BCC buys parcel in Miramar

**wrobert** · 12-10-2008, 04:09 PM

http://qpublic1.qpublic.net/cgi-bin/...42000-006-0012

Can one of you real estate people enlighten me about this piece of land? Do these sort of things show up as comps for determining other values? With money as tight as it is $550K seems like an awful lot when no one has said what we are going to do with it.

**scooterbug44** · 12-10-2008, 04:36 PM

This one definitely bears a closer look!

Nice for the seller though - since they bought it for $45k in 2002 (at a loss to the seller BTW), they just cleared half a mil!

Seems quite odd - especially since the BCC paid 4x the taxed value in the current market.

**AAbsolute** · 12-10-2008, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by wrobert

http://qpublic1.qpublic.net/cgi-bin/...42000-006-0012

Can one of you real estate people enlighten me about this piece of land? Do these sort of things show up as comps for determining other values? With money as tight as it is $550K seems like an awful lot when no one has said what we are going to do with it.

Nothing standard about this transaction. Somebody wasn't as thoughtful as they could have been.

**AAbsolute** · 12-10-2008, 07:51 PM

I think highly of David Pleat and Amy Perry. I don't know Chris or Stephanie, but I think I'd like to meet them.

**Smiling JOe** · 12-10-2008, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by wrobert

http://qpublic1.qpublic.net/cgi-bin/...42000-006-0012

Can one of you real estate people enlighten me about this piece of land? Do these sort of things show up as comps for determining other values? With money as tight as it is $550K seems like an awful lot when no one has said what we are going to do with it.

It depends on whose definition of value you use. The Walton County Property Appraiser will use it as a comp to determine value. Automated valuations will use it. Florida Real Estate Appraisers will use it. Realtors, unless there was a Realtor involved in the transaction, will not likely use it to value other similar property.

The other question seems very separate from the first question. $550k may be much money, but without knowing their intent of use for the property, I don't think we can run around pointing fingers, just yet.

**30ashopper** · 12-10-2008, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by wrobert

http://qpublic1.qpublic.net/cgi-bin/...42000-006-0012

Can one of you real estate people enlighten me about this piece of land? Do these sort of things show up as comps for determining other values? With money as tight as it is $550K seems like an awful lot when no one has said what we are going to do with it.

It's unqualified, so from my understanding the price was artificial set and won't be used in property assessment values.

**SWGB** · 12-10-2008, 08:18 PM

Well if you look up the actual documents at the clerks office it sold for a whopping $10.00. Looks like the property appraisers website got it wrong or it's related to a donation transaction.

**AAbsolute** · 12-11-2008, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by wrobert

http://qpublic1.qpublic.net/cgi-bin/...42000-006-0012

Can one of you real estate people enlighten me about this piece of land? Do these sort of things show up as comps for determining other values? With money as tight as it is $550K seems like an awful lot when no one has said what we are going to do with it.

You must know how to catch bass. You just through this one out there for me and I couldn't resist.

Chris and Stephanie own the company that owned that parcel. They sued Walton County over Land Use issues for the parcel. After deposing all the players from Planning and Zoning the parties mediated. The matter was settled with Walton County buying the property.

It's good to see someone succeed against the County from time to time.

**wrobert** · 12-11-2008, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by AAbsolute

You must know how to catch bass. You just through this one out there for me and I couldn't resist.

Chris and Stephanie own the company that owned that parcel. They sued Walton County over Land Use issues for the parcel. After deposing all the players from Planning and Zoning the parties mediated. The matter was settled with Walton County buying the property.

It's good to see someone succeed against the County from time to time.

You do realize that we are the County?

Wonder why someone like me, come across stuff like this, yet we never seem to see anything about it in the news media. You have to be curious as to just what in the world happened to make the county feel the need to write a check this large, and now that the county owns the land, what are the plans to try to mitigate that huge expenditure and get some of those dollars back. All they talk about is how poor they are and how tight things due to the economy. Why not sell the land so someone could get it back on the tax rolls.

**AAbsolute** · 12-11-2008, 11:25 AM

It's another case of our County going out of their way to impress their backwoods favoritism on someone's private business affairs. I know it sounds harsh, but these are the worst types of affront on American citizenry.

When you say, "Do you realize that we are the County?" I have to take exception. There are some who have been here longer than others who take different ownership of that statement than the newer settlers.

Please continue to bring these types of things to our collective attention. We need to know.

**wrobert** · 12-11-2008, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by AAbsolute

It's another case of our County going out of their way to impress their backwoods favoritism on someone's private business affairs. I know it sounds harsh, but these are the worst types of affront on American citizenry.

When you say, "Do you realize that we are the County?" I have to take exception. There are some who have been here longer than others who take different ownership of that statement than the newer settlers.

