Redfish Village Beach Access

I actually don't know. Why does anything matter? I am interested in knowing where you live of course not your address. Are you a full time resident? Did you show up at the Thursday night meeting?

I actually don't know. Why does anything matter?

If nothing matters, then why are you posting here now?

I am interested in knowing where you live of course not your address.

I own property in Blue Mtn Beach west of the 83 access.

My source is the Property Appraiser's map. Also, the attorney for Redfish Village said it too at Thursday night's meeting. After you bring up the possible error, I quickly looked at more reliable sources. Looking at the Legal Description for the subdivision, it clearly reads that the private property follows the water's edge of the Gulf of Mexico. It would be really nice if the Property Appraiser's data was more accurate more often.

Now, their idea of giving the beach to the County does seem a bit crazy. I am not sure how/if beach services would work there. I just hope those owners and users don't try to leave more crap on the beach. -- There is only so much I can haul to the nearby TDC trashcans.

"Also, the attorney for Redfish Village said it too at Thursday night's meeting."
SJ, at a minimum, anything RFV's attorney says regarding this project should be taken with a block of salt.

"It would be really nice if the Property Appraiser's data was more accurate more often."
Seems like we've gone through this before. The property appraiser's map is not an approriate instrument to determine the legal status of any property (as you already know). In addition it contains many errors. I will agree it's an easy way to get a quick (but not reliable) overview. I wonder if TDC also makes determinations from this map.

"Now, their idea of giving the beach to the County does seem a bit crazy. I am not sure how/if beach services would work there."
It does seem that it could easily be interpreted as an extension of the commercial offerings of RFV at the beach.

"Also, the attorney for Redfish Village said it too at Thursday night's meeting."
SJ, at a minimum, anything RFV's attorney says regarding this project should be taken with a block of salt.

"It would be really nice if the Property Appraiser's data was more accurate more often."
Seems like we've gone through this before. The property appraiser's map is not an approriate instrument to determine the legal status of any property (as you already know). In addition it contains many errors. I will agree it's an easy way to get a quick (but not reliable) overview. I wonder if TDC also makes determinations from this map.

"Now, their idea of giving the beach to the County does seem a bit crazy. I am not sure how/if beach services would work there."
It does seem that it could easily be interpreted as an extension of the commercial offerings of RFV at the beach.

I take every attorney's words with a block of salt.

The reason I often use the Property Appraiser's website as my first source for data is due to it being the quickest resource for much information and I usually find it fairly accurate, though I often find mistakes. I do not care to read the legal descriptions and dedication language in subdivision plats to find out a quick answer to these things for general reference. If I were looking for the most accurate information for business reasons, I would certainly cross reference several sources. However, this is a bulletin board and all of my information should be verified if it is important to you. Thanks for bringing up this matter of correction. I do have a question for you of which I am not certain of the answer. You seem to know a bit more about owning Gulf-front than I, so give it a whirl. I was always under the impression that the public is legally able to walk across private beach property, as long as they do not stop to loiter. It sounds like from your statement that this is not the case. Is this correct, and can you give me a source to verify?

I think you may be on to another backing reason for commercial use on this property, but if they dedicate the beach for public use, any services on the beach no longer relate directly to that parcel. Right? That would fall under County jurisdiction of Beach Service Vending Licenses I think. If they kept the beach, then, I think your argument may be more accurate.

I take every attorney's words with a block of salt.

The reason I often use the Property Appraiser's website as my first source for data is due to it being the quickest resource for much information and I usually find it fairly accurate, though I often find mistakes. I do not care to read the legal descriptions and dedication language in subdivision plats to find out a quick answer to these things for general reference. If I were looking for the most accurate information for business reasons, I would certainly cross reference several sources. However, this is a bulletin board and all of my information should be verified if it is important to you. Thanks for bringing up this matter of correction. I do have a question for you of which I am not certain of the answer. You seem to know a bit more about owning Gulf-front than I, so give it a whirl. I was always under the impression that the public is legally able to walk across private beach property, as long as they do not stop to loiter. It sounds like from your statement that this is not the case. Is this correct, and can you give me a source to verify?

I think you may be on to another backing reason for commercial use on this property, but if they dedicate the beach for public use, any services on the beach no longer relate directly to that parcel. Right? That would fall under County jurisdiction of Beach Service Vending Licenses I think. If they kept the beach, then, I think your argument may be more accurate.

"Thanks for bringing up this matter of correction."
SJ, as long as the truth is revealed regarding what is public vs. private property, no need to explain why your assumption was incorrect. While we're at it and since you mentioned it before, what about that public access you think exists next to Grande Beach?

