Redfish Village Beach Access

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

As an oceanfront alpha-male, you, among all people, know it's all about money. Even the rule of law is tainted by money. You'll never know if envelopes went under the door late at night. Best thing to do is enjoy the beach as it is today, because it's only going to become more crowded.

I'm not sure what you mean by "alpha male" and "you, among all people" but I think I understand the rest.

I will try to enjoy the beach as it is today but I certainly won't just roll over and just let happen what is proposed by RFV and perhaps many more developments; neither should any one of you.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I've been sensing a void in the support of the fight against RFV.

Where is Blue Mountain Beach Community Association in all of this? Someone pointed this out to me. BMBCA is the same organization that was so concerned with clear cutting west of Sally's convenience store. BMBCA was so concerned about things happening as far away as Gulf Trace.

BMBCA was also very vocal in opposing RFV when they were trying to convert bathroom lot #1 (about 6 lots east of the 83 access). But BMBCA, from what I've seen, has been very noticeably absent with the continued fight against improper development of bathroom lot #2.

Kevin Thompson, clearly proclamed his "selfish" stand because, as he said repeatedly, he owns property east of the 83 access. Is Kevin Thompson a member of BMBCA with some influence? Can anyone share with me why BMBCA does not see a continued need to openly oppose this?

Oh yea, don't forget that a few directors and several members of BMBCA live east of the 83 beach access.

I'm not sure what's worse: a developer trying to make a buck at the neighborhood's expense or a neighborhood "watch" organization turning a blind eye. If you're a member of BMBCA, you should ask your board why they do not appear to be currently opposing this like they did the first time.

If someone can show me I'm wrong, PLEASE do.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Hi SJ,

It appears to me that Lupine Subdivision (actually just the 2 gulf front homes) does own to the MHW (mean high water line) so one would have to walk south of the MHW line to "legally" access the 260 lot from the 83 beach access.

What's your source of info that shows otherwise?

This is from their declaration filing:

One other thing - a personal thanks for attending and posting on the meeting.

My source is the Property Appraiser's map. Also, the attorney for Redfish Village said it too at Thursday night's meeting. After you bring up the possible error, I quickly looked at more reliable sources. Looking at the Legal Description for the subdivision, it clearly reads that the private property follows the water's edge of the Gulf of Mexico. It would be really nice if the Property Appraiser's data was more accurate more often.

Now, their idea of giving the beach to the County does seem a bit crazy. I am not sure how/if beach services would work there. I just hope those owners and users don't try to leave more crap on the beach. -- There is only so much I can haul to the nearby TDC trashcans.

 

[Kevin Thompson]

Vagrant you really like the fact that I admitted being selfish. I also said I like the idea and I don't seem to be the only sane person who does. Everything I see written here is different than what the County is saying and what a lot of our neighbors are now saying. You seem to be at least talking about some real issues instead of a couple people here who are just off their rocker. Now it is your turn to answer some questions. Are you saying the whole County has been paid off? Are you saying the BMBCA has been paid off? Are you saying all the "influential neighbors including as you write Anita Page and Richard Fowlkes" have been paid off? Are you really saying that all these people, the County, the neighbors east and the BMBCA are all unethical and not fighting the good fight with you? You are starting to sound very self-righteous. Also, where is your home, is it a house is it a condo? Are you east or west of 83 and are you a member of BMBCA?

 

[Smiling JOe]

This is the WalCo Prop Appraiser's map showing 286 Blue Mtn Rd surrounded in the red lines. You can see that they didn't draw the property line to the water's edge which contradicts what is written in the legal description. My best guess is that the Property Appraiser's map is incorrect. Also, my best guess is that the owners of this property are not being fully taxed because they are being taxed on only .24 acres of area, which I doubt includes the beach, based on the size of the adjacent property to the west (260 Blue Mtn Rd), which is listed as .76 acres in the property records. ;-)

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Vagrant you really like the fact that I admitted being selfish.

Not really...but that is what you have openly claimed to be. You and your position does not make right what is happening. You continually try to defend RFV with your "selfish" proclamations which really doesn't help RFV, by the way, in my opinion.

I also said I like the idea and I don't seem to be the only sane person who does. Everything I see written here is different than what the County is saying and what a lot of our neighbors are now saying.

I don't see any posts supporting the general idea of a private beach access for RFV. If there was, why in the world would you object to it on your side of the tracks (bathroom lot #1)? Oh yea, the reason: you're "selfish", I almost forgot.

You seem to be at least talking about some real issues instead of a couple people here who are just off their rocker.

Thanks, I think.

Now it is your turn to answer some questions. Are you saying the whole County has been paid off?

They did accept a $50,000 contribution for RFV. However I didn't say the county (or anyone else) were paid off, Bob did yesterday. I said I understand what he was saying.

Are you saying the BMBCA has been paid off? Are you saying all the "influential neighbors including as you write Anita Page and Richard Fowlkes" have been paid off?

