They did not privatize them. The law allows control of the property they own, which normally extends to the high water mark. It's gonna cause a ton of fights!

 

I have no clue what's "normal" regarding property lines but a brief search in some areas where I've spend a good deal of time (30A area, then on Siesta Key, and the east coast near Indiatlantic) via a tool I have access to (I'm in commercial real estate) shows that most property lines do not extend down to the high-water mark. The property boundaries in most cases is at or set back from the dune line, which is often a somewhat transitory line. So without specific surveys those boundaries are tough to discern.

And in Destin I found one oddity at the Silver Shells resort- the resort property extends down to a little ways behind the dunes, then the City of Destin owns a long thin (i.e.- wide) strip of land on which Silver Shells has their walkovers and some other stuff but then Silver Shells owns a strip of beach between the public land and the water.

Basically, this legislation seems to create a giant problem where there really was no issue beforehand and only serves to limit public access to the resource. And one which is constantly maintained by public dollars.

 

The problem is that Gov. Scott signed this into law effective July 1 but the Supreme court ruled in 2010 that any beach that has bee renourised by public funding, that sand is now public. Up here in Destin, we live across the street from a beach that has bee renourished several times with tax payer money including city money. So legally, they could never run us off that beach, which has condos on it. They only thing they could do is not allow us access through their property. Now according to this law, we can't sit on that beach, we are only allowed to walk down the wet portion up to the mean high tide line.

 

And this law denies local municipalities that ability to write their own ordinances about it.

 

Padre- we were last down there last summer. But farther down in Santa Rosa Beach near Dune Allen. We have some friends with house there that we are fortunate to have access to. And in going over there we've gotten to know some people.

For example, I know the gentleman who owns this house (and it's been in his family since the mid-70s as I recall) https://goo.gl/maps/mXSaB62DKcs

Anyway, the property lines at that house and several others appear to stop at the sand fences. However just a little way down the beach in both directions some appear to extend all the way to the water.

This is a real shit-show and it will get worse. I'm a big proponent of private property rights but those rights become real hazy when it comes to any sort of land abutting water whether it's beach, marsh, lake, or river. Especially when public dollars are used to repair private property.

 

I agree, I am all for property rights but when that private property is renourished by tax payer money but that is where it gets real hazy. And when property owners buy property with the understanding and the price that their property goes down to the water and then find later from the government that it doesn't, that is not right either. It is a cluster, like a lot of things these days, that is complicated by many things, including subsidized home owners insurance (also tax payer money) and if history proofs out, the people who win this one will be the ones who have the money and the ones who make the rules. So beach access will become limited. Gov. Scott in a new interview said, "there are plenty of public beach accesses in Florida for everyone." Translation: "the public can stay on the public beaches and stay off ours." BTW, Gov. Scott owns multiple beach properties in Naples.

 

Finn I can tell you from knowing several people who owned on the water that the programs that show the plats are not complete. They pick an arbitrary line usually and then the deed has verbal in it describing the property lines, because they can move.
For the record I'm not in favor of this, but understand the issue. It's privacy. Years ago at a friend's condo we had some yahoo's set up maybe 10ft from the building and play music for hours. Cops said there was nothing they could do cause it was considered a public beach. This rule gives the people who pay out of the nose to live on the water some protection on that front. I'm always courteous and try to respect others when out and about, and I think as long as you are most don't care is you are on their sand.

 

I definitely agree that the yahoos screw it up for the rest of us.

My main issues with laws like this (it's an issue in Texas too) are:
1) properties bordering water, especially tidal waters are inherently unstable and the property lines are rather fluid and undefined which make access & use laws pretty complicated
2) there's the common law principle of "common use" and these beaches have been considered public pretty much forever
3) use of public funds to repair private property
4) this seems like a pretty heavy-handed way to address issues like the one you mentioned, the police were being lazy because they almost certainly could have given the guy a noise citation and told him to turn down the music- it's just like having a loud party in your home and having the neighbors complain
5) an unfortunate side effect of buying beach property is a loss of privacy- similar to buying on a golf course. Lots of golf courses prevent you from having a fence and while there's certainly a property boundary between the course and your house there's a lot of privacy lost in exchange for having the views of the course (or beach).

