Redfish Village Beach Access

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Kevin Thompson, once more, are you for or against the private deeded access? Thanks.

 

[Bobby J]

SJ, is everything OK? Just a little concerned that you haven't replied to my post #337 regarding

the max # of structures that would be allowed on the 260 Blue Mountain Road lot (point being only 3 to 4 as opposed to the 6 you state)

and your conspiracy theory that the adjacent owners have some deep, dark, hidden ulterior motive for opposing the private access for 80 condos directly adjacent to their homes other than the obvious reasons.

These are items you brought up.

He may be hiding as "Drunkkenartist"! Look in lounge!!!

 

[Smiling JOe]

SJ, is everything OK? Just a little concerned that you haven't replied to my post #337 regarding

the max # of structures that would be allowed on the 260 Blue Mountain Road lot (point being only 3 to 4 as opposed to the 6 you state)

and your conspiracy theory that the adjacent owners have some deep, dark, hidden ulterior motive for opposing the private access for 80 condos directly adjacent to their homes other than the obvious reasons.

These are items you brought up.

Why do I need to respond to every post? I am not your puppet. You already posted post number 337. We don't need to keep this on a freaking loop like it has been.

3 units, 5 units, or 6 units, it doesn't matter. I was simply pointing out to other posters, some whom think it is 8 units, that it was less. The information regarding not using the beach property to gain your density is news to me. I had not heard that before. What matters is that it is not compatible for the use of 80 units.

I thought you guys were fighting the private access, but it seems that you are just fighting anyone who will get into a ring with you.

 

[Kevin Thompson]

Vagrant I have been in Michigan visiting Mom who is getting up in her years. I really didn't have time to catch up on this and it seems I did not miss much. It sounds like you are asking me if I am for or against which I do not understand why, I have answered that I am for it and told you why and admitted being a little selfish although I think the idea is good. Long travel so I will not have the energy to stay up and battle with you. Good night and good luck.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

edroedrog,

I believe the planning department is staying the course (one they illogicaly seem to have chosen from the beginning). In other words they have already approved the project internally. The planning commission meeting tomorrow is probably already a done deal (a very very bad deal for everyone in South Walton County except the developer and the tax collector).

I can not believe that the planning department believes the use of this residential property is compatible with the existing neighborhood as required by the infill zoning requirements.

However, we all know that George Ralph Miller (RFV attorney) and his 20 years as the Walton County Commissioner has nothing to do with the planning department rubber stamping this application, right?

This may not be a direct conflict of interest on his part, but it stinks to high heaven when one looks at the total picture and the history of this project in particular.

This will be a key turning point for the future development of South Walton County.

I have coined the new meaning for B&B's in South Walton.....
"Build'em & Bus'em.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I don't expect the Planning Dpt to reject this project. I have rarely seen them reject any project. They shove it up to the County Commissioners (BCC) and let them be the bearer of bad news if there is any to be delivered. The Planning Dpt doesn't like to be yelled at by irate developers or builders. I forsee a bit of audience reaction tomorrow, but my guess is that it is already a done deal for them. They really don't care about input from the public -- they only listen a little bit because they are required to hear public comments. The only way this project could meet any resistance is if the crowd was lined up to the doors of the court house annex and all were objecting. That is the only way the BCC will listen too.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Why do I need to respond to every post? I am not your puppet. You already posted post number 337. We don't need to keep this on a freaking loop like it has been.

3 units, 5 units, or 6 units, it doesn't matter. I was simply pointing out to other posters, some whom think it is 8 units, that it was less. The information regarding not using the beach property to gain your density is news to me. I had not heard that before. What matters is that it is not compatible for the use of 80 units.

I thought you guys were fighting the private access, but it seems that you are just fighting anyone who will get into a ring with you.

SJ, you and I always seem to get to this point regardless of the subject matter.

I did not think our dialog was finished. Truthfully, I don't appreciate your jab and run tactics, expecially the parts where you were casting a dark shadow on the motivations of my neighbors with no evidence to back it up.

Regarding density, I thought you were inferring (and others may also falsely assume from your post) that 6 units might be a heavy usage of the lot just as the RFV access would be. In other words, one might assume the usage of the lot would not be any worse off with 6 condos than as an access for RFV. I was countering with the fact that the total number of units would be more like 3, possibly 4. That's why I brought that up.

And yes, your "smarty" little statement where you said "By the way, I don't set the rules for density" did bug me a little implying that you don't make the rules but you know the rules when in fact there are some nuances.

I think we agree at least on one thing here where you said....
"What matters is that it is not compatible for the use of 80 units. ":clap_1:

One other thing that really bothers me is your last statement...
"I thought you guys were fighting the private access, but it seems that you are just fighting anyone who will get into a ring with you."

SJ, I personally am not fighting anyone who will get in the ring; that's your opinion. If you recall, I was growing tired of the way this thread was progressing and tried to get it back on track. This matter is too serious to simply just be bickering with you.

SJ, I hope you by now you understand that I will not allow something I feel inappropriate to go unchallenged. I know you're are not use to that here on this message board. That's one of the reasons I said I felt you were throwing darts. Shouldn't that have received a reply, at least? Maybe something like "Hey BMBV, that's not true" or "BMBV, eat shht and die" or something. Sorry you feel like a my puppet. Wait a minute, I hear a song in the back of my mind...."like a puppet on a string"....never mind.

Anyway, hopefully you'll respect me in the morning.

Oh yea, regarding your "not needing to respond to every post": When I asked Kevin Thompson to clarify his position, you had to jump in and tell me to re-read his posts. I didn't ask you nor do I think KT needs you to answer questions directed at him. If you must answer for him, why not just give me the answer instead of telling me to re-read all of his posts?

I'll say it again, thanks (at least) for your position about the NON-compatibility of the RFV's beach access lot proposal. Response not expected.

 

[Smiling JOe]

SJ, you and I always seem to get to this point regardless of the subject matter.

I did not think our dialog was finished. Truthfully, I don't appreciate your jab and run tactics, expecially the parts where you were casting a dark shadow on the motivations of my neighbors with no evidence to back it up.

Obviously, you failed to read the part about me not knowing the motivations of others, in the post of dark shadow. Go back and reread it.

Regarding density, I thought you were inferring (and others may also falsely assume from your post) that 6 units might be a heavy usage of the lot just as the RFV access would be. In other words, one might assume the usage of the lot would not be any worse off with 6 condos than as an access for RFV. I was countering with the fact that the total number of units would be more like 3, possibly 4. That's why I brought that up.

So be it. I was unaware of this information of not using part of the land for density. That is why I didn't reply. I have not confirmed what you state, so I will not deny it either. I let it stand as is. Now you want me to do what with that information? You want a reply and I don't have one for you, but you cannot take that for a reply.

And yes, your "smarty" little statement where you said "By the way, I don't set the rules for density" did bug me a little implying that you don't make the rules but you know the rules when in fact there are some nuances.

I didn't imply that. What I said in summary was that the County decides the density, not you and not me.

I think we agree at least on one thing here where you said....
"What matters is that it is not compatible for the use of 80 units. ":clap_1:

I agree. I think that may be the only thing that you and I agree on, and that non-compatibility is what matters. It doesn't matter which one of us can pee the fartherst. I am out of pee. :funn:No more peeing for me.

One other thing that really bothers me is your last statement...
"I thought you guys were fighting the private access, but it seems that you are just fighting anyone who will get into a ring with you."

SJ, I personally am not fighting anyone who will get in the ring; that's your opinion. If you recall, I was growing tired of the way this thread was progressing and tried to get it back on track. This matter is too serious to simply just be bickering with you.

SJ, I hope you by now you understand that I will not allow something I feel inappropriate to go unchallenged. I know you're are not use to that here on this message board. That's one of the reasons I said I felt you were throwing darts. Shouldn't that have received a reply, at least? Maybe something like "Hey BMBV, that's not true" or "BMBV, eat shht and die" or something. Sorry you feel like a my puppet. Wait a minute, I hear a song in the back of my mind...."like a puppet on a string"....never mind.

Anyway, hopefully you'll respect me in the morning.

Oh yea, regarding your "not needing to respond to every post": When I asked Kevin Thompson to clarify his position, you had to jump in and tell me to re-read his posts. I didn't ask you nor do I think KT needs you to answer questions directed at him. If you must answer for him, why not just give me the answer instead of telling me to re-read all of his posts?

I'll say it again, thanks (at least) for your position about the NON-compatibility of the RFV's beach access lot proposal. Response not expected.

As for answering questions, I can think of three users on this thread who have avoided many questions repeatedly. I may not reply to every post, but I try to answer questions directed toward me.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Vagrant I have been in Michigan visiting Mom who is getting up in her years.

I understand. I have one too.

I really didn't have time to catch up on this and it seems I did not miss much. It sounds like you are asking me if I am for or against which I do not understand why, I have answered that I am for it and told you why and admitted being a little selfish although I think the idea is good.

After re-reading my re-reads, I see where I misinterpreted one of your posts. You are right and I am wrong. Yes, you have been consistantly "selfish" as you describe with your position regarding RFV. You believe RFV is entitled to "an" access and that it's better for it to be on the west side.

You have made that very clear. Sorry for asking you the question where you have repeatedly said in the past that your motivations are "selfish". Nice to know I have an upfront, consistant but "selfish" neighbor down the road.

Long travel so I will not have the energy to stay up and battle with you. Good night and good luck.

Be safe. Not looking for a battle, just what's right.

One more question...since you seem to be so involved and concerned with your neighborhood, are you a member of the BMBCA?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

..... It doesn't matter which one of us can pee the fartherst. I am out of pee. :funn:No more peeing for me.

Don't forget to wash your hands. I just did. And I feel better after our little exchange.

As for answering questions, I can think of three users on this thread who have avoided many questions repeatedly. I may not reply to every post, but I try to answer questions directed toward me.

I can't speak for the motivation of others but I understand what you're implying.

Night night.