County sued for $3 Million+

With you being an realtor, it would be a person like you to only gain from a project that would enhance the area. Why would the commission turn anything down in a "down" economy.

Though you weren't addressing me with this post, please don't assume that someone puts their livelihood ahead of being a citizen & neighbor. I'm a Realtor, too, but have opposed plenty of development proposals that I felt were not desirable or appropriate.

And, similarly, the commissioners should always say "no" to a bad idea, regardless of the state of the economy. Suggesting they should say "yes" to any development because of slow times is so short-sighted (at best).

Do I have the chronology correct or incorrect. I thought the Developer planned a tall building that was within the height ordinance for that area and that the County proposed and approved a height restriction after the submittal.

Was there a height restriction in place when the Developer designed the building?

So if I wanted to open a strip club next to your business and there was no code preventing me from doing so you wouldn't want the BCC to listen to the surrounding businesses/home owners as to their opinion of that business opening.

Not a problem. Before I bought my home and my business I looked into the codes to see what could be done around me so that this could not become a problem in the future. One of those GOP traits I have......we call it personal responsibility.

I think the county should haft to pay everyone who had their rights removed from or resend the ordinance for their properties.

Under Bert Harris it would appear you need to move forward with your project and see if the regulations actually prevent you from doing it. You do not just get money because of what you might have done, you actually have to be damaged to recover damages.

Under Bert Harris it would appear you need to move forward with your project and see if the regulations actually prevent you from doing it. You do not just get money because of what you might have done, you actually have to be damaged to recover damages.

"I see", said the blind man.

In looking up rural village in the Comp. Plan and the Land development code, many districts in Walton County require a compatibility study done before you can go the Technical review board, but Rural Village does not. The report from Walton Co. staff submitted to the TRC for the Aug. 1st 2007 meeting states in writing no compatibility study required.

What say you SmilingJoe?

Did the County rush a height ordinance through after this project was presented?

aabsolute, if this is such a concern for you, where were you during the last year when all of this was being hashed out? I didn't see you at any of the meetings. Perhaps you wrote emails to the BCC, presenting your evidence as to why this should be approved. Is that the case?

If you want to have input in this gov't, it will go further if it is given prior to final decisions being made. So many people say they don't have time to get involved, and I respect that, but it is all about priorities. If it is important enough, you will show up.

aabsolute, if this is such a concern for you, where were you during the last year when all of this was being hashed out? I didn't see you at any of the meetings. Perhaps you wrote emails to the BCC, presenting your evidence as to why this should be approved. Is that the case?

If you want to have input in this gov't, it will go further if it is given prior to final decisions being made. So many people say they don't have time to get involved, and I respect that, but it is all about priorities. If it is important enough, you will show up.

Once again, no answer to a clear, direct and simple question from me to you. Instead you deflect.

Many months ago (when it was first being proposed and we were discussing it on Sowal) I brought up the issue of this project and the height ordinance with one of the county commissioners. I was told that the project had so many problems and issues that it would never happen - it was such a mess that building height was the least of the developer's concerns.

The people currently suing for millions of our tax dollars are the only ones who thought the project was feasible - everyone else thought it was an ill conceived joke.

Many months ago (when it was first being proposed and we were discussing it on Sowal) I brought up the issue of this project and the height ordinance with one of the county commissioners. I was told that the project had so many problems and issues that it would never happen - it was such a mess that building height was the least of the developer's concerns.

The people currently suing for millions of our tax dollars are the only ones who thought the project was feasible - everyone else thought it was an ill conceived joke.

I didn't know that.

That view corridor for the proposed building is one of the most valuable on the long vista of the bay. I lived on the bay down the vista from it on the South side. There was something real awe inspiring about the sunsets looking West South West. ShallowsNole can attest that if you get out off the shoreline of the North or South bay shore and view West you can get a 30 mile view and it's a little easier to believe in a Higher Power.

When proposed I was sure that they could get that building on there with concessions.

In looking up rural village in the Comp. Plan and the Land development code, many districts in Walton County require a compatibility study done before you can go the Technical review board, but Rural Village does not. The report from Walton Co. staff submitted to the TRC for the Aug. 1st 2007 meeting states in writing no compatibility study required.

Maybe the compatibility study wasn't required because it is plain as day that the project isn't compatible?

ShallowsNole can attest that if you get out off the shoreline of the North or South bay shore and view West you can get a 30 mile view and it's a little easier to believe in a Higher Power.

Due to the curvature of the Earth, it is impossible to see a 30 mile view from that location, unless of course you build a high-rise.

Due to the curvature of the Earth, it is impossible to see a 30 mile view from that location, unless of course you build a high-rise.

There's my point. The horizon occurs in a variety of ways. I like this one:

This can be determined in a number of ways but perhaps the easiest is by using Pythagoras theorem of right-angled triangles. Using this, the distance to the horizon is:

SQRT (h+2rh)


Where h is the eye height above sea level and r is the radius of the earth (roundly, 4,000 miles).

Using feet throughout (for a six foot eye height) the calculation becomes:

SQRT (6+(2*21120000*6) = 15920 feet.

Divide this by 5,280 (feet in a mile) and you get 3.01 miles

The vista termination from the proposed building looking beyond 331 bridge lets you see the sunset over an inland water way. This is very, very rare. I think it's valuable too.

There's my point. The horizon occurs in a variety of ways. I like this one:

This can be determined in a number of ways but perhaps the easiest is by using Pythagoras theorem of right-angled triangles. Using this, the distance to the horizon is:

SQRT (h+2rh)


Where h is the eye height above sea level and r is the radius of the earth (roundly, 4,000 miles).

Using feet throughout (for a six foot eye height) the calculation becomes:

SQRT (6+(2*21120000*6) = 15920 feet.

Divide this by 5,280 (feet in a mile) and you get 3.01 miles

The vista termination from the proposed building looking beyond 331 bridge lets you see the sunset over an inland water way. This is very, very rare. I think it's valuable too.

Here's an easier way to understand the horizon:

I lived a mile down on the left for a year or two. The home was all about the bay. Sometimes like glass, sometimes textured by chop, winter north winds were like lake Michigan, and sometimes the glassy look would disappear in fog. I loved it all and framed a 6 x 6 window such that all I could see was the water like an ever changing piece of art.

If that building proposed in this Thread had been built they'd have the long view over the bridge, past Hogtown, Buck and Mack Bayous towards the tip of Driftwood and beyond. IMO they have superior sunsets compared to our South side.

This was one of my vistas.

I lived a mile down on the left for a year or two. The home was all about the bay. Sometimes like glass, sometimes textured by chop, winter north winds were like lake Michigan, and sometimes the glassy look would disappear in fog. I loved it all and framed a 6 x 6 window such that all I could see was the water like an ever changing piece of art.

If that building proposed in this Thread had been built they'd have the long view over the bridge, past Hogtown, Buck and Mack Bayous towards the tip of Driftwood and beyond. IMO they have superior sunsets compared to our South side.

This was one of my vistas.

That bay view is indeed one of the most beautiful views in the world. However, IMO, the sunset views across a coastal dune lake, adjacent dunes and then the Gulf are equally awe inspiring. You get the same glass, chop, fog, cloud variety that makes each sunset special. We'll have to have a dueling sunset thread one day. But, wait until I learn how to post pictures better. Happy Sunsetting.

This development thread has been most interesting. Can someone post all the names associated with this LLC?

dunelaker, since I don't think most people have a personal problem with the property owners, I won't post their names here, but you can go to http://www.sunbiz.org/corinam.html and look up the LLC.

dunelaker, since I don't think most people have a personal problem with the property owners, I won't post their names here, but you can go to http://www.sunbiz.org/corinam.html and look up the LLC.

Thanks, SJ. I will. Just interesting that news stories on any development usually fail to list the names associated with these LLCs. While some wise sages like you and others know who these folks usually are, many don't. The extra transparency might give a more complete picture to the general public. For most, it wouldn't make any difference. Guess this site lists all members for different groups in Florida. Wonder why reporters don't go there and report names? It would add some depth to their stories. Then, the public might know if this group and others has individuals involved in bankruptcy or other legal activities that affect local government. Without names it is impossible to connect some of the dots. Others know much more, so will leave much of this discussion to them. Just wondering.

Thanks, SJ. I will. Just interesting that news stories on any development usually fail to list the names associated with these LLCs. While some wise sages like you and others know who these folks usually are, many don't. The extra transparency might give a more complete picture to the general public. For most, it wouldn't make any difference. Guess this site lists all members for different groups in Florida. Wonder why reporters don't go there and report names? It would add some depth to their stories. Then, the public might know if this group and others has individuals involved in bankruptcy or other legal activities that affect local government. Without names it is impossible to connect some of the dots. Others know much more, so will leave much of this discussion to them. Just wondering.

It's double edged. Either you operate as an entity or you don't. Florida and Walton County mandate qualified business licenses for certain activities. When properly registered, the individual is not the applicant, the entity is. It has its own taxpayer ID and legal status.

Today, with the need for more complete and honest financial disclosure, someone will surely research and reveal possible problems lurking within these organizations. Again, most are certainly fine and upstanding individuals. It just might be good to know for future public spending and planning. With Florida's broad Open Meeting Laws, all this secrecy with LLCs seems less than optimum procedure since they are usually seeking public and governmental action. Some in our area have proven themselves quite adept at meeting a thin legal threshold, while breaking the public trust and occassional law.

Today, with the need for more complete and honest financial disclosure, someone will surely research and reveal possible problems lurking within these organizations. Again, most are certainly fine and upstanding individuals. It just might be good to know for future public spending and planning. With Florida's broad Open Meeting Laws, all this secrecy with LLCs seems less than optimum procedure since they are usually seeking public and governmental action. Some in our area have proven themselves quite adept at meeting a thin legal threshold, while breaking the public trust and occassional law.

SmilingJoe posted the ultimate tool in transparency in Florida. It takes just a minute to check most any organizations ownership interests.

I can tell you from my persepctive that about 7 years ago a complaint was lodged against my construction firm for not having my corporation registered as a corporation. In order to satisfy the Order of the DBPR I had to qualify my corporation and permit in its name instead of my personal name. It took quite a while to perfect their Order.

To this day, every building permit I request is in the name Chambers Street Builders, Inc. and most of the time the County still issues the permit in the name John Carroll anyway. Talk about unneccesary red tape.

When my company permits a job for property I own personally we have to sign a contract with our own company and file a Notice of Commencement with ourself.

Don't you think it is more important to find out the financial disclosures of our public servants rather than individuals or LLCs. That's where the true honesty is hidden and this statement applies more to the pubic servants: "Some in our area have proven themselves quite adept at meeting a thin legal threshold, while breaking the public trust and occasional law," according to dunelaker. Why aren't any of you concerned with our public servants and why so much concern over this matter that is completely full of innuendos
and mistated facts from some of these writers?

Don't you think it is more important to find out the financial disclosures of our public servants rather than individuals or LLCs. That's where the true honesty is hidden and this statement applies more to the pubic servants: "Some in our area have proven themselves quite adept at meeting a thin legal threshold, while breaking the public trust and occasional law," according to dunelaker. Why aren't any of you concerned with our public servants and why so much concern over this matter that is completely full of innuendos
and mistated facts from some of these writers?

A word to the wise: Unless you're willing to be tarred and feathered for that belief you better keep your identity under cover. Use something like, A Local in Disguise.

Don't you think it is more important to find out the financial disclosures of our public servants rather than individuals or LLCs. That's where the true honesty is hidden and this statement applies more to the pubic servants: "Some in our area have proven themselves quite adept at meeting a thin legal threshold, while breaking the public trust and occasional law," according to dunelaker. Why aren't any of you concerned with our public servants and why so much concern over this matter that is completely full of innuendos
and mistated facts from some of these writers?

I'm beginning to think more and more that you have something to do with this project, even if you say no. Is it possible you are wanting to shift the focus to the elected officials because they are the one's that denied it?

I'm not trying to be rude, just stating my thoughts.