According to our staff from environmental and also from our County Attorney's Office.
See the latest opinions from just this morning, below.
From the county attorney's office:
Commissioner:
I agree with Tim’s opinion that public beach access was not
created by the use of public funding to construct the emergency berm on Perdido
Key following Hurricanes Ivan and Dennis.
As you know, the boundary between private land and sovereign
state land is the mean high-water line (MHWL). It may help expand on
Tim’s email to provide a brief explanation of how the MHWL is established and
how it moves over time.
The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
maintains series of water level monitoring stations off the coast of the Gulf
of Mexico that measure the changes in the tides. The tides are influenced
by the moon, and the mean high-water level is calculated as the rolling average
of the high tides over a 19-year period (which is one lunar cycle). The
intersection of the horizontal projection of the mean high-water level and the
coastline forms the MHWL.
As I mentioned in my earlier email, the MHWL moves as
gradual imperceptible changes occur with the tidal average and the natural
movement of the coastline through processes of erosion and accretion.
However, the MHWL does not change due to avulsion. Avulsion is the sudden
or perceptible loss or addition of land along the coastline; hurricanes and
beach renourishment projects are considered avulsive events. So, although
the hurricanes may have perceptibly caused the beach to recede north, the MHWL
remained in the same place after the hurricanes as it was the day before.
Accordingly, the renourishment projects that restored the emergency berm north
of the MHWL on Perdido Key placed sand on private property, and it remained
private property after the completion of the project.
17 comments:
Commissioner...... Let's spend tax dollars that will benefit the public and move on from this matter. Let's create beach access at the miles upon miles of beach that is wide open and unused. I don't see how 64 parcels with a 75' easement is of much benefit to most. There is limited parking and people won't drag their beach gear very far anyways to even utilize those 64 parcels. Put the effort towards building much needed parking and facilities at the unused beach and create something Perdido Key will be proud to showcase. This would be a much greater victory for the public than 64 parcels with limited access points, limited parking and limited facilities.
Thank you Commissioner Bergosh for following up on this issue. At this point all I can say is WOW, tax payer dollars were spent on repairing the beach all along the Key but that does not qualify for public use? That doesn't seem equitable to all of the citizens whose monies were spent on fixing that problem. Question, will taxpayer monies be used to repair damage to the beaches in future storms without the public gaining any direct benefit from said expenditures? And if so, why?
As for the suggestion that we focus on "unused" portions of the beach and forget about the 64 lots..... well, that is just plain silly. I agree we need to focus on more parking for everyone to be able to use that which is ours to use. Maybe you can make that happen as opposed to the last Commissioner from the area. There are a couple of lots to the west of Access #3 that some people use for parking (illegally) that might be a solution to a part of that need. There are some that are further east that could be used for additional parking. The point being we should not relinquish what we found was ours after being "hidden" from us in recent times.
My thoughts are let the people decide if they are willing to drag stuff down a beach that is theirs to do so if they wish. I know that some will load up their wagons and spread out to enjoy what the Good Lord has provided, think fishermen looking to get away from the crowds. I believe that the owners that have been denying the public the use of the beach would love for everyone to forget that they have full use of that 75', in order to claim it has been abandoned so they can file to have the easement removed. Something to think about.
As for "unused" beach, where exactly does the commenter identify as unused beach? If they are referring to the State Park and the National Park, then there is still the issue with parking, and cost. Any other portion of the beach as it stands now that is not dedicated public use is private property which is not available to the public. As you have stated, these 64 lots are a HUGE win for the public and should not be minimalized, nor forgotten.
Again thanks for taking the lead on this and following through, I appreciate it as will countless others,
Go see what orange beach created with CoastAL. Free Parking for orange beach residents, restrooms, entertainment, food/drink - through public private partnership (could creat a food truck court). Walk down the beach from either end of the state park and enjoy the vibe and allowing Escambia country residents to spread out, eat and enjoy the beach.
While this is super disappointing, it's such a relief to FINALLY have it all laid out this clearly. I would argue that from some of the pictures that I saw of the raking, the sand was raked to areas pretty far outside the established paperwork, but even in that case it seems like it wouldn't have done anything legally per public access.
The one thing I don't understand in the analysis is the statement that "The beach nourishment project ultimately did not progress because of lack of public support." Is my understanding that it made it onto the BCC agenda, but didn't get 3 votes, incorrect? I thought that Dean Kirschner spent tireless hours working with condo owners to get the permissions, they received a good enough percentage that they believed the County could move forward, it went onto the agenda, and then got voted down. Please somebody correct me if I've been mistaken about that.
Still don't trust the abstracts, simply because I never trust abstracts in place of the actual chain of title. No way would I ever make real estate decisions, or try to interpret what had actually happened on a particular property, by taking an abstract at face value without having all the corresponding documentation, from start to finish. I wish I had the time and energy to research and compile it all myself, which is what Steven West should have been doing, instead of taxpayer money going to potentially insufficient abstracts (which is just the nature of the thing).
