Private Beaches in South Walton - Customary Use Updates & SB1622

[Oldmanbeacher]

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.

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).

I think it's creepy talking about someone online instead of talking to them.

 

[mputnal]

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.

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).

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...

 

[SUP View]

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.

 

[Jenksy]

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.

Dumb straw man attempt. Local development is greedy but can't distract from greed from Beach tyrants.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

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.

 

[Jane]

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.

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.

 

[mputnal]

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.

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...

 

[SUP View]

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.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

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!

 

[bob bob]

That about does it.

View attachment 109122

Where's the beach? Critically eroded?