Eastern Lake Outfall Parcel Purchase
- Thread starter Everytime
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Can you explain WHY you think public custom in Walton is ancient (how long is ancient?), reasonable (what is reasonable?), how it is without interruption, or free from dispute. I understand your opinion but what do you based your opinion on? To just say it applies is not enough. What is the historical application of these criteria?
In the Trepanier/Daytona case you quoted, the property owners prevailed and there was no valid custom confirmed on their Daytona property. Correct?
Property owners have come to the table. Mike Huckabee, yes that Mike Huckabee, proposed Beach Share to the commissioners. Got NO response from the commissioners, that I know of, and push back in the public forum in the papers from property right opponents. Dave R had his emotional cry for "This sand is your sand, this sand is my sand". Except even if owners should not prevail, by law, owners still own the sand. So Dave R should look for another slogan.
EDITORIAL: ‘Beach Share’ worth reviewing in South Walton
What have commissioners, you, and other outspoken opponents of property rights offered but to have owners give away rights for a "tax" break" (of little worth relative to the right's value to the owner) or defend against legislation/litigation to take property rights they have today? That's more like commissioner extortion with tax payer's money and commissioners may get nothing in return of the tax payers millions (and may have to pay the owners legal fees too).
Churchill said something like; When we have run out of money (or options to throw money at, if custom fails); Now we have to think (to find solutions)! Except property owners will be in a much stronger position if they prevail.
If you are willing to bet on the deed discrepancies why don't you file suite or commissioners litigate to clear the deeds first? That's would be clear cut compared to claiming custom. You'd be a public hero to prevail with that.
Last edited:
Walton can do that now on the free market and commissioners have recently in Dune Allen. Commissioners have many offers. Make an offer.
Until then please respect the owner property rights that they have had and have today. And the Sheriff should enforce those owner's rights, the same rights that you have for your property, or he his derelict in his duty.
Plus Walton has over 6+ miles of beachfront, 38 acres of dry sand, and 5,800+ acres of parks (you have to pay to use). How much more do you think commissioners need?
Last edited:
Apologies. What I meant to say: has there been any compromise extended where the county has offered to rent portions of private property not currently for sale? Has there been a compromise extended where the county offered to buy portions of private beach property not on the market?
I believe that the sheriff has been derelict in his duties by that ridiculous SOP.
Oh! And Lucas, I have an answer as to why there is no promotion to the many unused miles of beachfront public parks with all their amenities. "No alcohol allowed" was the answer when I asked this question, in a meeting earlier in the summer, to Cindy Meadows, county attorney, representative of the sheriff's department, and a couple others. Apparently, they pander to trespassers, people that won't go 8 hours without a cocktail, and the ones not smart enough to put their hooch in a Coppertone bottle.
I believe that the sheriff has been derelict in his duties by that ridiculous SOP.
Oh! And Lucas, I have an answer as to why there is no promotion to the many unused miles of beachfront public parks with all their amenities. "No alcohol allowed" was the answer when I asked this question, in a meeting earlier in the summer, to Cindy Meadows, county attorney, representative of the sheriff's department, and a couple others. Apparently, they pander to trespassers, people that won't go 8 hours without a cocktail, and the ones not smart enough to put their hooch in a Coppertone bottle.
Lucas Reynolds:
1. I was a Deputy Sheriff in the late 80's and early 90's when the dog hunting issues were hot and heavy here. The trespass law changed to cover dogs and made the owners responsible. I guess you will just have to take my word because I am not writing a book report or a legal treatise to prove a point in an internet discussion. There's no money in it.
2. I am strongly in favor of property rights. My position is that the citizens of the county have rights to the white sand portion of the beach south of the toe of the dunes though decades of use by citizens. There is no infringement of the rights of the owners since this is the status quo. I.E. Customary Use. I understand that you do not agree and that is fine. But neither you nor I will be the arbiter of this issue, the courts will decide. But I am not writing a legal brief on the subject here.
3. The BCC has a duty to defend the rights of 10's of thousands of citizens and visitors who have used the beaches for recreational purposes for many years. Anything worth having is worth defending.
4. It is my opinion that the economy of the county will be adversely effected should significant portions of the beach are closed to the public. I understand that you disagree, but each of us have a right to our opinions. Again, I am not going to write a report on the subject because there is nothing to be gained by it. As Bob Wells has pointed out, no one's opinion will change.
5. I absolutely think there is a better way than lawsuits to handle this. Granting recreation easements on the white sand portion of the beach in exchange for tax breaks seems like a much cheaper method for both sides. The public get access to the beaches and the owners do not abdicate any rights they perceive to have. I have also advocated purchasing as much beachfront as possible and building accesses and infrastructure. But the opposition of the beachfront property owners to these purchases and improvements make it seem as though it is not property rights that they desire but the privatization of the beach and keeping the common people out. I would rather spend tax dollars on purchasing beachfront and improving it instead of paying lawyer fees, but if every purchase faces litigation and obstruction, then it would be more efficient to sue for total access and forget purchasing anything.
