Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Best FL Example of a County Code of Ordinances

All Counties should adopt this ordinance like Volusia County did..

Sec. 20-82. General policy.
The intent of section 205.1 of the Charter is to determine as a legislative fact binding on county government that since time immemorial the public has enjoyed access to the beach and has made recreational use of the beach; that such use has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute; and that, because of this customary access and use, the public has the right of access to the beach and a right to use the beach for recreation and other customary purposes. The intent of section 205.1 of the Charter is to mandate that county government define, protect and enforce the public's customary rights of beach access and use. It is not the intent of the Charter or of this chapter to affect in any way the title of the owner of land adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, or to impair the right of any such owner to contest the existence of the customary right of the public to access and use any particular area of privately owned beach, or to reduce or limit any rights of public access or use that may exist or arise other than as customary rights. It is therefore declared and affirmed to be the public policy of this county that the public, individually and collectively, subject to the provisions of this chapter, shall have the right of personal ingress and egress to and from the beach and the right to make recreational and other customary uses of the beach. The county legal department shall be authorized to take all steps legally necessary to protect and defend the public right of access and use declared by the Charter and this chapter.
(Ord. No. 87-36, § 3.01, 11-16-87)

3 comments:

jessica said...

I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
___________________
Jessica
Email Marketing Solutions

SReynolds said...

I am amazed that you would use the Volusia County ordinance as an "example." It is, at best, an "example" of the take of private property for public use for beach driving without due process. Volusia County has been, and continues to be sued over its overt take of private property for the activity. No one objects to the pedestrian's statutorily defined rights of "customary" uses of the beach; however, according to a UF law professor, if Volusia County keeps pushing beach driving - violating private property rights - all beach visitors -- even pedestrians (Surfrider members) may suffer as a result if it reaches the FL Supreme Court or higher! The issues in the Walton County [judicial takings] case presently before the US Supreme Court pales in comparison with issues and facts involved in Volusia County's overt acts. Be reminded that beach driving was banned on all beaches within the State in 1985, for environmental and human safety reasons. Through political cronyism, unfortunately, some exceptions were made, one of which was for Volusia County, to the detriment of their beach accessing humans and the beach's natural inhabitants; and their environments. According to state statutes and federal law, both have superior rights of "customary use" of our beaches within the state; as the FL Supreme Court held in 1939 in White v. Hughes, and by federal acts (e.g., the ESA and MBTA). With only four (4) parcels within the whole state having been adjudicated for any sort of "customary" use by the public -- all within Volusia County --on one of which, the Tona-Rama (1974) commercial parcel in Daytona Beach the County has now denied the public's right to drive; and three so declared within the past two weeks, little solace can be found for Surfrider Foundation, et al., in their ordinance "example." I have to "smile" when I read of your propaganda clothing Surfrider Foundation as an environmental group, while endorsing -- applauding -- Volusia County. Your "example" was the first governmental agency within the whole state of Florida to seek an Incidental Take Permit from USFW after having been found by them in violation of the ESA, to legally kill endangered/protected species (sea turtles, now including piping plovers) in their natural habitat to accommodate public beach driving. If they could have gotten a permit to kill children/humans via such a method, in my opinion, they would have been the first in line to have done so. Two of their own, beach patrol officers, one with 15 years of experience in beach driving, the other more than 20, ran over beach visitors in the recent past. The one with 15 years of service was fined $118 for careless driving after investigation by FDLE. The lives of both women -- one from Ft. Smith, AK, the other a local -- have been forever changed by the callousness of your "example's" beach management in the name of public access. The older woman was in a Nursing Home subsequent to being run over. Volusia County taxpayers paid the $100,000, sovereign immunity capped liability, to each woman. "Best FL Example of a County Code of Ordinances," what a joke. Do the research, become knowledgeable before you make such an endorsement. You owe it to your membership and the public at large. Brush up your amicus skills -- you will need them again, when you support Volusia County's take of private property at the Florida or US Supreme Court levels. In the interim, it is hoped you gain the wisdom, on behalf of your membership, to "pick your battles." Shame on you!!!!

SReynolds said...

I am amazed that you would use the Volusia County ordinance as an "example." It is, at best, an "example" of the take of private property for public use for beach driving without due process. Volusia County has been, and continues to be sued over its overt take of private property for the activity. No one objects to the pedestrian's statutorily defined rights of "customary" uses of the beach; however, according to a UF law professor, if Volusia County keeps pushing beach driving - violating private property rights - all beach visitors -- even pedestrians (Surfrider members) may suffer as a result if it reaches the FL Supreme Court or higher! The issues in the Walton County [judicial takings] case presently before the US Supreme Court pales in comparison with issues and facts involved in Volusia County's overt acts. Be reminded that beach driving was banned on all beaches within the State in 1985, for environmental and human safety reasons. Through political cronyism, unfortunately, some exceptions were made, one of which was for Volusia County, to the detriment of their beach accessing humans and the beach's natural inhabitants; and their environments. According to state statutes and federal law, both have superior rights of "customary use" of our beaches within the state; as the FL Supreme Court held in 1939 in White v. Hughes, and by federal acts (e.g., the ESA and MBTA). With only four (4) parcels within the whole state having been adjudicated for any sort of "customary" use by the public -- all within Volusia County --on one of which, the Tona-Rama (1974) commercial parcel in Daytona Beach the County has now denied the public's right to drive; and three so declared within the past two weeks, little solace can be found for Surfrider Foundation, et al., in their ordinance "example." I have to "smile" when I read of your propaganda clothing Surfrider Foundation as an environmental group, while endorsing -- applauding -- Volusia County. Your "example" was the first governmental agency within the whole state of Florida to seek an Incidental Take Permit from USFW after having been found by them in violation of the ESA, to legally kill endangered/protected species (sea turtles, now including piping plovers) in their natural habitat to accommodate public beach driving. If they could have gotten a permit to kill children/humans via such a method, in my opinion, they would have been the first in line to have done so. Two of their own, beach patrol officers, one with 15 years of experience in beach driving, the other more than 20, ran over beach visitors in the recent past. The one with 15 years of service was fined $118 for careless driving after investigation by FDLE. The lives of both women -- one from Ft. Smith, AK, the other a local -- have been forever changed by the callousness of your "example's" beach management in the name of public access. The older woman was in a Nursing Home subsequent to being run over. Volusia County taxpayers paid the $100,000, sovereign immunity capped liability, to each woman. "Best FL Example of a County Code of Ordinances," what a joke. Do the research, become knowledgeable before you make such an endorsement. You owe it to your membership and the public at large. Brush up your amicus skills -- you will need them again, when you support Volusia County's take of private property at the Florida or US Supreme Court levels. In the interim, it is hoped you gain the wisdom, on behalf of your membership, to "pick your battles." Shame on you!!!!