Build-out extensions

The construction of a home in neighborhoods like Watercolor, Rivercamps, Watersound etc. is subject to building codes, approved materials, architectural design and size guidelines, and house by house approval on everything down to the paint colors and exterior light fixtures, so the argument that they should extend build-outs to control "quality" is hooey.

The construction of a home in neighborhoods like Watercolor, Rivercamps, Watersound etc. is subject to building codes, approved materials, architectural design and size guidelines, and house by house approval on everything down to the paint colors and exterior light fixtures, so the argument that they should extend build-outs to control "quality" is hooey.

What kind of quality control in Watercolor lets you stop construction for 2 years after completion of the footers? Have you really looked at some of the construction? When you can see the ty vec wrap after daytime heating, it ain't good. Get real!

That would be the build-out EXTENSIONS responsible for that!

Realistically you would lose much more $ by going through the process and building an inferior house than by selling the lot or having St. Joe/the bank take it back.

That would be the build-out EXTENSIONS responsible for that!

Realistically you would lose much more $ by going through the process and building an inferior house than by selling the lot or having St. Joe/the bank take it back.

Since we're talking reality, Joe ain't buyin back lots in this market so they ain't no build-outs no mo, period.

I believe they still have build-outs in Rivercamps and a few other local developments.

Obviously St. Joe won't be buying lots back - hence the PR spin on the extensions - the point I was trying to make is that you would lose less $ by losing the lot than you would by building a crappy house.

What kind of quality control in Watercolor lets you stop construction for 2 years after completion of the footers? Have you really looked at some of the construction? When you can see the ty vec wrap after daytime heating, it ain't good. Get real!

I don't disagree necessarily but address please?

Full Time:

Wow. It sounds as though you've been wanting to get something off your chest for some time...

I doubt the WS DRB would allow any **** to be built. Also, you will see prices come "back down to earth" once some of the investor held properties are taken back by the bank. Currently, there are several houses and condos in WS offered as short sales. Also, I know of at least one lot owner who is trying to sell his lot at a loss. You are beginning to see better pricing in this community.

If you want to find out about the market in WS, you should PM Hillsatthebeach. She has a good grasp of what is going on.

Regards,
Little Fish

Your assumption being that those forced to build will simply throw up their hands and walk away for the buyer who wishes to build the beautiful dream home. Go to the corner of Western Lake and Pine Needle to see if the assumption holds true. I'll take the peace and privacy of trees and bushes any day over a forced poorly built house, or worse, one that starts and takes forever to finish, if ever (See Prominence). The fairness argument is the same one children make when they have no argument. The only issue is whether the build-outs make sense here and now in the current climate, and the answer is clearly no - and for selfish reasons I could view it differently, but don't.

Actually, yes. I think the question though is how long can the flippers hang on? Imo, not for much longer as teaser rates and loans are starting to reset.

You sound like you have an ax to grind in regards to buildout times. Please anyone who owns in one of these communities correct me if I'm wrong, but your vision for your neighborhood, I suspect, is not "peace and privacy of trees and bushes."

As for your comments regarding the "fairness argument", I think they speak for themselves.

Obviously if buyer A was sold on the idea of the value associated with having said project built out over X years and made into a community and based a purchase decision on this, I can see where they are a bit displeased with repeated extensions of build out times. I think even you would agree that it is unfair for someone who was purely speculating and got caught holding the bag to get a break, just because they invested unwisely. I would be interested in finding out what your broker says after you tell him you need an extension when your margin account is called.

In closing, I'd recommend contacting code enforcement if you are experiencing issues with any "poorly" built homes around you.

Maybe JOE isn't buying back lots to enforce build outs in this market, but I've read that the build-out requirements for at least some Rivercamps lots gave JOE the option of buying back the lot or levying a $1,000 a month fine for violation of the agreement if the owners misses the deadline to build (per a document between JOE & David Weekley Homes recorded in the real estate records). I presume that, like the build-out deadline, this potential fine runs with title to the land.

Maybe this is not enforced at JOE's discretion, or maybe it is? I am learning here. I only know this is too much risk for my wallet right now.

I built in several communities with build outs and it never made any legal sense to me to watch a homeowner forced to start and then a month or two later the community grants extensions. It's never happened to me personally, but I've seen it and it can't be equitable treatment. In addition I know 1st hand that when LUK exercises its buy back option in Rosemary Beach they immediately grant the property a new build out term after they take it back. This has nothing to do with completing a development and everything to do with profit by the developer. That being said, they conceived the neighborhood, managed it and developed it cohesively and probably deserve the good fortune. I'm no fan, but admire their profiteering.

As for the footers with weeds around them, it's not acceptable and an ongoing dispute due to the attempt at circumventing the buildout rule. I'm assuming your speaking of the lot in phase II of WaterColor?

As for the footers with weeds around them, it's not acceptable and an ongoing dispute due to the attempt at circumventing the buildout rule. I'm assuming your speaking of the lot in phase II of WaterColor?

Does the Memorandum of Agreement for that lot in Watercolor say they have to commence construction, and make a continuing and ongoing effort to complete construction or merely commence construction?

Does the Memorandum of Agreement for that lot in Watercolor say they have to commence construction, and make a continuing and ongoing effort to complete construction or merely commence construction?