1. I was a Deputy Sheriff in the late 80's and early 90's when the dog hunting issues were hot and heavy here. The trespass law changed to cover dogs and made the owners responsible. I guess you will just have to take my word because I am not writing a book report or a legal treatise to prove a point in an internet discussion. There's no money in it.
2. I am strongly in favor of property rights. My position is that the citizens of the county have rights to the white sand portion of the beach south of the toe of the dunes though decades of use by citizens. There is no infringement of the rights of the owners since this is the status quo. I.E. Customary Use. I understand that you do not agree and that is fine. But neither you nor I will be the arbiter of this issue, the courts will decide. But I am not writing a legal brief on the subject here.
3. The BCC has a duty to defend the rights of 10's of thousands of citizens and visitors who have used the beaches for recreational purposes for many years. Anything worth having is worth defending.
4. It is my opinion that the economy of the county will be adversely effected should significant portions of the beach are closed to the public. I understand that you disagree, but each of us have a right to our opinions. Again, I am not going to write a report on the subject because there is nothing to be gained by it. As Bob Wells has pointed out, no one's opinion will change.
5. I absolutely think there is a better way than lawsuits to handle this. Granting recreation easements on the white sand portion of the beach in exchange for tax breaks seems like a much cheaper method for both sides. The public get access to the beaches and the owners do not abdicate any rights they perceive to have. I have also advocated purchasing as much beachfront as possible and building accesses and infrastructure. But the opposition of the beachfront property owners to these purchases and improvements make it seem as though it is not property rights that they desire but the privatization of the beach and keeping the common people out. I would rather spend tax dollars on purchasing beachfront and improving it instead of paying lawyer fees, but if every purchase faces litigation and obstruction, then it would be more efficient to sue for total access and forget purchasing anything.
Not that I ever heard about. It's a free market. If there is a willing seller/lessor and willing buyer/lessee that negotiate at arms length; commissioners could buy or rent from owners willing to I suppose. Or are you inferring that commissioners should compel property owners to sell or lease their beachfront property to Walton for public use?
Agree. Sheriff Adkinson should have to reimburse property owners for surveys who complied with his SOP (for a thousand dollars) if the Sheriff is not going to enforce the law today. Deputies are great though.
Coppertone bottle!? That's funny. I understand no dogs allowed in parks either. I understand Walton can't drive their vehicles on park beaches, can't have alcohol in the park, can't have dogs in the parks, and you have to pay a fee to use the park; BUT, Walton can and does drive on private property without owners consent, private property owners have no right to prohibit alcohol or dogs on thier private property and the public use private property for free, and owners put up with the trash, sand pits, their dune destruction, foul language and drunks, with customary use.Owners are tired of the double standards. And people don't understand why owners want their property rights enforced like the parks?
Last edited:
Thanks Danny.
1. “The trespass law changed to cover dogs and made the owners responsible.” I asked it before; then why did private property owners have to litigate to stop hunter’s trespass? That's one of the points. I'm not going to take your word for anything unless you have some facts to back it up. No one else should accept your, or mine, or anyone’s opinion without knowing the facts and doing their due diligence to make an informed opinion. And you have not offered any facts to convey you understand the historic doctrine of custom or deer-dog hunter trespassing in your opinions. You are entitled to your opinion indeed as are we all. “No money in it.” That's funny, you sound more like a politician.
2. I understand you are not open to understanding the legal history and application of custom. I think you misrepresent what custom is to justify your means. But hopefully this exchange will motivate others to try and learn more and understand custom better and not continue to spread misinformation of what custom is and is not.
3. “Anything worth having is worth defending.” just not with your time and effort to defend your opinions with facts or as long as the commissioners do it with tax payers million$.
4. Your opinion about the economy would be easy to discredit in the long term. The economy is based on supply and demand. And demand has not diminish over the decades and not likely to in the long term, in my opinion. So we are even on opinions about the economy.
5. So if property owners don’t accept the easement? Then litigate to take property owner rights, that owners “perceive to have”, and that you want? Not much of a compromise.
I will continue to challenging you and Dave R. when you misrepresent the historical doctrine of custom to take Constitutional private property rights owners have today. Just have your facts ready.
Last edited:
Obviously you are not a fan of "Tombstone." "There's no money in it" is a quote from Wyatt Earp in that movie.
I can see the NW FL Daily News story now:
"WCSO to spend thousands in beach front owner reimbursement due to failed SOP."
Also, does anyone know what the TDC Ambassadors say when asked if the beach is public or private? Have they been given any direction?
I also wonder what they do when they see violations (glass, pets, etc.)?
Are they trained to call WCSO or Code (non) Enforcement or just look away?
Why wait till September to put them out on beaches too?
"WCSO to spend thousands in beach front owner reimbursement due to failed SOP."
Also, does anyone know what the TDC Ambassadors say when asked if the beach is public or private? Have they been given any direction?
I also wonder what they do when they see violations (glass, pets, etc.)?
Are they trained to call WCSO or Code (non) Enforcement or just look away?
Why wait till September to put them out on beaches too?