 

I'll agree with most of that, but #4 they couldn't do anything as the noise ordnance stated between the hours, if memory serves, of 10pm-7am

 

Just an aside, it's awful hard to motivate people to care about stuff like the positions advocated for by BullSugar.org and Captains for Clean Water (both of which I donate to) when the government turns around and does stuff like passing these laws which, on their face, seem to privatize a public resource.

I know it's more complex than that but I think that's the gut reaction from most people.

 

Anymore info on this BS law. Anybody got the vote totals, specifically according to political party?

 

As unpopular as it may be, nobody should be able to own a natural beach on an ocean or gulf in the US. Course that ship has sailed long ago.

 

To make things worse, these people knew the game they were playing when they bought beach front property.

 

I sure wish this was in effect when I lived on the beach. Sure would have helped get a few nefarious characters away from my living room.

Let me flip the coin. There are thousands of pieces of property which stick out into lakes. These pieces benefit with tax dollars controlling weeds.

Should these guys not be allowed to own the dirt in which they pay taxes on?

I visited my old neighborhood since this was placed in effect and I did not see one sign of a change to the landscape. Not a single keep out sign, not a single fence, nothing I saw would tell me my private property was any different than it was in the past.

I believe the intent was for the communities to be able to move unsavory people along. I see it as the Jay Walking of the waterfront.

 

beach front or not , land owners have fewer rights than ever before. Just try to keep someone off your property, we all rent .i ve had guys fishing my Dock w one foot in the boat ,one foot on my dock. Never had a lick of help w mortgage payment. Unless you want to put your ass on your shoulders , you can’t keep a soul out. Maybe it’s just nc ,but it doesn’t sound like it. We all know locks keep an honest man honest.....

 

You sum it up pretty well.

I don't have what you have so I will just use what you have and then cry when I am told to leave your property because you owe me the benefit of using your property.

 

So as I understand the new law here’s what happened:
Most of the time beach front landowners’ property extends to Mean High Water (the wet beach). Municipalities would pass an ordinance allowing public access to the dry beach based on “customary use” (people always had access). The new law says municipalities can no longer pass such an ordinance. Now it has to go through the courts.

I understand the some law enforcement officers are not enforcing this because they don’t believe it’s moral to advertise the beaches to tourists and then arrest them when they walk on it.

There are also lots of beaches that have been nourished with public $ where landowners are trying to keep the public off the beach (Collier County, Palm Beach, etc etc)

 

Go figure , how about “they” work their @$$ off ,save up & do better. Nope , easier to use “ our” stuff
Always goes back to us & them , no matter the definitions

Only property owners should vote ......

 

Go figure , how about “they” work their @$$ off ,save up & do better. Nope , easier to use “ our” stuff
Always goes back to us & them , no matter the definitions

Only property owners should vote ......

Ahh yes and we can go to a British style class system too. Nice.

 

Many of the access ramps in the OBX beaches are closed to public access because of three things, obnoxious behavior by drivers/party fools, and a lone federal judge in VA willing to be swayed by really creepy lawyers angling for a showdown.

Were there good reason to clamp down on traffic...YES! But the way it played out took both our state senators working together hard to ensure some kind of legal access. It was a huge waste of court time and a bunch of mad anglers time which hurt all the recreational business!

Had it not been for several long worn out years by fishermen, the beaches would be closed TODAY!

 

In NC and TN, we can float/boat and fish down and across "private property." Not allowed to go above high water mark to camp or lunch without permission.

In VA, which is a Kings Law commonwealth, if it's posted on the bank, better reel in, against the law 1st degree trespassing.

You guys in FL need to contact your reps...LOUDLY!