Some fights are worth it. They are worth having.
Maintaining the public's right to access a 1.2 Mile long, 75' swath of pristine beach that was memorialized in the original deeds from the Federal Government to the original private sector owners in 1957 is such a fight that is worth having.
This language wasn't an accident on the part of the Federal Government.
It wasn't a one-off.
No, every one of the 64 deeds in this stretch of beach has the same language in the deed indicating there is a PERPETUAL EASEMENT for the public to use that portion as a public beach. 64 out of 64 deeds.
"The southerly 75 feet of said lot being subject to a perpetual easement for a beach for public use generally."
That precise language is in every one of these 64 deeds.
And people have, through the years, used that beach and accessed that beach because it was known it was public, that stretch.
West-side surfers have walked up and down that beach--surfing the best breaks along that stretch-- in the 1960's-1970's-1980's-1990's-2000's and 2010's. Ditto for families and fishermen like my Dad and I in the early to mid 1980's.
There was never any issues there. Ever. We parked across the street at the (then) Junior Food Store and walked up and down the beach fishing this beach.
So, what happened? When did this change? Why did this change? Who pulled this language out of subsequent property transfer documents as these individual lots changed hands through the years? How was this not caught? Who erected the first "no trespassing" sign on this stretch--who started that nefarious process to attempt to keep the public out of beaches this same public knew was set aside for their use?
Thankfully---many have continued to use that beach even up to the present time---ignoring the signs and sometimes being confronted by owners and private security guards. Several folks that I know NEVER acknowledged this false narrative of privacy of this strip of land. And thankfully, they didn't. More on that later in the litigation, but for now suffice it to say that from 1957 to the present day there have been members of the public that have exercised their right to use that beach---even though recently they were harrassed for it. That will prove to be important. This easement never was, never has been and NEVER WILL BE abandoned by the public.
Here is the thing, this is what I want the current owners and the general public to know about my position on this:
It is not your (current owner's) fault, and it certainly isn't the county's fault or my fault we are here where we are with impending litigation: It is a mess. A big giant problem. But I have confidence in the justice system overall--even though I know it isn't perfect. With that said--until some bright legal minds in the courts say differently--my position always has to be on the side of and in support of legal, lawful, enforceable documents--which I believe these original deeds from the Federal Government to be. Anything less than a full-throated, strident defense of this language and these easements for the people's benefit would be a reckless dereliction of my duty as a constitutional officer.
So yes, I will fight for the people's right to access this beach because it is the right thing to do. Even if it costs me an election.
It's the right thing to do--because this IS a Fight worth having.
 |
| One of the 64 Original Deeds from 1957 with the easement language |
12 comments:
I live out here and I (like many) have been begging for more public Beach access for YEARS. People just don't seem to understand (or maybe they just don't care?), that once the remaining properties are sold and condos and/or homes are built, we--the public--will NEVER get that beach back. Perdido Key isn't like Pensacola Beach, there's hardly anywhere to park anymore. We recently lost hundreds of spots at Johnson's Beach and Access#1, 2, and 3 are a joke! And now here's ANOTHER lawsuit filed against the county by some condo owners that want to keep the public off of what they THINK is their beach.
This is crazy. Coastal property is not like inland property. It is a finite resource that should be shared by all, not just the wealthy.
They just finished new parking areas on Johnson beach???
Commissioner, there was a reason I reached out to you when I found that survey with the language contained in the deeds. This is the reason, I knew you would fight to insure that our rights to that easement would be brought to the front and recognized despite what some claim their rights to be. They will learn that the written word is more powerful than innuendo and deceit.
Like you say, you play by the rules and have done so accordingly on this issue, proving me right in my assessment. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I used those beaches from a small child up to adulthood, from the early 60's to present day. For over 65 years and never had any issue until the last several years. Let's protect the publics right to enjoy what God gave ALL to enjoy and nourish our bodies and souls.
Yes, but we had far more parking spaces when we had roadside parking.
Just like what we have seen at Ft. Pickens, those asphalt parking lots will be fodder when the next big storm hits.
Same here, Michael. I was born and raised here. Perdido, Pensacola Beach, Ft. Pickens... they are a part of me. It breaks my heart to see all of the condos that have been built and to witness people being treated poorly simply because they want to enjoy the beach.
I too, hope the Commissioner prevails.
Thank you Michael for the research you did that led to this language being identified in 64 deeds which in turn led to over a mile's worth of this beautiful beach being opened up for the public's use. I will fight this attempt by some to take this back from all of us citizens. This is the fight and it is worth having. Thank you and just know as long as I am in this seat, that beach stays open!
So I am sure you are formulating a plan to reimburse all of the condo owners all of the taxes paid on this land as well. Will you pass this cost along to all tax payers?
10:55--there is no reimbursement required--they still own it, but there is an easement on it allowing for the public to use the first 75' of it. But this in no way diminishes their right to go out there as well and use it! Remember--this was always a fact that was known from day one in 1957. It's just that someone along the way decided to go ahead and not transfer the easement on some subsequent property transfer document. That's the part that needs to get sorted out. Why was that taken out and by whom?
I am a lonely Democrat (lol) who mostly votes down ballot Dem, but anything that can be done to preserve the beaches @ Perdido Key and allow access gets my vote. Ssshh, don't tell anyone
Everyone should vote issues, not party. Find the candidate that aligns with your politics and support them, no matter what the letter behind the name is.
Lokken-Maintaining the public's right to Beach Access--where it is specifically called for in legal documents that defined the deeds to these 64 properties, is a concept that is bi-partisan. Thanks for the support on this!
Coastal housing and condo owners bought their properties with proper title to the tide line. If taken from them, title guarantee contracts will be enforced and litigated. That property line understanding has value. No one can take that land value without substituting something else of value.
Post a Comment