That apparently is the issue in dispute. Probably gonna go to litigation which seems odd since that will cost even more.

That apparently is the issue in dispute. Probably gonna go to litigation which seems odd since that will cost even more.

If anyone cares to get the behind the scenes facts on how these things can end, look at the Walton County Official Records on the net and check out what happened between Sandpiper Construction and Rosemary Beach Land Company.

If this had been more publicized at the time there wouldn't have been any speculators on vacant lots who never planned to build. LUK is different than JOE though. They must parse every word and make big plans before they write Covenants.

I do wonder why any bank would ever loan money on vacant land that is being financed for more than "the original purchase price" without also having approved construction lined up. If you invest in businesses LUK has to be one of the best with local operations. That said, I'm really not a friend of LUK's or Rosemary Beach. I just admire the planning and tao.

Does the Memorandum of Agreement for that lot in Watercolor say they have to commence construction, and make a continuing and ongoing effort to complete construction or merely commence construction?

I believe the original agreement said you had 3 years to begin construction and a year to complete - which is a complete joke as there is no way to complete a house, especially there, in 1 year.

I believe the original agreement said you had 3 years to begin construction and a year to complete - which is a complete joke as there is no way to complete a house, especially there, in 1 year.

Based on what? I have person knowledge of several homes completed in less than a year. I watched them go up from clearing to finished product. That's not an unheard of deadline.

We've built a house in Watersound in 110 days start to finish and have others that go twice as long just to get to the sheetrock phase. It's always up to the homeowner. Some people know exactly what they want, others have no idea at all what they want. I understand the rules to now be a $500 fine to the builder, not the homeowner, if it takes more than a year in Watercolor and Watersound.

We've built a home in Rosemary Beach in 140 days and a home in Rosemary Beach in 2 years. No fixed price builder ever wants a job to take more than 8 months.

And I have personal knowledge of several that took much longer than a year so I guess its a draw

And I have personal knowledge of several that took much longer than a year so I guess its a draw

I don't want to get in an argument over the issue, but you stated originally that it was impossible. :cool:

there is no way to complete a house, especially there, in 1 year

Just noticed 19 Salt Box Lane (Lot 65) in WaterSound sold in April for $870,000. The original listing was for a distress sale at $1.575MM and was non-negotiable. Looks like someone was unable to complete construction and the new owner expects to spend $370,000 to complete the project.

Anyone care to opine on whether or not this was a good deal for the new owner ($353 sq. ft.)?

Little Fish

Just noticed 19 Salt Box Lane (Lot 65) in WaterSound sold in April for $870,000. The original listing was for a distress sale at $1.575MM and was non-negotiable. Looks like someone was unable to complete construction and the new owner expects to spend $370,000 to complete the project.

Anyone care to opine on whether or not this was a good deal for the new owner ($353 sq. ft.)?

Little Fish

We've been kicking it around on that same home for quite some time on the message board. Check it out from a while back. Figure the current lot value at + or - 350,000 for that lot and then take in account that the word on the message board was that the new owner required + or - 300,000 to complete construction. A guess would be the appraisal is 1.3.

I don't know if it came with Beach Club Membership or not. I know there is no gulf view as you can't get farther from the beach in Watersound Beach. It is directly on an amenity, Puttering Park. Check out that math and make your own assumption. That's my 2 cents.

Build out time:bang:

Can't sit on my beach, get off:angry:

$500 fuel bills going back and forth over the bay for service workers:bicycle:

Obama:floor:

Capitalism😀

Carl Marx:trainwreck:

Just some of my thoughts.

I just saw this, JOE extended the build outs to protect their own butts. They didn't want to purchase back the lots is the main reason. It really didn't have anything to do with "helping" out owners. It just got spun that way.

This could be true, but the buyback is just an option for St. Joe. If the owner does not build, they do not have to exercise that option. I have heard a few people that were trying to legally make St. Joe purchase back the lot because they were going under, but I never heard anything else come of this so I guess the owner didn't pursue or St. Joe handled in a different way (the Crescent Keel exchanges?). I believe that the option is that St. Joe can purchase the lot back for the original purchase price too, but I am not really sure on that point.:confused:

This could be true, but the buyback is just an option for St. Joe. If the owner does not build, they do not have to exercise that option. I have heard a few people that were trying to legally make St. Joe purchase back the lot because they were going under, but I never heard anything else come of this so I guess the owner didn't pursue or St. Joe handled in a different way (the Crescent Keel exchanges?). I believe that the option is that St. Joe can purchase the lot back for the original purchase price too, but I am not really sure on that point.:confused:

I believe legally they can't buy back some due to failure to build and not others. In other words they can't buy back a gulf front or gulf view lot and turn down an interior "Viewless" lot as that would most likely result in a lawsuit.

I believe legally they can't buy back some due to failure to build and not others. In other words they can't buy back a gulf front or gulf view lot and turn down an interior "Viewless" lot as that would most likely result in a lawsuit.

In my opinion, this has always been and will always be their problem. They have not enforced it uniformly like Rosemary Beach did. I think they will ulitmately hand it over to the HOA to handle. Of course, this will come right after they hand over the HOA to the homeowners.