a payout. They simply did not want to be illegally excluded from their own private property during Covid - the same as every other residential private property owner in the county.

Second statement regarding "wealth" is more of the same simple minded, class warfare crap that has absolutely no bearing on the subject.

For me (and I absolutely believe most of those involved in the lawsuit), it's about countering the overreach of the county government who pander to constituents instead of the Constitution. "Well we can't go to the (public) beach. Why should private beach front owners be allowed on the (their) beach?"
And the BCC unlawfully agreed. And this had absolutely nothing to do with Covid risk.

One "should", as any private property owner, be in full support of opposing any illegal action by the Walton County Board of County Commissioners. Listen, the BCCs through the years have had a less than stellar reputation on many fronts due to ineptitude, arrogance and probably some corruption. This truly is hard, actually impossible, to dispute. Just ask Alan Osborne and Suzanne Harris for starters.

Let's rewind the clock and go back to Customary Use. The original Customary Use statute (a taking) was passed October 2016 (effective April 1, 2017), again, WITHOUT ANY JUDICIAL DUE PROCESS as required by state and federal law. In essence, the beach front owners lost the right to exclude anyone from their private property for a considerable period of time. IF you read the recent judicial decision in this thread's discussion, this is the big the reason that the property owners recently prevailed when their private property was shutdown during Covid - they were not compensated for the taking. The county and property owner are supposed to agree to compensation BEFORE the taking occurs. Nothing to argue here.

So what does all this have to do with the recent customary use debacle?

Remember when I (and others) asked why Walton County caved in regarding CU litigation just before it went to trial? The county knew that if they continued the legal battle, that they could be on the hook for SIGNIFICANT compensation regardless of the CU outcome for the year long private property takings (when they first passed CU) with no judicial process as required for CU to begin with.

In other words, the county illegally "took" private property rights that they were not entitled to (once more, no judicial process). And this was going to cost them dearly regardless of how CU turned out.

Now add in the fact that the county's CU case was falling apart. Remember when the county paid over $500,000 to the history expert who brought up all kind of "facts" regarding the Indians and others who historically used the beach (ancient use - one of the major cornerstones of CU) at the advice of the county's CU attorney? Most now know that when the United States government owned all the land, not that long ago, that any use before that cannot be considered as "ancient". This, among other things, weakened the county's case., IMO.

The county then made a calculated move as I see it. Rather than the possibility (probability) of losing the customary use case AND the illegal takings counter suits, the county decided (rightly so, IMO) to settle the CU case with prejudice in EXCHANGE for the property owners dropping the takings counter suits that was probably going to cost the county a lot of money, regardless of the CU outcome.


Here's the kicker!

If the constituents were not so gung ho in pressuring the county to passing the ILLEGAL customary use bill in 2016 without judicial process (I can name lots of names and a particular organization), then there would not have been any counter suits for illegal takings. In other words, the customary use law suit would probably have seen the legal light of day - maybe in favor, maybe not, because the county would have had little to lose at that point since they would not be staring at takings lawsuits from over 1100 parcels. The public would have had a shot at customary use since all the legal legwork had been expended up to that point. It was practically ready for trial.

But the county's lawsuit did not get heard by a judge because the county ROYALLY F_CKED UP due to the illegal takings pressured by totally misguided constituents (idiots). They could not afford to lose BOTH cases in court so the county just gave up in exchange for the property owners dismissing their countersuits. The county had an incompetent staff attorney providing BAD advice in the beginning of CU. And, of course, the county hired firms who simply made a lot of money regardless, all at our expense.

So there's your reason why the group of property owners filed their lawsuit against the county - classic and continued overreach, plain and simple. Hopefully the county will be more deliberate in their legal dealings down the road.

First sentence is correct, IMHO. The very first suit was filed very quickly after the county locked down private beaches. I don't think the original beach front private property owners were looking for a payout. They simply did not want to be illegally excluded from their own private property during Covid - the same as every other residential private property owner in the county.

Second statement regarding "wealth" is more of the same simple minded, class warfare crap that has absolutely no bearing on the subject.

For me (and I absolutely believe most of those involved in the lawsuit), it's about countering the overreach of the county government who pander to constituents instead of the Constitution. "Well we can't go to the (public) beach. Why should private beach front owners be allowed on the (their) beach?"
And the BCC unlawfully agreed. And this had absolutely nothing to do with Covid risk.