I think I was clear in pointing out their absence in the latest battle affecting OUR neighborhood. You and Bob bring up the idea of being paid off, not me.

Are you really saying that all these people, the County, the neighbors east and the BMBCA are all unethical and not fighting the good fight with you? You are starting to sound very self-righteous.

Ditto about the "self-righteous".

Tough questionS to answer with a yes or no....very "lawyerish"...

1. The county is breaking their own rules with the compatibility issue. They are probably breaking their own rules because of the commercial nature of the Redfish Village development in general. The private beach access lot becomes an extension of that development in a residential neighborhood.

2. Neighbors to the east: they can take whatever stand they would like; it's their right, maybe not right however.

3. BMBCA: they can also take whatever stand they would like as well. However, as I've clearly pointed out, they do not seem to be participating in objecting to this major development order. Richard Fowlkes and Anita Page are directors of BMBCA and they also own homes east of the 83 access. They are VERY OUTSPOKEN CONSERVATIONISTS but seem to have gone underground with this issue. Are they unethical, as you ask? I can't answer that. But at an absolute minimum, their apparent lack of action certainly wreaks of HYPOCRISY. And that's very bad regarding credibility for a group like this.

BMBCA and SWCC have done good things for the county and our neighborhood. But I sense they have totally turned their backs on this issue. If someone on this board can shine some light as to why, it would really be appreciated!

Also, where is your home, is it a house is it a condo? Are you east or west of 83

Does it matter?...and I think you already know anyway.

and are you a member of BMBCA?

No. And at one point, I considered joining, but I would not now.

 

[Kevin Thompson]

I actually don't know. Why does anything matter? I am interested in knowing where you live of course not your address. Are you a full time resident? Did you show up at the Thursday night meeting?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I actually don't know. Why does anything matter?

If nothing matters, then why are you posting here now?

I am interested in knowing where you live of course not your address.

I own property in Blue Mtn Beach west of the 83 access.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

My source is the Property Appraiser's map. Also, the attorney for Redfish Village said it too at Thursday night's meeting. After you bring up the possible error, I quickly looked at more reliable sources. Looking at the Legal Description for the subdivision, it clearly reads that the private property follows the water's edge of the Gulf of Mexico. It would be really nice if the Property Appraiser's data was more accurate more often.

Now, their idea of giving the beach to the County does seem a bit crazy. I am not sure how/if beach services would work there. I just hope those owners and users don't try to leave more crap on the beach. -- There is only so much I can haul to the nearby TDC trashcans.

"Also, the attorney for Redfish Village said it too at Thursday night's meeting."
SJ, at a minimum, anything RFV's attorney says regarding this project should be taken with a block of salt.

"It would be really nice if the Property Appraiser's data was more accurate more often."
Seems like we've gone through this before. The property appraiser's map is not an approriate instrument to determine the legal status of any property (as you already know). In addition it contains many errors. I will agree it's an easy way to get a quick (but not reliable) overview. I wonder if TDC also makes determinations from this map.

"Now, their idea of giving the beach to the County does seem a bit crazy. I am not sure how/if beach services would work there."
It does seem that it could easily be interpreted as an extension of the commercial offerings of RFV at the beach.

 

[Smiling JOe]

"Also, the attorney for Redfish Village said it too at Thursday night's meeting."
SJ, at a minimum, anything RFV's attorney says regarding this project should be taken with a block of salt.

"It would be really nice if the Property Appraiser's data was more accurate more often."
Seems like we've gone through this before. The property appraiser's map is not an approriate instrument to determine the legal status of any property (as you already know). In addition it contains many errors. I will agree it's an easy way to get a quick (but not reliable) overview. I wonder if TDC also makes determinations from this map.

"Now, their idea of giving the beach to the County does seem a bit crazy. I am not sure how/if beach services would work there."
It does seem that it could easily be interpreted as an extension of the commercial offerings of RFV at the beach.

I take every attorney's words with a block of salt.

The reason I often use the Property Appraiser's website as my first source for data is due to it being the quickest resource for much information and I usually find it fairly accurate, though I often find mistakes. I do not care to read the legal descriptions and dedication language in subdivision plats to find out a quick answer to these things for general reference. If I were looking for the most accurate information for business reasons, I would certainly cross reference several sources. However, this is a bulletin board and all of my information should be verified if it is important to you. Thanks for bringing up this matter of correction. I do have a question for you of which I am not certain of the answer. You seem to know a bit more about owning Gulf-front than I, so give it a whirl. I was always under the impression that the public is legally able to walk across private beach property, as long as they do not stop to loiter. It sounds like from your statement that this is not the case. Is this correct, and can you give me a source to verify?

I think you may be on to another backing reason for commercial use on this property, but if they dedicate the beach for public use, any services on the beach no longer relate directly to that parcel. Right? That would fall under County jurisdiction of Beach Service Vending Licenses I think. If they kept the beach, then, I think your argument may be more accurate.