Two local state parks on closure list
Deer Lake and Yellow River March Preserve would close indefinitely if Gov. Crist gives his OK
SANTA ROSA BEACH -Deer Lake State Park is among more than a dozen state parks that might be closed indefinitely next year because of Florida's financial crunch.
The possible closure of Deer Lake - named after one of the rare coastal dune lakes along the 26-mile Walton County coastline - and 18 other state parks comes after Gov. Charlie Crist directed all state agencies to cut 10 percent from their proposed 2009-10 budgets, said Jessica Kemper, public information officer for the Florida Parks Service.
Another park on the potential closure list is Yellow River Marsh Preserve State Park on County Road 191 in Santa Rosa County.
Kemper said Crist must approve the proposed cuts. If he does, the parks likely would close in July.
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/parks_12771___article.html/state_closed.html
Replies
263
SoWal Expert
Then keep it open and charge enough admission so that those that actually use it, fund it. Personally, I would rather have other things, like food and clothing, instead of funding a park I have never used.
Nice try, but for the amount of funding you pay for Deer Park, is less probably on the verge of being equal to $.0000000001, and that won't buy you "other things, like food and clothing." If the TDC were to pay for the operating costs, again, not a whole penny would come out of your pocket to pay for keeping Deer Park open. Your math doesn't add up.
SoWal Expert
If there ever is big box commercial development in the area east of Sandestin, it makes infinitely more sense to keep it on US 98 or within a couple hundred feet of 98 rather than putting it on an access road between 98 and 30-A- the road infrastructure's already there, the scale of those kinds of projects fits better with the existing 98 developments (places like Christian International Church, the Chelco palace of electricity, etc) and the legal bills would be significantly less to get approval to change zoning than they would be for something closer to the beach. And a couple parcels there are already zoned for larger commercial development like the western terminus of 30-A where Albertson's was talking about putting a store at some point.
You are correct, and JOE already has plans for more commercial development at hwy 98, in WaterSound. I had heard at one time, they had plans to have more commercial space than currently present in Destin Commons.
Beach Fanatic
And I supposed you would also say that just because I see no people on the beach in the winter that we should close the beach. What about the State Forest. The most people I've ever seen while walking or riding on the trails in the State Forest is zero. Does that mean we should close the State Forest to the visitors who use it?
The County Seal for Walton County has three words on it. I bet you don't have a clue as to what they are. I'm not sure who was responsible for creating them, but those three words have enough meaning that they were integrated into the Seal. Go look them up.
I have a suggestion. The park is suggested for closing because it is "lightly used". You and MikeCat and others who wish to keep it open at taxpayer expense need to each grab 10 or 20 of your buds (not beers) and go to the park each day so that it is no longer "lightly used". Voila - problem solved!
SoWal Expert
From what I read, they aren't closing the Park because of "light use." They are closing it because they want to cut back expense -- A whopping $6,000 per year, to maintain many acres of Gulf Front property. Sounds more like a bargain to me.
Bringing 100 friends to the park every day won't change things, because there is no place to register that we entered, so no one other than the other visitors and the creatures in the Park will know that we went.
I think you are being short-sighted if you don't try to look 10 or 20 years into the future for this area of Walton County. The State is known to sell off "surplus" (aka- unused) property, and if the property is closed, it is "unused," or "surplus." The next thing they will do is sell it off to the highest bidder, which will not mean that your taxes will decrease. It only means that there will be more development, and less Park area for us to use. South Walton isn't even 1/3 of the way built out. Even if another third of the existing lots were built out, and no more were subdivided, the need for beach access, parking, and public spaces will be at a premium. When this place gets fully built out, every inch of land will be at a premium.
Bringing 100 friends to the park every day won't change things, because there is no place to register that we entered, so no one other than the other visitors and the creatures in the Park will know that we went.
