Perdido Public Beach Access Question: Final Three Abstracts Received, no Additional Public Beach Access Language Found

 

Late last week our office recived the final three property title abstracts from the county attorney's office.  We have now received every title abstract for every Gulf Front parcel of land on Perdido Key.

And what we found is that 64 of the parcels from the 1950's have language specifying a 75 foot easement on each parcel's southerly portion "for the public's use for a public beach."

But thus far, no other parcels we have found contain that language or anything like it delineating the public's right to access the beaches.

Here are the last three abstracts, here, here, and here.  (Land's End, Parasol, Vista Del Mar) All of these are a part of the large property transfer from the State Department of Education in 1912.  They describe mineral rights, petroleum rights, but no public beach access.

The attorney's office also looked through these three abstracts and provided the following initial observation:

"I have finished reviewing the last three abstracts.  Unfortunately, I did not find anything that reserved or established a public beach access easement for Vista Del Mar and Lands End Condominiums and Parasol Subdivision.  The plat for Parasol Subdivision does show a 100 foot “general easement” over the  southern portion of the parcels.  However, the plat dedication indicates that this was intended as part of the common areas for the subdivision, but it would not create any rights for the public-at-large."

SO WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

I've emailed the county attorney's office with a request for one clean memo based on their legal opinion(s) on the abstracts and also the beach/dune restorations that have occurred out there over the years.  I have also asked for one map of the entire area that delineates where the public can access beaches.  Here is my email to staff.

"Hello Alison,

 Thanks to you and Steve and the legal office for all your assistance as we have sought a resolution on which beaches in Perdido Key are actually available for the public’s use.

 With the last batch of title reports, combined with the ones we have previously received, I think we have a pretty good idea about the answer to the question now.

 The last thing I need from your office is a memo delineating your opinion regarding which beaches are accessible by the public based upon your office’s analysis of all of the relevant Gulf-Side title abstracts.  I believe it will be only the 75 feet easements from the 64 lots in the Gulf Beach Subdivision—but by all means let me know if it is more than just those.

 If we can do this, and simultaneously have the development services department put together one final map of the entire Perdido Key area delineating what we know about public accessibility, this will also be required and I assume it will line up with what your written opinion is from your analysis of the abstracts. 

 If possible, in the same memo----- I’d also like a legal opinion to be included from your office regarding the persistent questions I am receiving regarding historical beach nourishment by Federal Agencies post Hurricane Ivan.  Many believe this beach nourishment (characterized as a “dune replenishment only”) should open up all the beaches to public access due to the public dollars expended to restore the sandy beach areas post storm.  According to Tim Day, whom I have asked this question multiple times and in multiple ways----the projects post-Ivan do not qualify as projects that would trigger public access in perpetuity because in his opinion such beach nourishments did not create “new” beaches by filling in areas that were submerged.  However, a number of reports post-Ivan indicate that the beaches in Perdido Key were dramatically eroded, in some instances back to the wood walkovers.  So the question is, and I want a legal answer for, is this:  Would that not qualify as creating “new” beach when added sand “restores” a previously existing beach?  I need one final, cogent, and accurate legal answer to that to answer the growing number of folks who have asked this question over and over.  Thanks in advance for that—potentially most important—legal opinion.

 Once I have the answer—I can work in conjunction with my fellow board members—with developing the right policy(s) protecting property rights but simultaneously recognizing the public’s right to access those beaches to which they are entitled to access—along with the provision of safety services (lifeguards) if this is legal and appropriate.

 I hope you all enjoy your holiday weekend, and as with most things, the sooner I can have this memo, the better."

 

Two More Perdido Key Title Abstracts with No Public Beach Access Found within: County Beach Access #1 Will Be Challenging......

Late yesterday afternoon we received two more title abstracts for Sandy Key and Beach Colony parcels on the Eastern side of Perdido Key--very close to Escambia County Beach Access #1.  While we do not yet have the abstract for the parcel directly adjacent to Access #1 on the east side (La Playa)--we do have the abstracts for the others in the same general area and thus far we have not found the public beach access easement language we found in the other 64 parcels to the west starting at Perdido Skye and going westward  all the way to the state park.

So as it has been and will continue to be-------County Beach Access #1 will be challenging.  Because unless I missed something--the original grant to the Stillman family from the state board of education found within these two abstracts (Sandy Key and Beach Colony) only have easements for the road and then for minerals and petroleum.  No public beach access.

So as I am now starting to see--we may not find any additional access granted within the original deeds of these other properties outside of the original 64 that we have found.  And that is okay if that is the way this shakes out.  Perhaps that enclave of properties will be the only area of Perdido key East of the state park that has private beaches?  We will know soon.

Meanwhile, the HUGE win remains.

We KNOW with certainty that from the state park going eastward to and including Perdido Skye--every deed in between that area has the "southerly 75' easement for public beach access for a public beach" language contained within.  That is a LOT of soon to be opened-up public beach access for the people.

More importantly--that also opens up the possibility that if the public has access to that large swath of previously "thought to have been" private beach area--that we may be able to station lifeguards at access points #2 and #3 to improve public safety there.  That will be a win of epic proportion that stands even if we do not find another single parcel that contains public beach access language.

More to come, 8 more abstracts left to examine.

Fixing the "Sign-Noise" at the Beach

There is a growing, grass-roots anger among many long-time locals who love to surf at Perdido Key.

They have approached me about the issue--which I agree needs a solution.

The problem: tacky, offensive signage up and down the beach (often connected by rope or chain) carving out portions of the beach there on Perdido Key that are privately owned.  These are "no-trespassing" signs.  I've heard, anecdotally, that children have run into the ropes and also that these tacky, connected signs potentially increase the danger to nesting turtles trying to get up the beach to lay their eggs.