"I was always under the impression that the public is legally able to walk across private beach property, as long as they do not stop to loiter. "
If that was true, the same logic would then hold for people going through your home. What is the difference? Ask an attorney. Remember if you do, besides the block of salt thing , inform the attorney that we are talking about the general public accessing private property.

Recall that Brad Zeitlin stated they had a right a right to use their property on the beach without any approvals from the county (during the public community meeting). He also stated they could legally access this part of the beach by going down the 83 access, walking to the water's edge, traverse west, then back north on to their property.

Regarding RFV giving the sandy part of the beach to the county, I guess you're correct about the commercial aspect possibly being negated somewhat BUT ONLY on the beach itself and to the extent of the activity. Also remember, for what it's worth, at the same time, RFV owners lose any private claims they may have to that "sand", perceived or promised. They can not then exclude the general public from the sand in front of their "private beach access" whatsoever.

The developers will eventually walk away from this thing. The owners may eventually find themselves asking why they must compete for "umbrella space" in front of their private access with the general public who will no doubt be moving on to that section of the beach from the 83 beach access.

I am not an attorney but I did sleep at a ..... oh never mind.

It is too late in the night for me to look up the property around Grand Beach. Does it pertain to this access, or are you just curious?

To me, it seems that Redfish Village, even if they can sell lot #1 for $3 Million, will still be in the hole well over $5 million for their deeded private beach access of which the only real benefit for owners will be restrooms above a public beach. Those bathrooms are not even built yet and they have already totalled more than $60,000 per condo unit at Redfish Village. Maybe some people sh_t doesn't smell. :funn:

It is too late in the night for me to look up the property around Grand Beach. Does it pertain to this access, or are you just curious?

To me, it seems that Redfish Village, even if they can sell lot #1 for $3 Million, will still be in the hole well over $5 million for their deeded private beach access of which the only real benefit for owners will be restrooms above a public beach. Those bathrooms are not even built yet and they have already totalled more than $60,000 per condo unit at Redfish Village. Maybe some people sh_t doesn't smell. :funn:

I'm really just curious about the access at Grande Beach that you mentioned. Honestly I think you're looking at the private access for Sun Seekers that is just owned (underlying fee) by the county but is still private none the less. If it "shows" 4 feet wide, that's the one.

I guess the point I've been making is that some of the beach is clearly public and some of the beach is clearly private. The beach is no different than bay front property (for example) as I've stated in the past. Fishermen have the right to fish right up to the edge, but they do not have the right to step off their boat on to private property above the MHW line.

As one lawyer calls this private/public beach thing: "The Beach Wars".

Even my own sister didn't believe the concept....at first. Now she understands. Heck, I didn't really think about it until not too long ago. My guess is most people do not understand the legalities involved (and I'm still learning). Most of us have gone to the beach as kids and never gave it a second thought as to what was private and what was public. So I can understand why some feel an automatic entitlement.

As more and more people come to the area, this facet becomes more and more an issue. But maybe we'll start another thread on private vs. public beach. I'm sure to be a "hit" with the funn crowd then.;-)

Back to your post...I agree with your math: over $60,000 per condo (and that's actual cost to the developer of just the land before tear down and improvements). That's over $10,000 more than the cost of my first home.

Seems to me that if the condo market was more realistic when these were marketed, most buyers would welcome, let's say, a $75,000 discount on their contract in exchange for the priviledge of sharing 2 "private" toilets with over 300 other owners and guests. Everyone would have walked away happy. But since the agreed upon contract prices are so out of touch with today's market, RFV has no choice but push this through so as not to give the buyers a way out now. If this could have been negotiated, the owners and guests would still have had a nice public beach access located closer along with new public restrooms that would not cost the future RFV association anything in the future such as dune walkover repairs, sand, landscaping maintenance, utilities, insurance, security, etc.

Vagrant I guess now that I am correct that you don't even live here and you have a condo west of 83. Since I live east of 83 and have a real interest in not seeing all the Redfish owners walk down my street, I am starting to think you are the one with some kind of selfish interest.

Who cares what they paid for that lot, I am esctatic that they did that. Who cares if it $50 thousand per condo or not? Is it your money?

Even I know that Lot 1 had a public beach in front of it and I know you know that too so what is the big deal you are trying to make whether the beach in front of Lot 2 is private or public for their owners? They weren't going to have a private beach anywat. It was public on Lot 1 and they said "Private Beach Access" so what's the difference on Lot 2? There is none. You just sit around and try to manufacture ideas "oh it was private now it's public" to stir the pot. And the way I heard it they were giving an easement I don't think that's the same as "Deeding" as you keep saying.

