 |
| The Southern-most 75 feet (from the Gulf of Mexico Northward) of every lot indicated above (all of which were declared surplus and subsequently sold by the Federal Government in 1957 to various purchasers) contain a perpetual easement for a beach for public use. So why have we been kicked off of OUR public beaches? I am going to find out, and I am going to liberate this beach for all of us to use! |
.....And huge thanks go out to citizen Michael McCormack for sending over a clue earlier this morning alluding to just this and ultimately requesting the documents from me (which I in turn requested from staff) which tipped over the first domino in this cascade of a truth bomb that evolved over the course the afternoon...
His email and subsequent public records request of me led to the entire legal staff and multiple staffers from Environmental going on a title/deed search today.
All day long. And we got the document he requested and a whole lot more.
What staff found and what I am now going to post on this blog shows what many of us have suspected and obviously some have known for a long time: The first 75 feet of Perdido Key Beaches (from the water going north) are Public Beaches After all! (the southerly 75' of each Gulf-side parcel from the state park all the way to the Perdido Sky Condominium and potentially the rest of the lots east of Perdido Skye as well as all the western lots too--we are still checking). [Correction 4-14-23 to indicate the the extent of the parcels indicated in the initial 64 deeds received Tuesday--which do not include lots East of Perdido Skye]
Yes, that's right. Although the Federal Government surplused these lots and sold them off in 1957-----each of the original deeds (Each One!) contains the following ALL IMPORTANT stipulation directly after the plot's legal description:
"The Southerly 75 feet of above described lot "XX" being subject to a perpetual easement for a beach for public use generally"
Every one of deeds has this language. From County Property Attorney Stephen West:
"Commissioner Bergosh:
So I am not a lawyer but I can read, and what I see shows me that a HUGE part of Perdido Key beaches were always supposed to be accessible/usable by the public---just as they were in 1983-86 when my dad and I used to fish out there and walk up and down that beach every weekend and never once were told we were on "Private Property". And folks I have spoken with that grew up here going out to those beaches in the 1960s ad 1970s were never kicked out either. Nope--this is a recent phenomenon, one which I am going to make a special area of focus for the time I have remaining on this board.
I am going to work, within the law, to liberate all those miles of beaches that have been apparently illegally blocked from use by the very people the U.S. Government intended to always (perpetually) have access--you and me and the citizens. We've been blocked for many, many years.
That is going to change. Quickly.
Read the original 1957 deeds for yourself, all of them, Here Here and Here
Wow! WOW!!!!! This better not be a delayed April Fool's joke. lol
ReplyDeleteThank you Commissioner...
ReplyDeleteThank God Underhill is gone and a champion of and for the people has taken his place. Many of us knew this but couldn't prove it. Thank you Michael for your work!!! And Jeff, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE!!
For sure!! Finally, we are rid of rich- man's commissioner!
DeleteThose of us who recognized that when Doug Underhill thundered a talking point over and over on private property it meant the opposite, aren't surprised.
ReplyDeleteThis is the *second* time that Michael McCormack has been the deus ex machina on beach acess out there.
While Randy Cudd and I and a bunch of other people knew what was happening, and were fighting Doug tooth and nail on his lies on Beach Access 4, it was Michael McCormack who pressed for the public records that showed Doug was trying to sell that beach.
I was opposed to Perdido Key going back to District 1 at first, and was vocal about it. But I came around for two reasonsL (1) if we could slice Perdido off district 2, we would actually get some money for some things on the West Side, even if the Douggite dipshits were brain dead clamoring for Perdido Key to keep getting that money. (2) Many of us recognized that if anybody was going to fight to get those beaches open, it was you Jeff.
Michael McCormack: you're an unsung public hero. I hope that doesn't remain the case. "McCormack Beach" has a nice ring.
Michael McCormick is a concerned neighbor and took time to research this. We can't thank him enough.
DeleteI love Michael McCormack and you too. ❤️ I know that is over the top. But that hey whatever..
ReplyDeleteBut I'm grinning and happy.
How exciting!
Yes the FEMA emergency berms post hurricane Ivan would not have happened if it were a private beach.
Oh snap! Pop goes the weasel!
ReplyDeleteThank you Melissa for the kind words. Alice Hurst Neal--Nope--definitely NOT an April fool's joke--it is so much better than that! 8:26--thanks for the kind words, and 9:31 --thank you as well. 10:23--I'll "one-up you" this way. Picture Homer Simpson saying D'oh! over and over when he thought his beach condo provided "private" beaches and then was told by a lawyer--"yes, except for the southerly 75 feet which is subject to a PERPETUAL easement for a public beach for use by the public" D'oh!