It looks terrible, and tacky.  It's dangerous to kids, and potentially harmful to sea turtles--those that are roped off from the dunes all the way down to the surf.  According to many with whom I have spoken (and indeed from my own personal experiences at Perdido Key as a kid fishing with my dad)--this is a "newer" phenomenon that came about not too long ago.

Look--we all get it.  portions of much of the beach at Perdido Key from the dunes to the mean-high tide line are private property and the owner(s) of such properties have the right to enforce no trespassing on such parcels and also to post signage notifying visitors of this.

But there is a less tacky, less obtrusive, and less onerous way to properly notice beachgoers that such parcels are "private property."  They do it other places without such tacky eyesores.  So we're going to be looking at best practices from around the state with respect to this issue with an eye toward a better, more aesthetically pleasing sign ordinance that doesn't litter the beaches of Perdido Key with these eyesores.

December 8th this will be discussed during public forum.

They Really, Really, Really, Really Do NOT Want You Out There, Part II

Could repeated complaints, made over and over to multiple entities, serve to close  your public beach access #4 at Perdido Key?  Some people must believe this to be true......

Sometimes folks complain and raise legitimate issues that must be addressed.

Sometimes the purpose is alturistic and there is a legitimate, bonafide public interest.

Sometimes it appears as if there is a real, legitimate and bonafide public interest in making complaints, filing reports, and having your lawyer send ominous, threatening-sounding complaint letters to various authorities.  And sometimes these letters by lawyers point out these things under the guise of coming on behalf of "concerned citizens" that have the "best of intentions."  And, coincidentally, sometimes such complaints aspire to tacitly serve a dual purpose:  Getting you off a public beach that you, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, paid for and now own.

Luckily, fortunately, and ultimately---that purpose will not be realized.  

I'm a rule follower, and I understand the rules, so we will enforce the rules.  

But we won't ever throw the baby out with the bathwater and KowTow to some who have utter disdain for the general public and wish there was no public beach access anywhere near their private beach enclaves.

Yes yes yes--we don't want folks partying all night long at a park that's supposed to close at dusk.  None of us do.

Of course we don't want folks to dump trash all over the place.  Of course not.

And obviously--we all care about the habitat and the species of animals we are protecting at Beach Access #4 on Perdido Key.

But is that why the below letter got written?  Really?  I don't believe it is--but read it and decide for yourself.  Heck, they even included exhibits and attachments showing the Following:

a.)  A person walking a dog in the parking lot of Access #4  (Oh no-- a DOG!!I can't take the horror of it!)

b.)  A group of folks fishing from Access #4 (  NO FISHING!!!!!!!!  Fishing attracts SHARKS!!!  I might get ATTACKED BY A SHARK!!!!!!!!!!!!)

c.)  A "hole" dug out of the sand.  Seriously.  A hole.  Probably dug by some really curious, industrious young children who were out at the access having a great day at the beach. (AAARRGGHH--they dug a hole in the sand--how dare them!!!!I'm going to need a "safe space!")

d.) A selected snippet from this blog about my strident support of Public Beach Access! (How dare this County Commissioner disagree with us--the private beach owners!!! Cancel Commissioner Bergosh!!!!)

Why the "complaints" one by one over the last two months.  Why this "complaint" by a lawyer?  Why the ridiculous Kabuki theater?

They want access #4 closed, that's why.  They don't like you. By hook or by crook, by any means necessary, they want you gone from there for good, they wish Beach access #4 gone. They don't want you in their back yard, they don't want you anywhere near them.  They are wealthy, they OWN their beach and don't want you near it! That's the real intention, that's my opinion.  

Why do I think this?  

Well, it's because the same group used the same lawyer to try to prevent the beach from ever opening up in the first place.  They lost that fight, they failed, and you, the public, won.  That's why.   I've had several of them call me up and tell me as much.  They're not happy, some of them.  Angry, bitter, scornful, and downright mean.  Some of them--not all of them thankfully.  Not even a majority of them.

They may not say it directly (although some have, to me directly)---but here's the key:  These few elitists don't want you near them.  Anywhere near them.  They really, really really really do not want you out there near their "private" beach on Perdido Key.  You're not worthy, according to a small

A Camel's Nose Under the Tent?

Could the recent ruling coming out of Walton County dealing with customary use of the beaches in Walton County--could this be the camel's nose coming under the tent as it pertains to beaches locally, in Perdido Key, once again becoming accessible to the public?  Could the rest of the camel be coming into the tent shortly?

According to this article  - the decision by Walton County Circuit Court Judge David W. Green that customary use is not unconstitutional was expected by the private landowners and this decision will be appealed.

Eventually, this case will end up before the Florida Supreme Court.

from a different article on the same topic:  

"Judge David W. Green issued a 10-page ruling Monday that turned down arguments by Northshore Holdings, LLC and Lavin Family Development, LLC, which own property along the Gulf of Mexico and contended that customary use violates the state and federal constitutions..Green pointed to a 1974 Florida Supreme Court opinion that allowed the public to use those areas of beaches. He wrote that he is “without authority to enter a judgment finding the doctrine of customary use as established by the Florida Supreme Court unconstitutional as a violation of the prohibitions against taking of property without just compensation or without due process of law.”

Some believe that the issues being litigated in Walton County are directly on point as it relates to the issues of public access on the "private" beaches in Perdido Key.

So we'll see what happens going forward, and whether or not the camel gets in the tent.

Whichever way that decision goes, we will read the ruling and we will play by the rules.  As I said at my recent townhall--I play by the rules, but I know how to read a rulebook.