• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

BMBWalker

Beach Lover
Nov 1, 2006
130
0
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
 

edroedrog

Beach Lover
Dec 15, 2006
95
0
Am I the only one wondering why I didn't receive this map of the beach lot in my packet of Redfish Village Info.?

Edroedrog, are you attempting to tell us that you received the map in with your sales packet? What about you, whitesys? Or, is this a map of which they used in trying to describe their plans for the beach access, just as the sketches of the Redfish Village condos showed what they intended to build? Seeing this map means nothing to me and most other users on this board. Again, this topic has faded to who may be blatently lying or not, rather than the legal question of whether Redfish Village building the private access. It is obvious where your real thoughts are focused.

SJ-If I had that map I would have posted it a month ago. We were just wondering why KT did not respond to it since he had he letter from Holland & Knight.

Anyway the docs are public you just have to pay someone to get them to you. Maybe that is what whitesys did not sure but at least we have them to compare them against KT's letter from Holland & Knight. I do not care about whitsys and his intentions.
 

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,354
401
Is KT implying that Blue Mountain Beach Community Association and South Walton Community Council is taking the "noble" cause of opposing NatureWalk by my not participating on the NatureWalk thread?

Didn't NatureWalk abandon 3 single family gulf front homes (back on the market) because those properties did not have the correct zoning?

Didn't NatureWalk buy Seagrove Villas Motel instead because it DID (supposedly) have the right zoning?


SOOOOOoooooo IF BMBCA and SWCC are opposing NatureWalk but not Redfish, where's the consistency (i.e. lack of hipocracy)?
 

BMBWalker

Beach Lover
Nov 1, 2006
130
0
oh jeez, look who's back to mangle the internets. are you out on a supervised visit, or did you escape? or, has all this time been spent trying to enter the tax id number of the surfrider foundation in some seach field?

JohnR...how sweet, you missed me!
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,644
1,773
SJ-If I had that map I would have posted it a month ago. We were just wondering why KT did not respond to it since he had he letter from Holland & Knight.

Anyway the docs are public you just have to pay someone to get them to you. Maybe that is what whitesys did not sure but at least we have them to compare them against KT's letter from Holland & Knight. I do not care about whitsys and his intentions.
So you didn't answer my questions. Did you, or anyone you know, recieve the map posted by whitesys in a sales package? Again, I did not receive it in mine. I am not suggesting that it wasn't included in some of the sales info packages. You have repeatedly stated that Redfish Village was promoting that the County had approved the lot #1 for access and yet all that is produced is a map from someone esle, without notes on where the map came from, and how it was acquired. :dunno: In a court of law, the judge would shamelessly tell you to show the evidence. That is also what the County Commissioners would do. I cannot believe that simple evidence is not brought before the County Commissioners by the people providing testimony. The only people who do that seem to be the Engineering firms hired by the developers. Perhaps if people could see your supposed paper trail of "lies," things would be different. Oh, then you could also report the sales people whom you accuse of fraud, to the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC). I am trying to weed out the bad ones. ;-) Did you ever report them as I suggested in one of my earlier posts, several weeks ago?:dunno: I didn't think so. FREC will also want to see this evidence which seems to be missing from your case of "lies" and fraud.
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,644
1,773
I have just been informed by a very reliable source that the map showing the beach lot, like the one presented by whitesys, was issued with the condo docs, so that answers my question regarding where the map came from and whether it was used in marketing.

EDIT: If the map was issued with the condo docs, and it is determined that by not having private beach access at this lot, there is a material change in the docs, allowing all buyers to get out of their contracts, what good would it do for the County Commissioners to approve this lot#2 for Private Access? The developer will be stuck with the 80 units and have to find some way to pay the bank. Any comments? Any thoughts from attorneys regarding whether this subsitution of lot # 2 is a valid material change?
 
Last edited:

BMBWalker

Beach Lover
Nov 1, 2006
130
0
I have just been informed by a very reliable source that the map showing the beach lot, like the one presented by whitesys, was issued with the condo docs, so that answers my question regarding where the map came from and whether it was used in marketing.


SJ-so, what does that mean? If the issue is credibility, who is correct here?
 
New posts


Shop SoWal Photos

Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter