They contend the developer did not follow the approved development plan and the original Development of Regional Impact approved under the Sandestin DRI. This failure has caused the subdivision to be inundated with water during times of heavy rain because of the inadequate storm water management system currently in place.
Osborne has repeatedly asked the BCC to hold the development is not in compliance citing various inconsistencies throughout Driftwood's developmental history. He said because Brannon voted to not uphold the noncompliance, Brannon essentially enriched his business partner, Jones. Had the development been held in non compliance it would have greatly reduced the value of Jones' holdings in Driftwood, which Osborne estimated to have a current tax value of approximately $4.5 million.
Mr. Osborne I do applaud and appreciate your effort at creating transparency at all levels of government. In the vein, would you explain your reasoning above. If CWJ Holdings, bought 70 lots from the original developer, then how is CWJ any different from you as an owner? What benefit was conferred upon CWJ that wasn't also conferred upon you? Aren't you both just owners within the same subdivision? Doesn't CWJ benefit more from having the Driftwood brought into compliance? It would seem that a non-flooded Driftwood would be more beneficial to CWJ's property values than a flooded Driftwood. Thanks in advance for the explanation.
Also, could you also explain how any benefit to CWJ would benefit Commissioner Brannon as a member of Freeport Group, LLC? Do you know what Freeport Group, LLC does? Are you saying that when CWJ sales its property in Driftwood, that Mr. Jones, its sole member, then cuts a check to Freeport Group LLC to share his profits with the other members of Freeport Group, LLC? That doesn't make much tax or business sense...? Does it?
I really appreciate any light you can further shed on your grievance stated above.
One final question...if you aren't on a witchhunt and you believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty, then why did you decide to present your claim in a public meeting and to Channel 7 News before a formal investigation could be concluded on the matter? Haven't you already convicted Commissioner Brannon in the eyes of the public prior to the conclusion of any official investigation? Or do you have evidence of a substantial connection between the business of CWJ and Freeport Group that is conclusive?
With Warmest Regards,
Sam Story