Please continue to bring these types of things to our collective attention. We need to know.

I just finished reading the transcript of the meeting where they decided to settle the suit and make the purchase. The suggestions were for it to be sold to DOT for a retention pond, stock it with fish, put affordable housing there. Along with suing a previous employee that I guess some feel are the cause of this mess. It did come out that there could literally be dozens of these same scenarios playing out over the next few years if something is not done. I get the impression that a Pensacola attorney has turned Walton County land decisions into a cottage industry.

**AAbsolute** · 12-11-2008, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by wrobert

I just finished reading the transcript of the meeting where they decided to settle the suit and make the purchase. The suggestions were for it to be sold to DOT for a retention pond, stock it with fish, put affordable housing there. Along with suing a previous employee that I guess some feel are the cause of this mess. It did come out that there could literally be dozens of these same scenarios playing out over the next few years if something is not done. I get the impression that a Pensacola attorney has turned Walton County land decisions into a cottage industry.

It's a boutique industry to sell assets to the Gov't. Some are very skilled in it.
It's one way to keep revenues up in this market.

**SWGB** · 12-11-2008, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by sowalgayboi

Well if you look up the actual documents at the clerks office it sold for a whopping $10.00. Looks like the property appraisers website got it wrong or it's related to a donation transaction.

So the actual signed document that shows a price of $10.00 doesn't play into this at all and we all go about assuming that the county paid half a million for the property?

**Bob Wells** · 12-11-2008, 06:10 PM

OK
Cindy Meadows did not want to give employees of the County a $700 pay increase because she thought this money should be returned to the taxpayer but we buy a peice of property that is removed from the tax rolls. I sure hope the commissioners will get off the buying spree, they also are/ were looking at a peice of property called the Natural Bridge area.

**AAbsolute** · 12-11-2008, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by sowalgayboi

So the actual signed document that shows a price of $10.00 doesn't play into this at all and we all go about assuming that the county paid half a million for the property?

That $10.00 is not as important as the cryptic "and other good and valuable consideration."

http://clerkofcourts.co.walton.fl.us...140&RecordID=0

**30ashopper** · 12-11-2008, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by sowalgayboi

So the actual signed document that shows a price of $10.00 doesn't play into this at all and we all go about assuming that the county paid half a million for the property?

There was a civil case against these guys, but I can't find the original case in records. Looks like they turned the property over to Walton to settle a suit, which may have been for 550K. I don't think Walton paid for this property, I think they seized it.

**waltonco lover** · 12-11-2008, 07:33 PM

Since I am feeling lazy, could someone tell me what year this happened?

**AAbsolute** · 12-11-2008, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by 30ashopper

There was a civil case against these guys, but I can't find the original case in records. Looks like they turned the property over to Walton to settle a suit, which may have been for 550K. I don't think Walton paid for this property, I think they seized it.

Roessler's corporation filed the civil case against Walton County in Oct. '07.

The County had given certain land use assurances to them. Later they were not permitted to use the property as intended and they sued the County. The County settled during discovery and as a part of settlement the County bought the property from Roessler's in August of this year.

**AAbsolute** · 12-11-2008, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by waltonco lover

Since I am feeling lazy, could someone tell me what year this happened?

The County settled and bought the property from the Plaintiff's this August. Is it relevant enough?

**SWGB** · 12-12-2008, 12:17 AM

Okay so to clarify this was negligence on the part of the county and not the BCC randomly purchasing property. I guess they are having a contest with the Sheriff to see who can blow the most money before leaving office?

**AAbsolute** · 12-12-2008, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by sowalgayboi

Okay so to clarify this was negligence on the part of the county and not the BCC randomly purchasing property. I guess they are having a contest with the Sheriff to see who can blow the most money before leaving office?

I don't call the actions of the County negligence. That would be to say that it was a professional or fiduciary failure to act with care. Sending P.M.'s around from insider to insider or lowering your voice when you conversate so people can't hear you is something very different to me. But Sowal already knows how I think about that kind of activity.

**scooterbug44** · 12-12-2008, 10:16 AM

Paying $550k to solve a problem of someone not being able to do what they want with a $47k property isn't very fiscally responsible IMO.

**AAbsolute** · 12-12-2008, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by scooterbug44

Paying $550k to solve a problem of someone not being able to do what they want with a $47k property isn't very fiscally responsible IMO.

Taking advice on fiscal responsibility from Scooterbug44 is like taking marital fidelity advice from Bill Clinton.

**Creeklover** · 12-13-2008, 11:52 PM

I am sure the county insurance company paid for this. They have had this issue before and the insurance companies have paid. This appears to be a employee in the planning department who told them they could build x on the property and they could only build y on it. I think the county did the right thing by settleing this because court and lawer fees would cost more than that and the county would have still lost.