Looking forward to the day that you and staff announce new parking solutions down there, so that the ECW set can stop cranking on the loss of parking that the commissioner they supported took from them while they kissed his rod. That's all they've got now to try to politically spin that the public access that was reclaimed isn't a HUGE win. Of course it is. And as time goes on, their attempts to disinformation and propaganda away the giant improvements you've already made out there will become more obviously the whimpers of defeat than they already are.
THANK YOU to you, Michael McCormack, and Tim Day for everything that has been accomplished so far on public access and public safety on Perdido Key. (Shout out of eternal gratitude to Save the Beach for partnering with Open Beach Access 4 as well.)
And thank you also for leading the charge on restoring our precious shoreline and beaches here on Navy Point. Long after the naysayers are gone, that's a golden legacy that will live on.
ps. Another thanks to Tim Day for correcting two misconceptions I've had, that the easements were at about 75% and that it got voted down on the agenda. He explained that it was more like 50%, and that it never GOT to a vote.
Maybe some day the state will reverse it's horrible direction on public use, and restore the customary rights that the Mike Huckabee crowd convinced the legislature to steal from their public. One can always dream.
If the public really understood this and how many millions of dollars are spent on the beaches and then allowing the owners to exclude the public there would be more of an uproar.
Here is an article that explains par of it. Yes. HB 631 was to be repealed by HB 6063 and SB 1680 in 2020.
Another victim of the COVID years?
I think dropping the ball here was disgusting and I don't buy that there was NOT enough "public" approval.
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/opinion/2020/02/01/privatization-coming-beach-near-you-opinion/4608895002/
HB 6063 SB 1680
2020
Should have repealed HB631
The theft of the beach.
Taxpayers subside coastal owners insurance and beach restoration then the county commissioners lets them exclude the public.
We see you.
Hearing set for Walton County customery use case
https://www.wjhg.com/2023/06/01/new-court-hearing-date-set-walton-county-customary-use-case/
https://www.wjhg.com/2023/06/01/new-court-hearing-date-set-walton-county-customary-use-case/
Watch Walton County
Commissioner Bergosh will you fight like Walton County or do you think it is right to spend millions of taxpayer dollars so wealthy condo owner can exclude the public?
Will you do that again after the next hurricane?
It's call wealth fare. Do you think that is fair?
I don't.
Pass a customary use ordinance at the lowest level for Escambia.
Three votes.
Add on by this Thursday.
It's not hard.
Just do it.
Home Rule. No Lawsuits. Like it's supposed to be. Customary Use Ordinance. Perdido Key. Escambia County.
Do you honestly think that the owners of those 64 parcels are just going to roll over and let you invade our private property without a fight? Our attorneys have found multiple valid legal remedies that we fully intend to utilize. We’ll see you in court if necessary. Stay tuned…
Wow! @ 3:36 & 7:37, Laws are simple and clear, and you are NOT clear on them.
Why do some people want to continue this push to access land they don't own? Customary Use would be drawn out in the court system for years upon years, with millions of dollars spent and no real winners except the attorneys.
Let's put all this effort and money towards utilizing the miles upon miles of beach that is vacant, develop plans and implement them in a timely manner to create beach access and ultimately create a much better scenario. This is how the beach access will be solved. Those 64 parcels may sound good as the news media and public salivate on the news, but they won't provide much benefit. You can only create a small amount of additional parking at beach access 2 & 3.
I would love to see all of Perdido Key returned to its natural state and opened to the public. What I can't figure out is the injustice or huge win you see. It's about 1.5 miles from access #1 to #3. Take away 200 yards at #2, 100 on each side, and 100 yards at #3 for how far the average beachgoer is willing to drag a cooler that leaves approximately 1.25 miles of public beach never used. No easy way to get there. That's 1.5 acres out of approximately 13 total that were discovered. That's not a major victory and you're pissing off the property owners with your attitude. The last time you were this insistent on taking an issue to court was the Underhill case and the county lost that and we're out for twice as much money. This is fast becoming another waste of time and money.
To Wow at 754.
The BCC can watch Walton's customary use case. I think it's great Walton BCC is fighting for home rule and for the people.
Underhill deserved to squirm and suffer.
You sound just like one of them.
The BCC has insurance to cover legal expenses.
"Cooler draggers & whyte trash", 😎 don't care about DD & BCB's logical fallacy to do list anymore.
Move along.
That is all.
https://www.courthousenews.com
So next time let them restore "their" beach.
Don't spend other dime of taxpayer dollars.
Greed has consequences.
https://www.courthousenews.com/florida-county-avoids-costly-trial-over-public-access-to-the-beach/
Post a Comment