One "should", as any private property owner, be in full support of opposing any illegal action by the Walton County Board of County Commissioners. Listen, the BCCs through the years have had a less than stellar reputation on many fronts due to ineptitude, arrogance and probably some corruption. This truly is hard, actually impossible, to dispute. Just ask Alan Osborne and Suzanne Harris for starters.

Let's rewind the clock and go back to Customary Use. The original Customary Use statute (a taking) was passed October 2016 (effective April 1, 2017), again, WITHOUT ANY JUDICIAL DUE PROCESS as required by state and federal law. In essence, the beach front owners lost the right to exclude anyone from their private property for a considerable period of time. IF you read the recent judicial decision in this thread's discussion, this is the big the reason that the property owners recently prevailed when their private property was shutdown during Covid - they were not compensated for the taking. The county and property owner are supposed to agree to compensation BEFORE the taking occurs. Nothing to argue here.

So what does all this have to do with the recent customary use debacle?

Remember when I (and others) asked why Walton County caved in regarding CU litigation just before it went to trial? The county knew that if they continued the legal battle, that they could be on the hook for SIGNIFICANT compensation regardless of the CU outcome for the year long private property takings (when they first passed CU) with no judicial process as required for CU to begin with.

In other words, the county illegally "took" private property rights that they were not entitled to (once more, no judicial process). And this was going to cost them dearly regardless of how CU turned out.

Now add in the fact that the county's CU case was falling apart. Remember when the county paid over $500,000 to the history expert who brought up all kind of "facts" regarding the Indians and others who historically used the beach (ancient use - one of the major cornerstones of CU) at the advice of the county's CU attorney? Most now know that when the United States government owned all the land, not that long ago, that any use before that cannot be considered as "ancient". This, among other things, weakened the county's case., IMO.

The county then made a calculated move as I see it. Rather than the possibility (probability) of losing the customary use case AND the illegal takings counter suits, the county decided (rightly so, IMO) to settle the CU case with prejudice in EXCHANGE for the property owners dropping the takings counter suits that was probably going to cost the county a lot of money, regardless of the CU outcome.


Here's the kicker!

If the constituents were not so gung ho in pressuring the county to passing the ILLEGAL customary use bill in 2016 without judicial process (I can name lots of names and a particular organization), then there would not have been any counter suits for illegal takings. In other words, the customary use law suit would probably have seen the legal light of day - maybe in favor, maybe not, because the county would have had little to lose at that point since they would not be staring at takings lawsuits from over 1100 parcels. The public would have had a shot at customary use since all the legal legwork had been expended up to that point. It was practically ready for trial.

But the county's lawsuit did not get heard by a judge because the county ROYALLY F_CKED UP due to the illegal takings pressured by totally misguided constituents (idiots). They could not afford to lose BOTH cases in court so the county just gave up in exchange for the property owners dismissing their countersuits. The county had an incompetent staff attorney providing BAD advice in the beginning of CU. And, of course, the county hired firms who simply made a lot of money regardless, all at our expense.

So there's your reason why the group of property owners filed their lawsuit against the county - classic and continued overreach, plain and simple. Hopefully the county will be more deliberate in their legal dealings down the road.

I do not see your argument from a legal standpoint. There was no "taking" therefore there should be no compensation. That said if I were the Judge I might ask both parties to find common ground. That would be best for you and me and a dog named flea. Your need to punish people (community, government) for the illusion of a perceived threat to your rights will never be justified by anyone but you. You enjoy a privilege without merit and you will never understand this from a human value or economic value point of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I should not have to explain what this means so I will let you figure this out or just live your life as a victim of nothing. You and others that think like you will cry, complain, sue, holler, hate and never be happy. You have a psychological need that likely will never be satisfied. One year ago I believed that we WOULD find common ground just based on my belief in the good elements of human nature. Over this past year I have finally realized the power of money and power and it's psychotic effect on human nature. Whether you believe this is simple minded class warfare or not you know I speak the Truth. I still hope you will come to realize that our short time on this ball of wonder is way more important than your need or my need to be right about anything...except treat others like we want to be treated. It is that plain and simple...

I do not see your argument from a legal standpoint.

Of course not. And you never will because you're in ABSOLUTE denial.

There was no "taking" therefore there should be no compensation.

Obviously you didn't read the judicial decision from THREE judges. You see only what you want to see and then try to convince others that your vision is the only one with zero credible support.