You will never be able to put equity into that argument due to the SOH rules and so many vacation/income producing mini-motels in the south end.
County sued for $3 Million+
- Thread starter Matt J
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
You will never be able to put equity into that argument due to the SOH rules and so many vacation/income producing mini-motels in the south end.
Murray Balkom did a great service for our community, for him to spend his time to check and make sure the rules of the Walton County Comprehensive Plan and the Land development code were followed, is what America is made of. The only problem I have, is that a lot of his questions he had at the meetings were about technical review and staff issues that had already been gone thru by taxpayer paid engineers, road concurrency engineers, land planners. They read complete sets of plans, certified by a state of Florida Certified Engineer that were supplied by the taxpayer (applicant), I think 7 complete sets of plans and documents must be submitted to Walton Co. Fl. for their analysis . Thousands of dollars of information. With all this information, and years of taxpayer money checking it once and checking it twice, why wasn't a sticky note from the Walton Co. Planning department to the Technical Review Committee Meeting (Public Forum); or to the taxpayer (a little one) to rely on from Walton Co. Fl. as they moved this project forward apparently with their blessings (or I'm sure there would have been a sticky note). With their representation to the taxpayer that this project fit's ,why start a new set of rules after the fact?
Our local Govt. is as crooked as President Clinton's ****.
Maybe you weren't at the Quazi Judicial Hearing I had with them that started at 5:00 p.m. and would not adjourn until 4:30 A.M. What County Q. Judicial hearings are held until 4:30 in the morning aside from KKK lynchings? Everyone who was in the room knew exactly what was going on up there in the backwoods of Freeport.
You'all can argue the merits of engineer studies, land usage according to your benefit and all the other myriad of things you can bring forth to justify the building of this project. It does not affect me or my surroundings one way or another because of my location in the county. And therein lies the problem.
If we want this county to develop in a way that is esthetically pleasing to all, that is environmentally as sound as possible and is viewed by all residents of the county as being a credit to our area then we must speak out when we think ANY land usage does not benefit the community as a whole.
The public at the hearing on this project in a duly regulated forum did not think so and expressed their opinions. The BCC has the power to ignore their concerns. In this case they did not. The creation of this project where it is proposed from every thing I've been exposed to would by a disaster in both compatibility with the surrounding area and environmental prerequisites necessary to protect our wetlands. This suit, IMO, is nothing more than a way for someone to retrieve money they will otherwise lose in an economy rapidly sliding downhill as far as real estate is concerned. The only way they can cut their losses is through the taxpayer. It is you and I who will pay for this fiasco if this suit continues. The BCC does nothing more than represent the taxpayer, you and I. I implore the BCC to explore every avenue available to assure taxpayer recovery of every penny that has to be spent and then some on these type of suits. That is why we, as a county, have legal representation. Let our county attorney do his job as aggressively as possible.
If we want this county to develop in a way that is esthetically pleasing to all, that is environmentally as sound as possible and is viewed by all residents of the county as being a credit to our area then we must speak out when we think ANY land usage does not benefit the community as a whole.
The public at the hearing on this project in a duly regulated forum did not think so and expressed their opinions. The BCC has the power to ignore their concerns. In this case they did not. The creation of this project where it is proposed from every thing I've been exposed to would by a disaster in both compatibility with the surrounding area and environmental prerequisites necessary to protect our wetlands. This suit, IMO, is nothing more than a way for someone to retrieve money they will otherwise lose in an economy rapidly sliding downhill as far as real estate is concerned. The only way they can cut their losses is through the taxpayer. It is you and I who will pay for this fiasco if this suit continues. The BCC does nothing more than represent the taxpayer, you and I. I implore the BCC to explore every avenue available to assure taxpayer recovery of every penny that has to be spent and then some on these type of suits. That is why we, as a county, have legal representation. Let our county attorney do his job as aggressively as possible.
I think I'm hearing you say let Attorney's Mathews and Burke duke it out?
Well if people do not wont that kind of stouff in their area then maybe everyone should review the land use around their home and have the county change it before some dumps alot of money into a project and then when it meets all reg. of the area told people do not wont it there so to bad you loose.
I still belive it the project meets all of the land use reg. then it should have been approved. I is not the publics or the counties bussiness if the developer could not sell a unit after it was built in these times.
I still belive it the project meets all of the land use reg. then it should have been approved. I is not the publics or the counties bussiness if the developer could not sell a unit after it was built in these times.
Apparently you must have driven down Jolly Bay Road a few times in the past 15 years. You can look at the beautiful trees that Jolly Bay.Com will leave and support. I'm sure," unless you have blinders on" the only compatibility you can try to achieve on Jolly Bay Road is Beautiful trailers, car repair shops, vacant trailers, and trees. You want compatibility. The developers should be commended for fitting within the LDC and Comp. Plan., spending ungodly amounts of money to make sure Jolly Bay kept it's present look, but apparently they didn't include car repair shops in the commercial areas of the development., I can see the incompatibility issue now, what were they thinking??
Apparently you must have driven down Jolly Bay Road a few times in the past 15 years. You can look at the beautiful trees that Jolly Bay.Com will leave and support. I'm sure," unless you have blinders on" the only compatibility you can try to achieve on Jolly Bay Road is Beautiful trailers, car repair shops, vacant trailers, and trees. You want compatibility. The developers should be commended for fitting within the LDC and Comp. Plan., spending ungodly amounts of money to make sure Jolly Bay kept it's present look, but apparently they didn't include car repair shops in the commercial areas of the development., I can see the incompatibility issue now, what were they thinking??
Oops, No compatibility study required in Rural Village! Oops county staff required a compatibility study after the Aug 5 2007 Technical Review committee meeting, (wonder what that baby cost). Oops, no compatibility study required in Rural VILLAGE. Oops, no compatability study wanted by the county at the planning commission or BCC meetings. Oops the commissioners referred to compatibility at the BCC meetings. Oops... Oops.... $$$$$$ did taxpayers hire this planning dept ?( sure hope the taxpayers didn't have to pay for all this planning wisdom).
"Just the fact's sir"
Oops, No compatibility study required in Rural Village! Oops county staff required a compatibility study after the Aug 5 2007 Technical Review committee meeting, (wonder what that baby cost). Oops, no compatibility study required in Rural VILLAGE. Oops, no compatability study wanted by the county at the planning commission or BCC meetings. Oops the commissioners referred to compatibility at the BCC meetings. Oops... Oops.... $$$$$$ did taxpayers hire this planning dept ?( sure hope the taxpayers didn't have to pay for all this planning wisdom).
Oops you seem to think anyone cares what you have to say anymore. Oops you seem to think the public should have no input. Oops you think that this lawsuit might go somewhere. Oops maybe the counties attorneys will find this thread. Oops maybe this thread should have died ages ago.
Oops...tort reform.