I saw this on FB, attributed to Indialantic Mayor Dave Berkman, but have not found original source to confirm it.

It would allow oceanfront property owners to restrict access to the beach in front of their property, and force citizens or local governments to take the owner to court and prove a history of "customary use."

I don't see that explicitly in the legislation, but I'm not a lawyer or politician.

If true (see attachment), then it warrants some hell-raising.

Some phone Numbers

Not sure of details or if it's too late for comments or what.  Not even sure who those people represent.  Just something...

It is true. We considered our options in Mel Bch at the last commission meeting and our attorney's opinion is that there should be minimal impact to us because of the beach renourishment (aaah, the irony) and because we would still probably win in court since we have been using these areas of our beaches for decades. (However, we would still have to pay to go to court). Regarding renourishment, since all taxpayers paid for the sand, beachfront homeowners should not be able to deny use of the beach. Unfortunately, we cannot pass an ordinance that would override this State bill because the legislation specifically prohibits anything after sometime in 2016 (2015? anyway, too late). Areas that have not received renourishment could have a problem, but, my understanding is that beachfront owners signed a waiver when they accepted the sand. Another area of concern would be the big money owners (condo associations and big hotels) who might not mind the expense of fighting in court. They could try to bleed municipalities dry financially and win that way. Please note, this is only one of many, many, many attacks on municipal home rule by the leadership of our State legislature. For the past decade the State legislature, under this party's leadership, wants to obliterate municipalities' ability to govern themselves. We keep sending the same party back to Washington and Tallahassee and we keep getting the same results - more attacks on the issues that matter to most people. Einstein's definition of insanity - keep doing the same thing while expecting different results. Time for a change. (I know this second paragraph should be in NSR, but, I couldn't help myself.)

It is true. We considered our options in Mel Bch at the last commission meeting and our attorney's opinion is that there should be minimal impact to us because of the beach renourishment (aaah, the irony) and because we would still probably win in court since we have been using these areas of our beaches for decades. (However, we would still have to pay to go to court). Regarding renourishment, since all taxpayers paid for the sand, beachfront homeowners should not be able to deny use of the beach. Unfortunately, we cannot pass an ordinance that would override this State bill because the legislation specifically prohibits anything after sometime in 2016 (2015? anyway, too late). Areas that have not received renourishment could have a problem, but, my understanding is that beachfront owners signed a waiver when they accepted the sand. Another area of concern would be the big money owners (condo associations and big hotels) who might not mind the expense of fighting in court. They could try to bleed municipalities dry financially and win that way. Please note, this is only one of many, many, many attacks on municipal home rule by the leadership of our State legislature. For the past decade the State legislature, under this party's leadership, wants to obliterate municipalities' ability to govern themselves. We keep sending the same party back to Washington and Tallahassee and we keep getting the same results - more attacks on the issues that matter to most people. Einstein's definition of insanity - keep doing the same thing while expecting different results. Time for a change. (I know this second paragraph should be in NSR, but, I couldn't help myself.)