ReplyDeleteThat you Sir for listening to the people and making my day glorious!!! Fran Opitz
DeleteJEFF, if the beach is public for 75 feet, how do you access if condos are there and you can’t get to the beach? Do the condos have to provide access?
DeleteI'm not Jeff but I'm certain the condos do NOT have to provide access. Hopefully, what they WILL have to do is be more tolerant to those that want to fan out from public access points and set up on dry sand.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you for continuing the push to restore our open access on Perdido Key. The warped perspective of those privileged enough to own Gulf Front property should not have held as much influence as it has. Here’s to an end to this foolishness, sooner than later!
ReplyDeleteAwesome news! Thank you, Thank YOU, THANK YOU to each and every one involved in exposing this…FINALLY! Praise the Lord, we finally have the right person cleaning up these messes along with the army of unrelenting angels determined to take care of the people and our area! We are blessed!
ReplyDeleteReparations ?
ReplyDeleteHoly crap! This is huge. A few weeks ago, I made a contribution to your re-election campaign. You just single handedly justified that expense. Well done Sir! Well Done!
ReplyDeleteAnd ole Sad Nellie's still on ECW exposing your campaign contributions. News flash, glad the Bears have been successful and civic minded enough to contribute to a good candidate.
ReplyDeleteThis moves mountains.
This is wonderful for the people.
Haters will hate, and that site is a gaggle of haters (about 12 of them) and they provide nothing of value whatsoever. I hope they are going through my contributions from my first fundraiser a couple of weeks back. Yes, I raised a lot of money. Yes, it was a smashing success. Yes, they hate it. It must be a real bummer for these folks who go through life always gloomy, paranoid, angry, and anxious. Really quite a sad spectacle. Wait until these haters see the next fundraiser report, LOL!
DeleteYour "truth bomb" is nothing. The area from the water to the mean high tide line is and has always been public which in many cases accounts for the 75 feet. If there is going to be a big push to remove owner property rights on Perdido Key then the County needs to have a plan to provide all of the following services that are being provided to Pensacola Beach, including but not limited to: Lifeguards, trash removal, keeping dogs off the beaches, enforcing Leave No Trace by removing all property from the beaches at night, beach renourishment, increased police patrols to address trespassing in parking lots and pools, illegal parking on Perdido Key Drive, etc. Your previous statements have made it very clear that you have no respect or regard for the owners on Perdido Key. All it means to you is a cash cow of rental tax that you can spend in other parts of the count.
ReplyDeleteThis perspective... My good sir, it’s not removal, it’s reclamation.
DeleteJeff - Are we (the public) allowed to take out the posts with no entry and stay off signs or should we turn them around to face the condo ?
ReplyDeleteHopefully this public easement in the deeds will result in fewer “private property” signs that litter the beaches today.
ReplyDeleteMichael, Randy, Mel, Jeff and others who have advocated for the public to get use back on the beach THANK YOU.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to a great summer on Perdido Key :)
K, 1:30/Dildo Doug.
ReplyDeleteYou forgot to mention restoring night time beach access in your catalog--one of your rhetorical signatures, not to mention your favorite mechanism the doublet on "respect or regard." Along with you starting strong on your Addison opening statement, but quickly descending into a Senecan amble, punctuated by a hasty sign-off typo.
SMH.
I bet the condo owners will now claim adverse possession, AKA "squatters rights."
ReplyDeleteThank you for this positive push for the citizens of Escambia County. I have a back story about this issue that happened in the early spring of 2020. I will one day be doing the happy dance at Access #3 once I can legally and lawfully do that dance.Our issue was reported to the Sherriff, to Alex Andrade and to Michelle Salzman and we have waited 3 years to finally be able to watch the sunrise,throw a fishing line in the water and drink that cup of coffee that was rudely taken away from us in 2020. To be told we were breaking the law, that we were trespassing and to "get off my property"...well all I can say to you Commissioner Bergosh is..Bravo to you and Mr.McCormack!! From a tax paying, law abiding citizen, I applaud you all. Thank you! Thank You! THANK YOU!
ReplyDelete130 Dildo Doug. Why don't you just say, "Have you read the PKMP or the HCP?"
ReplyDeleteGo suck a goat's tit.
You're finished.