I think you are being short-sighted if you don't try to look 10 or 20 years into the future for this area of Walton County. The State is known to sell off "surplus" (aka- unused) property, and if the property is closed, it is "unused," or "surplus." The next thing they will do is sell it off to the highest bidder, which will not mean that your taxes will decrease. It only means that there will be more development, and less Park area for us to use. South Walton isn't even 1/3 of the way built out. Even if another third of the existing lots were built out, and no more were subdivided, the need for beach access, parking, and public spaces will be at a premium. When this place gets fully built out, every inch of land will be at a premium.
Beach Fanatic
From what I read, they aren't closing the Park because of "light use." They are closing it because they want to cut back expense -- A whopping $6,000 per year, to maintain many acres of Gulf Front property. Sounds more like a bargain to me.
Bringing 100 friends to the park every day won't change things, because there is no place to register that we entered, so no one other than the other visitors and the creatures in the Park will know that we went.
I think you are being short-sighted if you don't try to look 10 or 20 years into the future for this area of Walton County. The State is known to sell off "surplus" (aka- unused) property, and if the property is closed, it is "unused," or "surplus." The next thing they will do is sell it off to the highest bidder, which will not mean that your taxes will decrease. It only means that there will be more development, and less Park area for us to use. South Walton isn't even 1/3 of the way built out. Even if another third of the existing lots were built out, and no more were subdivided, the need for beach access, parking, and public spaces will be at a premium. When this place gets fully built out, every inch of land will be at a premium.
No and yes. No, the State is in fact proposing closure of 10 of the most lightly used parks in the State and yes, the State is proposing to do so to save money. A few thousand here and a few thousand there and before long, you're talking about real money.
SWGB
I agree. I think that JOE completely controls the development timeline.
I don't think it's so much JOE as those big box companies. Most of those have a customer radius of around 50 miles. Since we have all of those located in either PCB, Destin, or FWB there would be no need to build one on 30A for much higher property prices.
SWGB
Nice try, but for the amount of funding you pay for Deer Park, is less probably on the verge of being equal to $.0000000001, and that won't buy you "other things, like food and clothing." If the TDC were to pay for the operating costs, again, not a whole penny would come out of your pocket to pay for keeping Deer Park open. Your math doesn't add up.
Actually no money would come out of his pocket if the TDC took it over, unless he rents a house or room in South Walton.
Beach Fanatic
And I supposed you would also say that just because I see no people on the beach in the winter that we should close the beach. What about the State Forest. The most people I've ever seen while walking or riding on the trails in the State Forest is zero. Does that mean we should close the State Forest to the visitors who use it?
The County Seal for Walton County has three words on it. I bet you don't have a clue as to what they are. I'm not sure who was responsible for creating them, but those three words have enough meaning that they were integrated into the Seal. Go look them up.
Pride, Preservation, Conservation
Banned
From what I read, they aren't closing the Park because of "light use." They are closing it because they want to cut back expense -- A whopping $6,000 per year, to maintain many acres of Gulf Front property. Sounds more like a bargain to me.
Bringing 100 friends to the park every day won't change things, because there is no place to register that we entered, so no one other than the other visitors and the creatures in the Park will know that we went.
I think you are being short-sighted if you don't try to look 10 or 20 years into the future for this area of Walton County. The State is known to sell off "surplus" (aka- unused) property, and if the property is closed, it is "unused," or "surplus." The next thing they will do is sell it off to the highest bidder, which will not mean that your taxes will decrease. It only means that there will be more development, and less Park area for us to use. South Walton isn't even 1/3 of the way built out. Even if another third of the existing lots were built out, and no more were subdivided, the need for beach access, parking, and public spaces will be at a premium. When this place gets fully built out, every inch of land will be at a premium.
Sounds pretty good to me. Can we sell the park now please?
Beach Lover
How about we keep Deer lake open and close Topsl` park we could save more money by doing this.
Beach Fanatic
I have a suggestion. The park is suggested for closing because it is "lightly used". You and MikeCat and others who wish to keep it open at taxpayer expense need to each grab 10 or 20 of your buds (not beers) and go to the park each day so that it is no longer "lightly used". Voila - problem solved!
I appreciate your opinion. It can make sense for someone to not want to pay for something that they don't feel they use. I know that somethimes people argue, let's say elderly people or those without kids, that they should not have to pay the high propertry taxes in states like Texas, because a large portion of those taxes goes to the schools, and those elderly individuals or parentless people don't have kids who attend those nice schools.
But I just believe that Deer lake SP is worth a few grand a year. I also understand your point about a few grand adding up over the state, but an earlier post about the politicain who went overseas and those who joined him on the tax payers coin, surely you would agree that large sum of money should be cut before a state park. There are obviously many frivolous ways that money is spent, thus I consider this park to be priority over so many of them.
Okay, sorry, but don't read if you don't like sarcasm. This is in response to the fact that deer lake has 'little use'... I rarely see anyone in any of the dune lakes. How about we drain them of water, fill them in, and have more real estate for sale near the beach. Heck, virtualy no one uses them anyway.
Also, I don't see anyone using the sky above the homes around here, why the heck aren't we using that space to build monsrosity skyscraper condos like in Panama City and other beach resorts. I mean, look at the possible use we are squandering.
Come on.
Banned
There are alternatives to Government ownership and Private Development. If it's worth remaining in its preserved state it can be purchased by one of the many nature conservancies.
Why do the taxpayers have to bear the costs associated with ownership?
Why do the taxpayers have to bear the costs associated with ownership?
Beach Fanatic
To use the county as a case in point, I haven't used the fire department, and hope not to, but I'm glad to help fund the county providing it. On the other hand, there are some county services I don't use, don't intend to use, and don't care for. But, I accept that my taxes will pay for them, because we don't have a system of selective taxation. One of government's historic responsibilities is furnishing parks for public use. Whether you personally like that or not, a portion of your taxes will be used for parks. And that's why the taxpayer should bear the burden. Despite fond wishes of some, most government functions don't function well in private hands and won't be privatized. So it goes...
Edited
Banned
To use the county as a case in point, I haven't used the fire department, and hope not to, but I'm glad to help fund the county providing it. On the other hand, there are some county services I don't use, don't intend to use, and don't care for. But, I accept that my taxes will pay for them, because we don't have a system of selective taxation. One of government's historic responsibilities is furnishing parks for public use. Whether you personally like that or not, a portion of your taxes will be used for parks. And that's why the taxpayer should bear the burden. Despite fond wishes of some, most government functions don't function well in private hands and won't be privatized. So it goes...
Looks like M C is doing pretty good...
Walton County Property Appraiser's OfficeSearch Criteria: Owner Search=davis m c SEARCH PRODUCED THE FOLLOWING RESULTS. SELECT ONE BY CLICKING THE PARCEL NUMBER LINK IN THE FIRST COLUMN BELOW Parcel NumberOwner NameAddressHomestead 19-2N-17-05000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 19-2N-17-05000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 20-2N-17-05000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 20-2N-17-05000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 21-2N-17-05000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 22-2N-17-05000-011-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 23-2N-17-05000-009-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 26-2N-17-05000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 27-2N-17-05000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 28-2N-17-05000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 29-2N-17-05000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 30-2N-17-05000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 31-2N-17-05000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 31-2N-17-05000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 31-2N-17-05000-002-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 32-2N-17-05000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 33-2N-17-05000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 34-2N-17-05000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 34-2N-17-05000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 35-2N-17-05000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 36-2N-17-05000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 32-3N-17-06000-011-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 33-3N-17-06000-008-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 02-1S-17-07050-00C-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 06-1S-17-07000-001-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 01-1N-18-08000-011-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 12-1N-18-08000-001-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 12-1N-18-08000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 12-1N-18-08000-003-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 13-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 14-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 15-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 15-1N-18-08000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 16-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 16-1N-18-08000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 17-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 18-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 19-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 19-1N-18-08000-001-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 20-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 21-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 22-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 22-1N-18-08000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 23-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 24-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 25-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 26-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 26-1N-18-08000-001-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 27-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 27-1N-18-08000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N Search Next 50 Parcels Print Mailing LabelsThe Walton County Tax Assessor's Office makes every effort to produce the most accurate information possible. No warranties, expressed or implied, are provided for the data herein, its use or interpretation. The assessment information is from the last certified taxroll. All data is subject to change before the next certified taxroll. Return to Main Search Walton Home
[SIZE=-2]? 2005 by the County of Walton, FL | Website design by qpublic.net[/SIZE]
Edited
Banned
Remember, M C controls these as well for conservation...
