Response in Red
Hmmmm..... Let's see here:
1. KT thinks the County should approve bathroom lot #2 because KT does not want the County to approve bathroom lot #1 nor does KT want people from RFV going past his house on their way to the beach.
Well put. And Vagrant does not want the County to approve Lot #2 because he does not want people near his condo on his beach and parking near his condo on the road.
2. KT says bathroom lot #1 is zoned reservation preservation / single family homes.
Well put.
3. KT says bathroom lot #2 (and rightly so) is zoned infill. However a requirement for infill zoned projects is that it must be COMPATIBLE (remember it still is residential with density limitations). Yea, I know this is repetitive, but it's a fact, JACK!
Well put. It must be compatible determined by Walton County technical staff, planning department and planning commission. And of course Vagrant and Walton Sun. I guess it is exceeding the residential density limitation of 4-5 condo units by building ZERO units right?
4. In just about everyone's opinion EXCEPT for COUNTY PLANNING and EXCEPT for the DEVELOPER (and friends of), that this project is NOT COMPATIBLE. The Commissioners' positions are yet to be determined.
Poorly put. This what you say Vagrant. Vagrant says this is not compatible and others say it is. All the "East End Boys and Girls" think it is. Vagrant, Edroedrog who do not live in Walton County believe it is not. You are really good at saying something and fooling yourself that your opinion is fact (especially when you read it in the paper). If you have a wife or husband they must have a terrible inferiority complex by now. You might be pathological though since now that you see that the letter from the County you have spoken about for months was ill-sent. Just like the letter discussed on the Seawall thread.
5. KT (and I'll add BMBCA via my opinion) refuses to join in the fight to oppose this project for (again) "selfish" reasons.
Well put. Of course, with the beach access most owners will not be walking in front of my house. Instead they either walk or bike to Lot 2 or take a shuttle to Lot 2 which is closer to the development for them than Lot 1. It will also keep people from cutting across 30A right across from their development and getting hit by a car.
6. SOOOooo, if this project passes with such problematic interpretation of the land code and for total disregard for the quiet enjoyment of private property, then what makes KT think that the county won't allow RFV to go back and use bathroom lot#1 for another project?
Confusingly put. Our private enjoyment on the east side is improved. Yours stays the same. The way I see it from standing on Lot 2 yesterday, you will never see these people until they get to the beach. We would have. From your posts,(and maybe the Walton Sun article?) you either have a condo in Blue Mtn Condos or Seabreeze which by the way part of is outside of the 300 ft from my measurements. Neither of these condos can even see Lot 2. You are just upset because people are coming to "your beach". And now you are saying that you think the County would approve Lot 1? I thought you were the one saying it was denied and Redfish lied about it being denied and advertised approval? I see you had no comment on the letter above. Nice pattern when you are proved wrong you either ignore it or start posting these goofy doctored pictures.
Just simply build a single family home on lot #1 and a walkover and always have a constant open invitation for the guests and owners of RFV to pass through the property. There's your private gated access for Redfish Village "Phase II"... nothing I know of now would prevent this. Remember when someone asked RFV if they owned any other property during the "public meeting"? This was in regards to other properties using the same access. RFV replied "Why do you want to know?" Hmmm.
Interestingly put. I would guess that if they could have done this they would have. Could it be that they went to Lot 2 because it was better for the community and their owners? That's what I think from talking to them. Why wouldn't they just sell the other lot? More of your fear tactics.
Seems to me that the "East End Boys" should have joined in this fight and squashed this whole thing all together and prevented any type of "resurgence" of this matter.
Hypocritically put. Why would I (or any other "East End Boy or Girl") fight it if I think it is the best solution for our community? The Planning Commission put it very well at the meeting. There is nothing about this that is not great for our neighborhood. Except of course that you don't want more people on the beach which of course is going to happen anyway whether they have a private or public beach access. Why can't I fight just as hard as you here FOR IT if it takes people off my road and improves my private enjoyment. You need to admit you are as selfish as I am.
Now to more of your hypocrisy. VAGRANT IF YOU ARE SERVING A HIGHER PURPOSE AND BLAMING ME, BMBCA, SWCC, ANITA PAGE, RICHARD FOWLKES, PAT BLACKSHEAR NOW AND IN YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS FOR NOT FIGHTING THIS, WHY HAVEN'T YOU POSTED AS VIGOROUSLY (OR AT ALL?) ON THE NATUREWALK BEACH CLUB THREAD? Because you have your personal opinion about what is right and wrong in your "own backyard" and that's all. You just happen to have a forum here and in the Walton Sun to push your point (which you have done very well). That doesn't mean you are right.
Oh well. I tried to do the right thing for our neighborhood. Let's see if the Commissioners will tomorrow.
Just a reminder...
Commissioners Meeting, Tuesday, January 23rd (today) at 4:00 in DeFuniak Springs
Thanks.
KT...your employers can never say you didn't try...
Main Entry: pet?ti?fog?ger

Pronunciation: 'pe-tE-"fo-g&r, -"f?-
Function: noun
Etymology: probably from petty + obsolete English fogger pettifogger
1 : a lawyer whose methods are petty, underhanded, or disreputable