Since you got this ball rolling you can certainly find the documents when the county applied to FEMA for the emergency berms to be built and clearly the four public access were noted and that proved it had a public purpose. The people have been lied too long enough.
ReplyDeleteIt corruption, special interest and illegal to maintain status quo. How easy to do this without a lawsuit.
Power to the People.
Per WEARTV today:
ReplyDelete"We've got a pressing public safety need. We need to have lifeguards," Bergosh said. "We can put lifeguards out there if it is what it says it is. I'll find a way to fund it."
Jeff, I'm all for lifeguards and better signage but the county COULD have already put lifeguards on the strategically placed Beach Access 1, 2, and 3. PK residents have been calling for it for years at public access points. The county just never did it-- and suddenly now the narrative is it was never taken seriously because the condo beaches were private, which is only partially accurate because the waterfront and the gulf-adjacent section of each parcel was always indisputably public. Truth is, the county just didn't want to fund it- or perhaps could not. Case in point- Beach Access 2 and 3 haven't had working bathrooms in three years, and I am told there is no money to fix the bathrooms-- even though they could have fixed the bathrooms 3x over with what they pay in annual portable toilet rentals (vandals, you say... I know, I know). It's very hard to find money for the normative things in this county, even though the west side of town provides much of the property, sales, and tourist development tax revenue, and there has been no call to arms up until now and now it's only because it fits in a grandstanding narrative of "liberate the beaches."
With no perpendicular beach access and no parking the 75-foot rule will mostly affect the properties that are near the beach access points. People don't usually haul beach gear too far from where they park. Those nearby complexes will just have to be more tolerant, but the really toney complexes and single family homes, far from parking and the portable toilets, will notice no difference.
It's political theater for the county to say that the only way these measures of public safety can be done is if we negate 75 years of property ownership, when they could have provided public safety long ago. Using just the 4 access points and adding in the existing lifeguards at Johnson Beach, PK would have doubled the lifeguard density that SRI has, regardless of the ownership of the condo parcels.
If you want the beaches to be open to all -if you hate the no trespassing signs that weren't around when you were a boy- then that is fine, but these really should be two separate points. Saying you're opening the beaches in the name of public safety is a false equivalency. Implying that any injury is the fault of the condos is just wrong.
In the spirit of political propriety and gratitude I appreciate the in-person Coffee with the Commissioner event, and hope that you'll schedule another town hall on the west side again soon.
For the record, I don't own beachfront property, I don't own a condo, I don't live in a condo, I have just one shitty home in the world and it is in Escambia County, and I don't know or support Doug Underhill. I have no idea who this evil "Theresa" is and I have no political agenda. I'm just a regular semi-informed citizen. But I don't like the foaming at the mouth that is happening over this news, and the broad-strokes painting of all condo owners- or all key residents- as bad. They are your constituents too, ill-advised signage or not. Thanks for reading.
6:57, if you live in Perdido, you don't live on the West Side. You live on Perdido Key. And I don't give a rat's ass how many years of pounding propaganda went in to proclaiming Perdido Key the West Side across how many commissioners.
ReplyDeleteThe West Side has always been, and will always be, Warrington. So whoever you are, you are certainly showing your cards with that West Side BS. Koolaid Drinker alert.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGet over yourself, lady. Clearly hit a nerve and I don't speak the language. I meant west side as opposed to Beulah for a meeting- wasn't talking about today but a town hall last fall at Perdido Bay Methodist Church, and one later at Liberty Church. No idea who Gene is. Again, there's no Kool-aid. Was just hoping Jeff would do another town hall. Christ.
ReplyDeleteGet over yourself, man child. Clearly hit a nerve with you, and you're right, although you try to speak the language, you're not capable. It doesn't matter that you meant west side as opposed to Beulah for a meeting; you already clearly exposed you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Don't care whether you're talking about today or a town hall last fall at Perdido Bay Methodist Church, or one later at Liberty Church, or the meetings in your own mind. If you have no idea who Gene is, then your ability to contribute anything viable to this conversation is doubtful (although we all recognize that is subterfuge, per your mention of Theresa Blackwell on a topic that she has nothing to do with--boy you're bad at this).
ReplyDeleteAgain, there's no Kool-aid other than the one you are either drunk on yourself, or feeding other people. You were disinformationing on your hope that Jeff would do another town hall in order to pretend that he hasn't.
Christ isn't a part of this conversation, so quit slandering him.
Ah, it dawned in me--Gene Valentino. The commissioner from ten years ago whom I saw once on the WEST side of town- when the Perdido Bay Soccer Field opened. You win. I can't believe I didn't catch a "Gene and the Westside Improvement Committee" reference and said WEST, when what I really meant was WEST. On a map of D1, Beulah is North, Perdido, Innerarity, Bauer are West, and Warrington is East. Pretty sure Jeff knew what I meant. If there's a meeting in Beulah, it stands to reason that Beulah's issues will get the focus. I don't agree with him on everything, but he's typically pretty good at taking a glancing blow from an engaged constituent. Nothing I said was unreasonable. Unpopular, perhaps. I come to the blog for INFORMATION and if I read the comments, yours are stepped in cryptic references and what seems like ancient axes to grind. Also, I'm not a man. I'm posting as anonymous because I have two remaining feelings thanks to the internet, and I'd like to keep them both in tact. Jeff can figure out who the posters are if he really wants to. Next time, I'll just email the commissioner, even though I have done so twice with no reply. You obviously live to pick a fight. I was trying to make the point that some of us are fairly new to the blog, and don't know a good portion of what people are ranting about when it comes to Minions and Theresa and WTF. Still don't, don't care. There's a constituency out there that doesn't bang their pots and pans around every day with giant chips on our shoulders but we should have agency too.
DeleteMiss Pino, you have no idea what you're talking about. First, you hijack this blog as your own and then you make it all about yourself. I heard you have lived here for only 10 or so years and you think you know something about the westside. Clearly you don't. If you have lived here for any amount of time, more than 10 years, you would know Innerarity, Perdido, Paradise Beach, and Pleasant Grove are part of the westside. Personally I never really considered Warrington or Navy Point part of the westside.
ReplyDelete10:55, then you're personally wrong.
ReplyDeleteI am loving seeing this story break on various news outlets.
ReplyDeleteThanks for keeping us informed Commissioner Bergosh.
Looking forward to Part II.
Thank you so much.
927 Jump on in. The water's fine.
ReplyDeleteFrom my knowledge as a Registered Land Surveyor, Private Ownership limits along the Gulf Coast has always been known to be the Mean High Water Line (MHW is based on the Lunar Cycle of 19 years) as defined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service. (See NOAA Special Publication NOS CO-OPS 2). That area between the MHW and the Waters' Edge is State Owned, considered the Beach, and is designated for public use and recreation. With Hurricanes and forces of nature, the MHW line is a moving target due to accretion and reliction. There is a new law that addresses this issue...see the following documents being discussed by the Florida Legislature with regards to a fixed Erosion Control Line (ECL)...
ReplyDeletehttps://barneswalker.com/is-that-property-really-waterfront/
https://barneswalker.com/what-about-that-new-florida-public-beach-law/
From my knowledge as a Registered Land Surveyor, Private Ownership limits along the Gulf Coast has always been known to be the Mean High Water Line (MHW is based on the Lunar Cycle of 19 years) as defined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service. (See NOAA Special Publication NOS CO-OPS 2). That area between the MHW and the Waters' Edge is State Owned, considered the Beach, and is designated for public use and recreation. With Hurricanes and forces of nature, the MHW line is a moving target due to accretion and reliction. There is a new law that addresses this issue...see the following documents being discussed by the Florida Legislature with regards to a fixed Erosion Control Line (ECL)...
ReplyDeletehttps://barneswalker.com/is-that-property-really-waterfront/
https://barneswalker.com/what-about-that-new-florida-public-beach-law/
I am sure you were thrilled to get this news out - and fast - but it's careless to excite the public without a full understanding of the legal and practical implications of this... and what this means moving forward.
ReplyDeleteThe easement "truth bomb" also does not address the fact that when an easement is not used for many years it becomes void.
ReplyDeleteUnknown 12:40, there is huge difference between not being used and being denied don't you think? Also, since this was an easement placed in effect by the GSA in deeding the land to the original owners for "public use in perpetuity" my understanding is that the individual owner would be required to petition Congress to remove it. It's gonna be interesting to see if that has been done or not. I could make a case for Customary Use with the fact that I have used that beach from the time I was 5 years old with my family until recently. I am 68 years old so that is a long time to establish usage. We will most definitely see how this plays out. My opinion is that my rights to use that beach have been robbed by some's misguided and illegal actions. It doesn't help that a past Commissioner pushed that incorrect narrative on an uninformed citizenry. What is that old adage, The Truth will always come to Light. Thank God he has brought it to light.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Mr. McCormack. If it is, in fact, your effort and work that is the catalyst to restore our public beach, Beach Access #1 should be re-named in your honor. A reminder for generations to come that we should never take our beaches for granted, or allow them to be taken from us so easily.
DeleteI own beachfront property in Perdido Key and I would like to point out that the southern boundary on my lot is NOT the water’s edge of the Gulf of Mexico, but rather it is "elevation 1.04 ft". This elevation point, on my lot at least, when surveyed is ALWAYS many feet past the water’s edge out into the Gulf. Given this fact, I doubt that a 75 ft public easement would add much more, if any, public beach than what is already currently used. In fact, it could be less.
ReplyDeleteSurely Condo Associations and sub divisions like Parasol East are at risk of being sued by stopping public use & hiding these details from the public?
ReplyDeleteAs of right now, judging from everything that's been published, any parcel east of Perdido Skye doesn't have the same 75-foot stipulation and wasn't part of the 1957 sale. Maybe they just haven't found those documents yet. But if that holds, it means most of the key's fat daddies are protected. Palacia, Indigo, Beach Colony, La Playa, Sandy Key, and Parasol East, Land's End, and whatever that new one at the end is called. Which is unfortunate because Beach Access 1 sits right in the middle of this area, so the people that think they can fan out at the beach will go there not knowing the distinction, possibly causing disputes. Without parking and access, this revelation mostly affects Beach Access 2 and 3, which both have about 14 parking spots, all of which are monopolized by either Serenity on River Road renters or Lost Key renters. If you go to Beach Access 2, it sits right next to the Lost Key Clubhouse, which is typically more crowded than Clearwater Beach in the summer, since the stupid neighborhood kept just a half acre parcel to service 690 homes (selling their other beachfront to Joe Mirabile instead of sizing it accurately for the neighborhood), some of which have ten renters. Beach Access 3 sits next to a low-density complex and an empty lot, so much won't change there until that lot is occupied. At Access 2 you'll have room if you head to La Riva, but there's no spreading out on the Lost Key side. It's the wild wild west.
DeleteIf there was more recent news about the above parcels having the same clause, please correct me, I don't wish to spread disinformation. As it stands. Without parking this just let's you fan out a bit from BA 2 and 3, IF you can find a spot. Maybe more lots are the end game. But parking on the key has been a ridiculous cross to bear for some time.
So true.
DeleteUntil last year we owned in Grand Caribbean and used to tell our friends and family guests, "take the walkway to the beach, go left and keep walking until you are inside the National Seashore. Stay away from Access #1!"
It was an easy walk and once there, no one could tell you where to sit.
8:23- That's my point-- Beach Access 1 won't really be affected. Unless people want to carry their things LITERALLY half a mile or more east or west- to the west you must pass Beach Colony, Indigo, and Palacio-- all hugh complexes- they control their 75-foot easement unless proof is to be found in their documents, too. To truly spread out, you'd also need to continue past Perdido Skye and Perdido Sun, too, since their density is high for their parcel size- they have the smallest beachfront on the key. After that, there are some single family homes and some rental-restricted complexes, so there will be more room for the people who were willing to walk that distance. If you decide you'd rather head east from BA 1 you have to trek past La Playa, Sandy Key, Parasol East, Land's End, and Vista Del Mar- several of which have quite a bit of water frontage to walk across. They also control their own 75 foot easements as of now. At that point you're into Johnson Beach, closer to the JB parking lot and their showers and bathrooms (the PK Beach Access 2 and 3 bathrooms are locked, BA one has always had portable toilets.) This discovery won't change a thing for BA 1, except piss of citizens who show up, expecting to fan out- if they can find a place to park--not having read the particulars, and get really angry when told that that nearly 1-mile stretch of land is still private. There needs to be a public distinction made before someone who read a headline gets really hot over this. The highest density, highest profile part of the key has not been subect to Tuesday's discovery. And unfortunately that area sits right in the middle of BA 1. And as I said in my other post, good luck finding parking at BA 1, 2, or 3 anyway. Especially 2 and 3. Your best option for spreading out right now is BA 3, because the parcel next to it is in pre-construction, and then PK State Park is just beyond that. But TRUST ME, there is no parking there thanks to the Serenity Rentals. If this discovery is to matter, more parking is needed and some through-easements created to link parking to the less-dense areas of the beach. Otherwise we're all just still fighting over the same 30 spots at BA 2 and 3, since you can't spread out at BA 1.
ReplyDeleteAlice- so true. And Sandy Key has almost no waterfront anyway, very eroded.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete