Redfish Village Beach Access

[edroedrog]

Sounds to me like the "or enhance" part is what the developer has been focusing on, because he has been selling it as such that the surrounding properties will have increased value by the lot not having 5 units on it -- just some restrooms and a boardwalk with landscaping.

80 condos 50% occupied 3 people from the 40 condos that are occupied sorry that is 120 people (rough numbers and very conservative). This is only 75 feet of road frontage right? So that must mean that they have 75 feet of Beach front property. OK so lets help setup 120 chairs on this beach everyday during the peak months. When we go to the beach they put the umbrellas 12 feet apart. (Stick with me I am going to try to do the math.) So you get 6 umbrellas per row two chairs per umbrella gives you a 3 foot aisle. So that would be 10 rows of umbrellas and chairs. How is that an enhancement if I am looking out my window during the peak months. Maybe they can build a people garage on the beach and good luck at walking past the PrivateBA. It is going to be butt to noise.

I have also heard that they, the owners adjacent, are going to post signs on their beach and keep all of the PrivateBA goers off of their property.

Sorry I do not see it as an enhancement. I personally would not buy anything located around this PrivateBA for several reasons. People are still going to park in my yard, block the streets, and litter.

 

[Smiling JOe]

The new and improved Blue Mountain Beach and Seagrove Beach Private Beach Accesses:

Looks more like a concert lawn to me. Can you imagine the parking lot?

 

[edroedrog]

The new and improved Blue Mountain Beach and Seagrove Beach Private Beach Accesses:


Looks more like a concert lawn to me. Can you imagine the parking lot?

Pictures are louder than words. Love this post. This is what needs to be placed next to the Notice that LyingFish Trailer Park is going to put on Second attempt to save their @ss...(Lot 2 Buster)

So I have been updated this AM. Lot 1 is a no go for LyingFish Trailer Park. I will Post some info on this if you would love to see it Buster. I think you already have it though. If anyone needs this info let me know and I will consider PrivateEing it to you.

 

[buster]

Pictures are louder than words. Love this post. This is what needs to be placed next to the Notice that LyingFish Trailer Park is going to put on Second attempt to save their @ss...(Lot 2 Buster)

So I have been updated this AM. Lot 1 is a no go for LyingFish Trailer Park. I will Post some info on this if you would love to see it Buster. I think you already have it though. If anyone needs this info let me know and I will consider PrivateEing it to you.

It would be good to see. What I had heard was that RFV was sued by the adjoining lot (of lot 1) and that there might have been some judgement. Also there was mention of a stop work order when they started building the walkover on that lot. Maybe that was a result of the lawsuit.

What I have not seen is something in writing from the county that the county denied the intended use on lot 1.

 

[Kevin Thompson]

Sounds like you have personal issues with these people. Were you fired by them? I like reading your posts but it was easy to find out that you and Buster are wrong and there was never a judgement on the 1st lot and that they still have that lot as an option. I know people at hard2sell as you call it and I actually like them.

 

[BMBWalker]

Sounds like you have personal issues with these people. Were you fired by them? I like reading your posts but it was easy to find out that you and Buster are wrong and there was never a judgement on the 1st lot and that they still have that lot as an option. I know people at hard2sell as you call it and I actually like them.

Kevin...I may be wrong, but my understanding of the lot #1 issue goes like this: Redfish Village was issued a permit for some type of work project on lot #1 in error; Pat Blackshear quickly issued a Stop Work order to correct the error in issuing the permit. By not contesting the Stop Work order, Redfish Village seem to think that they can now state publically they were never denied a permit and that if they wanted to pursue the proposed project they could do so on lot #1; I can't follow their logic, but they were stopped from using Lot #1 for their original purposes. They are now attempting to do on lot #2 what they originally tried to do on lot #1.

If my understanding on this issue is incorrect, someone please correct me or add additional info.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Disingenuous (at minimum) is my characterization of Redfish Village and New Orchard Group's position regarding the first bathroom lot. They have claimed they were never turned down by the county for the first lot.

This from an internal email dated May 4th, 2006, from the Planning Department (Lois La-Seur to Lynn Hoshihara) titled "Redfish Village letter":

"We have a situation where a developer and his realtor are telling prospective buyers that Walton County has approved a priate beach access for their residents across a single family lot in a residential subdivision. We have been receiving complaints about this for some time, and they've actually put out a brochure (I have a copy) with a description and a picture.

Problem is, we told the developer months and months ago that they couldn't build a beach access there; it violates the land use on that property.

The neighborhood where they are proposing this is very upset, and they keep calling both the department and the commissioners for the reassuance that the County has not and will not approve this beach access.

Commissioner Citchens asked that we send them a certified letter, return receipt requested, telling them in writing to stop advertising this - and to send it IMMEDIATELY."....


At the December 7th community meeting, Brad Zeitlin (RFV developer) claimed that they purchased the second bathroom lot for over 5 million dollars only because they thought this location would provide a "better experience" for the owners. He was also very adamant at the same meeting that the county never turned them down for the first bathroom lot.

When questioned again regarding this, George Ralph Miller, their attorney, finally admitted the reason they did not use the first lot was because of zoning. Even Mr. Miller recognized the hole they were digging themselves in when fudging the truth regarding the county's position regarding the first bathroom lot.

You be the judge.

 

[Beemn]

It is interesting... When the seawalls went up on the beach the county was good. The right of membership in the beachfront club was protected. Touting private property rights people of the beachfront club post no trespass signs. The redfish developer owns this property but now you say he has no right! interesting! You say he has a high impact use, but after hurricanes it is your infrastructure that litters our beach and OUR water. You never clean it up! The high impact use you speak of would reduce the infrastucture footprint on the terminal dune, and the amount of debri on the beach and water. Interesting. And speaking of beach, now that the beach club has seawalls which will enhance erosion and cause our beach to disappear, we will need dredging ( called beach nourishment ) to have a beach! Who will pay for it? The masses pictured earlier on this thread! You had no problem taking their money as you giddily flipped property to enrich yourself. Now you want to croud them onto one access and limit their movement! Interesting! You represent a very ugly greedy argument.

 

[BMBWalker]

Disingenuous (at minimum) is my characterization of Redfish Village and New Orchard Group's position regarding the first bathroom lot. They have claimed they were never turned down by the county for the first lot.

This from an internal email dated May 4th, 2006, from the Planning Department (Lois La-Seur to Lynn Hoshihara) titled "Redfish Village letter":

"We have a situation where a developer and his realtor are telling prospective buyers that Walton County has approved a priate beach access for their residents across a single family lot in a residential subdivision. We have been receiving complaints about this for some time, and they've actually put out a brochure (I have a copy) with a description and a picture.

Problem is, we told the developer months and months ago that they couldn't build a beach access there; it violates the land use on that property.

The neighborhood where they are proposing this is very upset, and they keep calling both the department and the commissioners for the reassuance that the County has not and will not approve this beach access.

Commissioner Citchens asked that we send them a certified letter, return receipt requested, telling them in writing to stop advertising this - and to send it IMMEDIATELY."....


At the December 7th community meeting, Brad Zeitlin (RFV developer) claimed that they purchased the second bathroom lot for over 5 million dollars only because they thought this location would provide a "better experience" for the owners. He was also very adamant at the same meeting that the county never turned them down for the first bathroom lot.

When questioned again regarding this, George Ralph Miller, their attorney, finally admitted the reason they did not use the first lot was because of zoning. Even Mr. Miller recognized the hole they were digging themselves in when fudging the truth regarding the county's position regarding the first bathroom lot.

You be the judge.

BMBVagrant...WOW!!!..I guess I just had the tip of the iceberg...thanks for the additional info...can't believe these guys can be so loose with the facts!!!

 

[BMBWalker]

It is interesting... When the seawalls went up on the beach the county was good. The right of membership in the beachfront club was protected. Touting private property rights people of the beachfront club post no trespass signs. The redfish developer owns this property but now you say he has no right! interesting! You say he has a high impact use, but after hurricanes it is your infrastructure that litters our beach and OUR water. You never clean it up! The high impact use you speak of would reduce the infrastucture footprint on the terminal dune, and the amount of debri on the beach and water. Interesting. And speaking of beach, now that the beach club has seawalls which will enhance erosion and cause our beach to disappear, we will need dredging ( called beach nourishment ) to have a beach! Who will pay for it? The masses pictured earlier on this thread! You had no problem taking their money as you giddily flipped property to enrich yourself. Now you want to croud them onto one access and limit their movement! Interesting! You represent a very ugly greedy argument.

Beemn...your petty accusations are pathetic.

You haven't done your homework. There are 4 public access walkways Redfish Village owners, guests, renters and invitees can use to disperse over the beach. One walkway vs Four walkways...you do the math!

Redfish Village continues to states that they have a right to use this property as a gateway! They don't have that RIGHT until the county says they have that RIGHT!