Redfish Village Beach Access

[edroedrog]

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. 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? 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.

#[ame="http://www.sowal.com/bb/showpost.php?p=198082&postcount=502"]502[/ame] Is the post with the file. He had it not me.

 

[Smiling JOe]

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

Not sure what it means other than I have yet to see evidence that Redfish Village was using this so-called County Approved Priv Bch Access to promote their sales. Credibility is still to be determined, but I am waiting to see that evidence.

Edit: looking back at the map in whitesys's post, I see that lot #1 is labeled only as "beach lot." In reality, all of those Gulf front lots are "beach lots." Perhaps there is more documentation that was attached to this map in the condo docs, but the words, "beach lot," are not enough to mean anything substantial in my opinion. Perhaps if it stated, "private beach access for Redfish Village," my opinion might differ.

 

[BMBWalker]

Not sure what it means other than I have yet to see evidence that Redfish Village was using this so-called County Approved Priv Bch Access to promote their sales. Credibility is still to be determined, but I am waiting to see that evidence.

SJ...if your not sure what your post means, why post it?

 

[Smiling JOe]

#502 Is the post with the file. He had it not me.

I realize that you didn't post the map, but you kept making reference to the notion that they were advertising blatent lies, such as this map noting the "county approved" beach access. I fail to see your evidence noting such. To me, it read like, Here is your map showing evidence that they were marketing it as such. Now that I find out it was not used in the advertising, but rather in the condo docs, you are still without evidence support your statement about the "lies."

 

[Smiling JOe]

SJ...if your not sure what your post means, why post it?

Are you suggesting that I shouldn't post something because you don't understand it? Why not instead, ask me another question to help me clarify my statement. What don't you understand about it?

 

[whitesys]

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?

SJ,

The map is part of the condo documentation package and sales agreement.

 

[BMBWalker]

Are you suggesting that I shouldn't post something because you don't understand it? Why not instead, ask me another question to help me clarify my statement. What don't you understand about it?

SJ...please, no need to be a supercilious twit. Stop you waffeling posting if you are not prepared to defend or explain them.

 

[Smiling JOe]

SJ,

The map is part of the condo documentation package and sales agreement.

whitesys, thanks for clarifying. Did you receive the map in any advertising materials for Redfish Village in addition to receiving it in the condo docs?

 

[Smiling JOe]

SJ...please, no need to be a supercilious twit. Stop you waffeling posting if you are not prepared to defend or explain them.

Those big four letter words are too big for me to compute. I need to borrow a dictionary.

I will gladly defend or explain anything I say. I repeat, in particular, what don't you understand? I must have missed the part about defending my statements. What statement of mine do you want me to defend?

 

[whitesys]

whitesys, thanks for clarifying. Did you receive the map in any advertising materials for Redfish Village in addition to receiving it in the condo docs?

SJ,

No.

But as far I know there is not much legal difference between an advertisement and a sales agreement. They are both offers to sell, presented to the buyer. The sales agreement just formalizes the terms of the sale into a explicit written contract.