 |
| I'll be on the area's highest rated, highest quality, and most trusted source for morning drive news talk--"Real News with Rick Outzen" on 1370 WCOA tomorrow morning at 0700. We will be talking public beach access---and the unlawful withholding of it from the people for years and years at Perdido Key.... |
Rick Outzen, Publisher of InWeekly and Rick's Blog and Host of the area's best, most influential, entertaining, and trusted morning drive news program "Real News with Rick Outzen" on 1370 WCOA has invited me on his show as the lead off guest for the first 20 minutes tomorrow morning at 7:00AM. We will be talking about the bombshell, earth-shattering, and growing story I'm calling #PerdidoGate: How a group of private property owners and others systematically tried (and succeeded in many instances) to block the public's rightful and lawful access to the beaches in Perdido Key Florida in Escambia County's District 1. The fascinating revelation was uncovered last week that dozens and dozens of the originally executed land deeds from the U.S. Government (which I posted to this blog last week) constituting miles of these formerly thought to be "private" beaches------ all had language dictating and mandating a perpetual easment of the southerly 75 feet of each such parcel for the express purpose of establishing a public beach for public access.
I've subsequently uncovered other documentation and shared it in multiple follow-on blog posts which have been smashed with hits from all over the country.
I am calling it Perdido-Gate because it is a scandal of epic proportion. Unlike the infamous "Watergate" scandal however (which started with a few insiders knowing what happened and subsequently, over time expanding with more and more people learning of it as a whistleblower broke the story to journalists)--this land blocking/beach grabbing effort by most current owners of Gulf Front properties on Perdido Key apparently began with everyone having complete knowledge of the deeds' limiting condition and perpetual easement--with this knowledge fading over time, disappearing from transfer deeds, and fading away leading to most of these properties believing---inaccurately apparently---that they had complete and total ownership from the road all the way down to the wet sand of the Gulf's edge.
So we will talk all about that, and the following:
1. What is the legal meaning of the "Southerly 75 feet of each parcel?"
2. Who from PKA and the county knew of this recently?
3. Why was the public access requiriment of 75' of beach never enforced as indicated on the 2000 Development Order from the County to Destination, Inc. (who eventually build the Windemere Condo) by the county officials who insisted on it as a condition of this complex's construction?
4. Would the landlocked Grand Caribbean complex really undertake the expensive, time consuming, and year's long initiative to get an easement and build a walkway to a purportedly "private" beach south of their complex (owned by the Gulf-Front Sandy Key complex) on ONLY the strength of a "gentleman's" agreement that the HOA of Sandy Key would "let" visitors and owners of Grand Caribbean use their (Sandy Key's) purportedly "private" beachfront?
5. What will take precedence under Florida's Marketable Record Title Act--the "information" from titles transferred within the last 30 years that have mysteriously omitted this "Southerly 75' perpetual public beach access easement" mandate from the initially executed transfer from the U.S Government--or if located---the original, primary deed(s) from the U.S. Government which we believe will specify this public easement?
It should be an interesting conversation on a fascinating topic that I know Rick is diving into for an article in his upcoming edition of InWeekly.
Because he knows what I know: This story is HUGE and growing. Glad he is joining every other local media in covering it.
5 comments:
I sent an earlier comment about this on your previous post but it hasn't been approved.
A board member from the GC HOA told me that GC paid for that boardwalk after Hurricane Sally. There would be documentation, I'm sure.
Rick has the podcast up:
https://ricksblog.biz/bergosh-wants-to-liberate-perdido-key-beaches/
SO grateful to Rick for keeping this current, and for the time and spirit you're bringing to this battle, Commissioner Bergosh. Thank God we finally have a public-minded leader for the people in charge out there.
I couldn't disagree more, however, with the idea that the County has to wait because of MRTA.
MRTA is an absolute swamp of grey area and tax laws that go state by state, and often ruling by ruling. I refamiliarized myself with it a bit, having forgotten most of what I learned when looking into when we purchased our home 9 years ago.
There is at least one clear cut case that speaks to this question of MRTA versus original deed, albeit in a backwards fashion. In a seminal case having to do with MRTA and HOA rules and regulations, Eastwood Shores Property Associations, Inc v. Florida DEO, they lost some HOA rights per MRTA *BECAUSE THOSE RIGHTS WEREN'T REFLECTED IN THE ORIGINAL DEEDS."
Also, there are MANY exceptions having to do with easements, both in the establishment of the act and in various court rulings on its legal effect. And this is a federally dictated easement we're talking here.
Although I empathize with the County Attorney's office facing the potential of a huge suit to deal with, that is what we pay taxpayer money for. I can't imagine a better use of lawsuit funds for a change--as long as the public has access to the beach in the meantime. We've had to foot the bill for soooo many bad actors suing the County (ahem, you know who you are); *surely* we can foot the bill on something that actually ensures public interest and rights, for a change.
Direct the parcels with the perpetual easements to take down their signs; if they don't, put up County signs telling people to keep within the 75 ft. Obviously there needs to be an open line of communication with ECSD, but if Sheriff Simmons isn't down with his off duty deputies continuing to enforce this, what are they going to do--bodily drag people off the dry sand?
Let them sue, if that's their druthers, and they can go ahead and try to get a TRO against it. They may get one, of course; or they may not, depending on the judge. But JUST like with Beach Access 4, let the public onto the land that they were intended to own, unless and up to any court ruling dictating the public stay off that property.
Otherwise? It will be years on end of litigation, with zero progress made, and the plaintiffs attorneys stalling out the process as long as possible. Look how long the court case got stalled on Beach Access 4, over absolutely nothing.
Many of us have worked tirelessly on this beach access issue for years, giving hundreds and even thousands of hours of time, with Michael McCormack's selfless and tireless investigations finally cracking it open. It's time to let the public on any parcel with an original deed stating that easement. This has gone on long enough.
The fl marketable title act basically reads that if the easement hasn’t been on the deed in the last 30 years, it becomes moot and is no longer in effect for any current deed. As you mention, it will remain to be seen if the original deed has the easement vs the current deed and if the deed of 30 years prior to current deed has the easement. If not, this will be litigated to see which has precedent. Until that litigation is complete, if the current owner has a deed with no easement, then that land likely remains private with no public easement pending the outcome. This has a long way to play out, and may be different for each lot out there, before there’s a true and legally recognized public easement across beaches that are currently owned under a deed with no easement listed.
Nice try, 2:43. It's actual more complicated than that, of course. Because those easements have previously been in use under the current deeds, there are other portions of the easement that have been in continual use, and the easement wasn't ceded by the public but TAKEN. Let the condo owners sue if they wish, parcel by parcel or class action. They may win; they may not. In the meantime, let the public on that beach.
From the Florida Bar:
"Regarding item 6, easements established prior to the root of title, if presently being used, are not eliminated by MRTA. Many of the easements currently being used are evidenced by documents recorded prior to the root of title. Even though the easement is old, and the easement document is located in the preroot part of the abstract, it cannot be ignored if the easement is still in use. If the easement is preroot and not currently in use, it is extinguished by MRTA. This causes the easement question to be twofold. First, does the easement exist? And second, is the easement in use? If the old easement does exist of record, further inquiry is required in order to deter mine whether the easement is currently in use. If it is currently in use, the old easement interest is preserved by virtue of being an exception to the effect of MRTA. If further inquiry shows the old easement has been abandoned, it is extinguished by MRTA.
Remember that use of any part of an easement preserves the whole easement. Because an easement can arise by a grant of easement document or by a reservation of easement in a muniment of title ( i.e., deeds), an examination of the preroot title involves looking for documents creating easements (grants) and looking at deeds or other muniments in the chain of title for reserved easements. Therefore, an MRTA examination of title also involves review of all deeds or other muniments in the chain of title from the earliest public records to the present for the presence of retained easements.
https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-marketable-record-title-act-made-easy/
I agree, let them sue.
Post a Comment