**AAbsolute** · 12-19-2008, 11:16 AM

What is this? I haven't heard of a Reverter Clause before today.

**SWGB** · 12-19-2008, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by AAbsolute

What is this? I haven't heard of a Reverter Clause before today.

Have you gone back to the warranty deed to read what the Reverter Clause is?

**AAbsolute** · 12-19-2008, 02:05 PM

Thanks for the tip.

**wrobert** · 12-19-2008, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by AAbsolute

Thanks for the tip.

I can usually follow along on these things, but this deed is for a piece of property in a whole different area of the county than the the Miraramar piece.

In the executive session it was clearly stated on more than one occasion that the insurance company would not be participating in this Bert Harriss claim. It is all on the county. They are hoping to sell the land to FDOT for a retention pond. I am hearing talk of a section 8 housing project on it though.

**AAbsolute** · 12-19-2008, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by wrobert

I can usually follow along on these things, but this deed is for a piece of property in a whole different area of the county than the the Miraramar piece.

In the executive session it was clearly stated on more than one occasion that the insurance company would not be participating in this Bert Harriss claim. It is all on the county. They are hoping to sell the land to FDOT for a retention pond. I am hearing talk of a section 8 housing project on it though.

Maybe I don't have enough experience in the FDOT retention area's. It doesn't look like a qualified property to me from an engineering point of view. I'd be interested to see who brought that idea up as a potential use. It may have been a deflection or red herring.

Thanks

**wrobert** · 12-19-2008, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by AAbsolute

Maybe I don't have enough experience in the FDOT retention area's. It doesn't look like a qualified property to me from an engineering point of view. I'd be interested to see who brought that idea up as a potential use. It may have been a deflection or red herring.

Thanks

When I get back to one of my computers I will post the minutes from the sessions, I believe the idea was mentioned by the county attorney, Burke.

**wrobert** · 12-19-2008, 02:34 PM

I love this new Microsoft Mesh system. Here is the last one.

**AAbsolute** · 12-19-2008, 02:53 PM

One of my favorite quotes of all time:

**Bob Hudson** · 12-19-2008, 03:40 PM

Bert Harris claims are excluded by the insurance carrier.

$550,000 straight out of the "Land Account" (per Pennington with the Clerk's Office) of the BCC. In other words straight out of the taxpayers pocket.

We have several cases either under litigation or in the process of being filed that are very similar in nature (Bert Harris claims).

Time will tell but from what I have seen, all of them have good chances of getting a favorable jury verdict, if the county doesn't settle before hand.

**SWGB** · 12-21-2008, 02:58 AM

Originally Posted by BobHudson

Bert Harris claims are excluded by the insurance carrier.

$550,000 straight out of the "Land Account" (per Pennington with the Clerk's Office) of the BCC. In other words straight out of the taxpayers pocket.

We have several cases either under litigation or in the process of being filed that are very similar in nature (Bert Harris claims).

Time will tell but from what I have seen, all of them have good chances of getting a favorable jury verdict, if the county doesn't settle before hand.

So in other words a broke county is about to go bankrupt?

**wrobert** · 01-02-2009, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by sowalgayboi

So in other words a broke county is about to go bankrupt?

Starting to look that way.

**Creeklover** · 01-03-2009, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by BobHudson

Bert Harris claims are excluded by the insurance carrier.

$550,000 straight out of the "Land Account" (per Pennington with the Clerk's Office) of the BCC. In other words straight out of the taxpayers pocket.

We have several cases either under litigation or in the process of being filed that are very similar in nature (Bert Harris claims).

Time will tell but from what I have seen, all of them have good chances of getting a favorable jury verdict, if the county doesn't settle before hand.

So they lied in the meeting where it said if they settle then the insurance would cover some of the bill. The Min. said 1/3 of the bill. Is this not True??????

**AAbsolute** · 01-04-2009, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by Creeklover

So they lied in the meeting where it said if they settle then the insurance would cover some of the bill. The Min. said 1/3 of the bill. Is this not True??????

I read this twice again. It is astounding to me that while the BCC was negotiating what they might do to who and talking about baiting, etc. that none of them cleared up the issue of whether they had insurance coverage for the settlement.

Someone smarter than me said:

Where the liability of a person for their debts is eroded, it brings the relationship to borrowed money even closer to the relationship that can be observed between elected officials in government--who have little or no accountability attached to the money they have charge over--and tax revenues.

**wrobert** · 01-04-2009, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Creeklover

So they lied in the meeting where it said if they settle then the insurance would cover some of the bill. The Min. said 1/3 of the bill. Is this not True??????

As of 12/18 the insurance company has not made any payment to the county that I am aware of.