Walton County Property Appraiser's OfficeSearch Criteria: Owner Search=davis m c SEARCH PRODUCED THE FOLLOWING RESULTS. SELECT ONE BY CLICKING THE PARCEL NUMBER LINK IN THE FIRST COLUMN BELOW Parcel NumberOwner NameAddressHomestead 28-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 29-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 30-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 30-1N-18-08000-001-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 30-1N-18-08000-001-0020 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 30-1N-18-08000-003-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 30-1N-18-08000-004-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 31-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 32-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 33-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 34-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 35-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 36-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 36-1N-18-08000-003-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 01-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 02-1S-18-14000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 20-1S-18-14000-012-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 21-1S-18-14000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 21-1S-18-14000-005-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 22-1S-18-14000-004-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 23-1S-18-14000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 24-1S-18-14000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 25-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 26-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 27-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 28-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 28-1S-18-14000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 29-1S-18-14000-005-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 32-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 33-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 33-1S-18-14000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 34-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 35-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 36-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 01-2S-18-15000-000-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 02-2S-18-15000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 06-2S-18-15000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 11-2S-18-15000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 11-2S-18-15000-002-0020 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 12-2S-18-15000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 13-1N-19-17000-001-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 13-1N-19-17000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 23-1N-19-17000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 24-1N-19-17000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 24-1N-19-17000-001-0020 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 26-1N-19-17000-001-0020 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 01-2S-19-24000-001-0001 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 01-2S-19-24000-001-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 23-2S-20-33170-000-0290 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 27-2S-20-33210-000-0390 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N Search Next 50 Parcels Print Mailing LabelsThe Walton County Tax Assessor's Office makes every effort to produce the most accurate information possible. No warranties, expressed or implied, are provided for the data herein, its use or interpretation. The assessment information is from the last certified taxroll. All data is subject to change before the next certified taxroll. Return to Main Search Walton Home
[SIZE=-2]? 2005 by the County of Walton, FL | Website design by qpublic.net[/SIZE]
Walton County Property Appraiser's OfficeSearch Criteria: Owner Search=davis m c SEARCH PRODUCED THE FOLLOWING RESULTS. SELECT ONE BY CLICKING THE PARCEL NUMBER LINK IN THE FIRST COLUMN BELOW Parcel NumberOwner NameAddressHomestead 28-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 29-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 30-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 30-1N-18-08000-001-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 30-1N-18-08000-001-0020 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 30-1N-18-08000-003-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 30-1N-18-08000-004-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 31-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 32-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 33-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 34-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 35-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 36-1N-18-08000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 36-1N-18-08000-003-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 01-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 02-1S-18-14000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 20-1S-18-14000-012-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 21-1S-18-14000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 21-1S-18-14000-005-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 22-1S-18-14000-004-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 23-1S-18-14000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 24-1S-18-14000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 25-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 26-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 27-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 28-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 28-1S-18-14000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 29-1S-18-14000-005-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 32-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 33-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 33-1S-18-14000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 34-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 35-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 36-1S-18-14000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 01-2S-18-15000-000-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 02-2S-18-15000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 06-2S-18-15000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 11-2S-18-15000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 11-2S-18-15000-002-0020 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 12-2S-18-15000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 13-1N-19-17000-001-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 13-1N-19-17000-002-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 23-1N-19-17000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 24-1N-19-17000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 24-1N-19-17000-001-0020 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 26-1N-19-17000-001-0020 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 01-2S-19-24000-001-0001 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 01-2S-19-24000-001-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 23-2S-20-33170-000-0290 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 27-2S-20-33210-000-0390 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N Search Next 50 Parcels Print Mailing LabelsThe Walton County Tax Assessor's Office makes every effort to produce the most accurate information possible. No warranties, expressed or implied, are provided for the data herein, its use or interpretation. The assessment information is from the last certified taxroll. All data is subject to change before the next certified taxroll. Return to Main Search Walton Home
[SIZE=-2]? 2005 by the County of Walton, FL | Website design by qpublic.net[/SIZE]
Banned
I think this is all private conservation. I'm sure the State and County could get buyers who would keep the property in its current state.
Walton County Property Appraiser's OfficeSearch Criteria: Owner Search=davis m c SEARCH PRODUCED THE FOLLOWING RESULTS. SELECT ONE BY CLICKING THE PARCEL NUMBER LINK IN THE FIRST COLUMN BELOW Parcel NumberOwner NameAddressHomestead 27-2S-20-33210-000-0410 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 27-2S-20-33210-000-0480 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 28-2S-20-33000-028-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 29-2S-20-33000-016-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 33-2S-20-33260-032-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 25-1N-19-17000-001-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE 11275 US HWY 331 S FREEPORT N 33-1N-17-04000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE 13292 CO RD 3280 N 22-2S-20-33120-063-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE SRB N 14-1N-19-17000-002-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE US HWY 331 N FREEPORT N 14-1N-19-17000-003-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE US HWY 331 N FREEPORT N Print Mailing LabelsThe Walton County Tax Assessor's Office makes every effort to produce the most accurate information possible. No warranties, expressed or implied, are provided for the data herein, its use or interpretation. The assessment information is from the last certified taxroll. All data is subject to change before the next certified taxroll. Return to Main Search Walton Home
[SIZE=-2]? 2005 by the County of Walton, FL | Website design by qpublic.net[/SIZE]
Walton County Property Appraiser's OfficeSearch Criteria: Owner Search=davis m c SEARCH PRODUCED THE FOLLOWING RESULTS. SELECT ONE BY CLICKING THE PARCEL NUMBER LINK IN THE FIRST COLUMN BELOW Parcel NumberOwner NameAddressHomestead 27-2S-20-33210-000-0410 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 27-2S-20-33210-000-0480 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 28-2S-20-33000-028-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 29-2S-20-33000-016-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 33-2S-20-33260-032-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE N 25-1N-19-17000-001-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE 11275 US HWY 331 S FREEPORT N 33-1N-17-04000-001-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE 13292 CO RD 3280 N 22-2S-20-33120-063-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE SRB N 14-1N-19-17000-002-0010 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE US HWY 331 N FREEPORT N 14-1N-19-17000-003-0000 DAVIS M C AS TRUSTEE OF THE US HWY 331 N FREEPORT N Print Mailing LabelsThe Walton County Tax Assessor's Office makes every effort to produce the most accurate information possible. No warranties, expressed or implied, are provided for the data herein, its use or interpretation. The assessment information is from the last certified taxroll. All data is subject to change before the next certified taxroll. Return to Main Search Walton Home
[SIZE=-2]? 2005 by the County of Walton, FL | Website design by qpublic.net[/SIZE]
SWGB
There are alternatives to Government ownership and Private Development. If it's worth remaining in its preserved state it can be purchased by one of the many nature conservancies.
Why do the taxpayers have to bear the costs associated with ownership?
There are groups that buy up land for conservation. However they donate them back to local, state, and federal government. Whether you like it or not government is one of the few entities that will be around long enough and have the resources to hold onto this land. Most of the great land owners in Florida that have donated land to the State and Federal governments did so as they knew that their wishes for that land would be respected.
Edward Ball donated his private lodge at Wakulla Springs to the State because he knew the state would keep it preserved as it was the day he died. Edward Ball was also one of the original St. Joe board members. He was also good friends with Alfred Maclay who donated Maclay Gardens to the state. In fact almost every state park in North Florida that started off as a private estate was related to Edward Ball in some way and he always encouraged them to donate the land to the state as it would be preserved and undeveloped.
If you ever go to FSU and tour the campus you will see a large grass portion in the middle of the campus known as Landis Green. It was donated by the Landis family's matriarc who was a graduate of the then Florida state school for women. She left strict instructions that it would be held by her family, but with perpetual use and care by the state if left as a green. If ever developed the family would be able to take it back.
Both of these examples are why people have donated land to the state, but the most important reason was for anybody and everybody to use and enjoy.
Edited
Beach Fanatic
What does M C's land have to do with it? Deer Lake is a nice park, that is on the BEACH!
Banned
What does M C's land have to do with it? Deer Lake is a nice park, that is on the BEACH!
I figured M C's land was a good example of non-government conservation.
Beach Fanatic
I figured M C's land was a good example of non-government conservation.
And you figured right. It's a great example of non-government conservation. The fact that Deer Lake Park is on the beach is inconsequential. It can work there just like it did in Freeport. My only worry would be that the slimey governor that's in office now would try to sell it to JOE on his way out the door.
Christini Zambini
I found this article on USA Today
By Laura Bruno, USA TODAY
State parks and historical sites are facing cuts as governors seek to plug budget holes.
From scenic vistas and campgrounds to historical buildings, the cuts have forced closures and curtailed visiting hours.
Illinois has taken among the most drastic actions so far, closing seven parks and cutting the historical preservation budget in half, from $5.6 million to $2.8 million, according to David Blanchette, spokesman for the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency.
That has meant the shuttering of 12 historical sites, including the Lincoln Log Cabin, where Lincoln's father and stepmother lived, and the Dana-Thomas House, designed by architect Frank Lloyd Wright, effective Dec. 1, Blanchette said.
"There's a hole, a sadness ? we wanted to put a black wreath on the door because we're certainly in mourning, said Gayle Manning, 67, of Petersburg, Ill., a longtime Dana-Thomas House volunteer.
The closures could bring wider economic problems, including delayed maintenance, parks advocates say.
"As all states are promoting tourism, what kind of message does this send?" asked Jim Peters, president of Landmarks Illinois, a historic preservation advocacy group. "There is the potential loss of hundreds of millions of dollars for restaurants ? retail shops and hotels."
State park cuts put in place nationwide include:
?New York: Seventy-five parks and historical sites will see a service reduction, from features closed for the winter to early closure of 10 campgrounds, said Eileen Larrabee of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.
?New Jersey: The state backed off a plan to close nine parks and instead closed administrative offices at 19 parks, affecting access to restrooms and shops, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection.
?Ohio: Three cuts, amounting to $5.7 million, were ordered this year, according to Dan West, chief of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. "It's getting progressively hard to take these types of cuts and yet keep state parks open," he said.
?Georgia: The closing of six state parks and seven historical sites were proposed for next year, says Beth Brown, of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
?Florida: Nineteen state parks are at risk of closing, said Doug Tobin of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Bruno reports for the Daily Record in Morris County, N.J.
By Laura Bruno, USA TODAY
State parks and historical sites are facing cuts as governors seek to plug budget holes.
From scenic vistas and campgrounds to historical buildings, the cuts have forced closures and curtailed visiting hours.
Illinois has taken among the most drastic actions so far, closing seven parks and cutting the historical preservation budget in half, from $5.6 million to $2.8 million, according to David Blanchette, spokesman for the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency.
That has meant the shuttering of 12 historical sites, including the Lincoln Log Cabin, where Lincoln's father and stepmother lived, and the Dana-Thomas House, designed by architect Frank Lloyd Wright, effective Dec. 1, Blanchette said.
"There's a hole, a sadness ? we wanted to put a black wreath on the door because we're certainly in mourning, said Gayle Manning, 67, of Petersburg, Ill., a longtime Dana-Thomas House volunteer.
The closures could bring wider economic problems, including delayed maintenance, parks advocates say.
"As all states are promoting tourism, what kind of message does this send?" asked Jim Peters, president of Landmarks Illinois, a historic preservation advocacy group. "There is the potential loss of hundreds of millions of dollars for restaurants ? retail shops and hotels."
State park cuts put in place nationwide include:
?New York: Seventy-five parks and historical sites will see a service reduction, from features closed for the winter to early closure of 10 campgrounds, said Eileen Larrabee of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.
?New Jersey: The state backed off a plan to close nine parks and instead closed administrative offices at 19 parks, affecting access to restrooms and shops, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection.
?Ohio: Three cuts, amounting to $5.7 million, were ordered this year, according to Dan West, chief of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. "It's getting progressively hard to take these types of cuts and yet keep state parks open," he said.
?Georgia: The closing of six state parks and seven historical sites were proposed for next year, says Beth Brown, of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
?Florida: Nineteen state parks are at risk of closing, said Doug Tobin of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Bruno reports for the Daily Record in Morris County, N.J.
Beach Fanatic
I may be beating a dead horse here, but...
Once upon a time, we had one state park in SoWal: Grayton Beach State Park.
Then, in the late 1960s/early 1970s (don't have to time look it up right now), Lois Maxon donated the Wesley House, the antiques she had filled it with, and the gardens she had planted (or had someone else plant) down to the site of the old Wesley/Strickland timber mill to the state. At that point, we had Eden, later named Eden Gardens State Park.
In the mid-to-late 1980's, a developer - maybe more than one - announced plans to develop the pristine, sensitive, historic acreage between Beach Highlands and Four Mile Village. This was not an eco-friendly development plan; instead, it was gaudy. Simply gaudy. Long story, but the developer ran out of gas in the savings & loan crisis and after much petitioning, the state bought it. Hello Topsail.
I am not quite sure how Deer Lake came into being; apparently it was during a time when I wasn't paying attention. I remember riding ATV's back there in the mid-1980's (I know, I know, I didn't know then, sorry) and I remember that being the place that became popular with the nudies after the development of Rosemary Beach got underway. During the last decade, we have seen every square inch of this coastline greedily developed, often without any thought and often with disrespect as to what nature intended or what the future will hold. While we as residents have benefitted from the services and neighbors that came with the development, the one thing that is most precious to us - a quiet, serene afternoon at the beach - has slid further and further away.
Finding a quiet place at the county accesses has become a ridiculous impossibility, and this - to me - is the attractiveness of the state parks. They can get crowded, but typically your fellow beachgoers show restraint in their behavior and their respect for the environment there. It would be a travesty, and ultimately a irrepairable tragedy, to see Deer Lake and/or Topsail fall once again into the greedy grasp of a developer.
Crawling down from the soap box...
Once upon a time, we had one state park in SoWal: Grayton Beach State Park.
Then, in the late 1960s/early 1970s (don't have to time look it up right now), Lois Maxon donated the Wesley House, the antiques she had filled it with, and the gardens she had planted (or had someone else plant) down to the site of the old Wesley/Strickland timber mill to the state. At that point, we had Eden, later named Eden Gardens State Park.
In the mid-to-late 1980's, a developer - maybe more than one - announced plans to develop the pristine, sensitive, historic acreage between Beach Highlands and Four Mile Village. This was not an eco-friendly development plan; instead, it was gaudy. Simply gaudy. Long story, but the developer ran out of gas in the savings & loan crisis and after much petitioning, the state bought it.
Hello Topsail.I am not quite sure how Deer Lake came into being; apparently it was during a time when I wasn't paying attention. I remember riding ATV's back there in the mid-1980's (I know, I know, I didn't know then, sorry) and I remember that being the place that became popular with the nudies after the development of Rosemary Beach got underway. During the last decade, we have seen every square inch of this coastline greedily developed, often without any thought and often with disrespect as to what nature intended or what the future will hold. While we as residents have benefitted from the services and neighbors that came with the development, the one thing that is most precious to us - a quiet, serene afternoon at the beach - has slid further and further away.
Finding a quiet place at the county accesses has become a ridiculous impossibility, and this - to me - is the attractiveness of the state parks. They can get crowded, but typically your fellow beachgoers show restraint in their behavior and their respect for the environment there. It would be a travesty, and ultimately a irrepairable tragedy, to see Deer Lake and/or Topsail fall once again into the greedy grasp of a developer.
Crawling down from the soap box...
Beach Fanatic
I think the RV park makes it hard to mess with Topsail. It puts them into a position where the campers can cover the expenses for maintaining the rest of it, and it's politicially hard to get rid of a state park that's self-funding.
Beach Fanatic
I may be beating a dead horse here, but...
Once upon a time, we had one state park in SoWal: Grayton Beach State Park.
Then, in the late 1960s/early 1970s (don't have to time look it up right now), Lois Maxon donated the Wesley House, the antiques she had filled it with, and the gardens she had planted (or had someone else plant) down to the site of the old Wesley/Strickland timber mill to the state. At that point, we had Eden, later named Eden Gardens State Park.
In the mid-to-late 1980's, a developer - maybe more than one - announced plans to develop the pristine, sensitive, historic acreage between Beach Highlands and Four Mile Village. This was not an eco-friendly development plan; instead, it was gaudy. Simply gaudy. Long story, but the developer ran out of gas in the savings & loan crisis and after much petitioning, the state bought it.
I am not quite sure how Deer Lake came into being; apparently it was during a time when I wasn't paying attention. I remember riding ATV's back there in the mid-1980's (I know, I know, I didn't know then, sorry) and I remember that being the place that became popular with the nudies after the development of Rosemary Beach got underway. During the last decade, we have seen every square inch of this coastline greedily developed, often without any thought and often with disrespect as to what nature intended or what the future will hold. While we as residents have benefitted from the services and neighbors that came with the development, the one thing that is most precious to us - a quiet, serene afternoon at the beach - has slid further and further away.
Finding a quiet place at the county accesses has become a ridiculous impossibility, and this - to me - is the attractiveness of the state parks. They can get crowded, but typically your fellow beachgoers show restraint in their behavior and their respect for the environment there. It would be a travesty, and ultimately a irrepairable tragedy, to see Deer Lake and/or Topsail fall once again into the greedy grasp of a developer.
Crawling down from the soap box...
completely agree. I still have not heard a peep from Sonny at the TDC, but will continue to see if there are some alternatives that will keep Deer Lake open. It seems to me the easiest approach might be simply to add it to the list of state parks that require a fee.
It breaks my heart when I think of how beautiful this area used to be and how I did not appreciate it (especially the Dunes) as much as I should have. I just never thought that developers would build on all the dunes. They (the Dunes) had always been there and those of us who grew up with them, would not have thought to build there.
Beach Fanatic
completely agree. I still have not heard a peep from Sonny at the TDC, but will continue to see if there are some alternatives that will keep Deer Lake open. It seems to me the easiest approach might be simply to add it to the list of state parks that require a fee.
It breaks my heart when I think of how beautiful this area used to be and how I did not appreciate it (especially the Dunes) as much as I should have. I just never thought that developers would build on all the dunes. They (the Dunes) had always been there and those of us who grew up with them, would not have thought to build there.
On an issue like this, if you already have an unreturned call into him, I would suggest calling again. Maybe we should all call him?
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.