I bet too that most people don't think about private and public beach. When was the last time you called the police when somebody was on "your beach"? Were they arrested and now in jail for walking on "your beach". I know only a little bit about the legal side of this but I do know the practical side of it.

You were the one who came on here after BMBW oddly disspeared and said "get this back on track" and now you are one who is taking this off on these conspiracy theory ideas.

Why don't you stick to your points that you just don't want this use in near your condo. These other ideas just make me think my feelings are a lot less selfish than yours. I have a clear benefit of more private enjoyment of my property because I see less of their owners. And by the way, I don't care if they are on the beach because I accept the fact that I live at the beach and everybody can come to it.

Now take my post and then break it up into all these blue sections (how do you do that by the way?) and tear me up since you are the expert bulletin board guy.

Vagrant I guess now that I am correct that you don't even live here and you have a condo west of 83. Since I live east of 83 and have a real interest in not seeing all the Redfish owners walk down my street, I am starting to think you are the one with some kind of selfish interest.

KT, you're critical of me because I do not want to see me OR MY NEIGHBORS , some who also live here full-time, "harmed" by this development. I guess that's your definition of selfish.

Who cares what they paid for that lot, I am esctatic that they did that. Who cares if it $50 thousand per condo or not? Is it your money?

KT, you're just generating static here. SJ brought up the cost of the lot more than once. I simply made an observation along the same lines that there might have been a "way out" for everyone. You're absolutely right...I don't really care what they paid for the lot(s).

Even I know that Lot 1 had a public beach in front of it and I know you know that too so what is the big deal you are trying to make whether the beach in front of Lot 2 is private or public for their owners?

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about regarding what's public or private in your neck of the woods (east of the 83 access). Please give me the reference showing where Walton County owns the beach in front of your subdivision, if you can find it.

They weren't going to have a private beach anywat. It was public on Lot 1 and they said "Private Beach Access" so what's the difference on Lot 2? There is none.

I have no real idea what you're driving at here. But your assumptions are wrong regarding what is public and private are wrong.

You just sit around and try to manufacture ideas "oh it was private now it's public" to stir the pot. And the way I heard it they were giving an easement I don't think that's the same as "Deeding" as you keep saying.

Fine. If they give the County an easement instead, then the use of that sandy part of the beach would then be under more scrutiny as to any activity RFV did there in regards to what is commercial and what is not. The reason being that RFV would still own the property which would still be an extension of the development.

I bet too that most people don't think about private and public beach. When was the last time you called the police when somebody was on "your beach"? Were they arrested and now in jail for walking on "your beach". I know only a little bit about the legal side of this but I do know the practical side of it.

Your attempt to "villafy" my postion regarding private property rights (which is legally backed by the laws of Walton County and the State of Florida in case you've forgotten) is nothing short of pathetic.

You were the one who came on here after BMBW oddly disspeared and said "get this back on track" and now you are one who is taking this off on these conspiracy theory ideas.

What are you saying or implying here in particular?

Why don't you stick to your points that you just don't want this use in near your condo. These other ideas just make me think my feelings are a lot less selfish than yours. I have a clear benefit of more private enjoyment of my property because I see less of their owners. And by the way, I don't care if they are on the beach because I accept the fact that I live at the beach and everybody can come to it.

It's VERY apparent you don't own beach front property and as such you don't give a damn about private property rights.

Now take my post and then break it up into all these blue sections (how do you do that by the way?) and tear me up since you are the expert bulletin board guy.

SJ is the expert on this bulletin board. ;-)

By the way, you (nor anyone else) have ever responded to my accusations that BMBCA has turned their back on our neighborhood regarding this issue.

KT-So it is all public now? Great that means that RFV has more space than 75' of beach front down to the waters edge. However, it is still not private. So I can walk down from the Public area were all the ordinary citizens hang and rent an umbrella from the RFVers and have the same "experience" as RFVers. This is great news. I hate carrying all that stuff to the beach. Now all I need is a bag full of toys and sun block. I might have to arrive a little earlier than normal to make sure I experience one of those umbrellas in the front.

So PrivateBA goers of Public Beach can move on down out of the cluster of folks trying to bake in the sun. That is great to know I am going to move my chairs away from the public access to what I thought was going to be private beach. I might buy me a condo in the area and rent it out and use this as one of my amenities just give them a map of how to get to the area without walking.

This is good news to PUBLIC beach goers. Bad news for folks owning land on the beach.

Smoothie anyone?

Vagrant talk about static you said absolutely nothing except that at least we know now that you are just sticking up for your capitalized neighbors. You are a good person. Are you really saying the beach east of 83 is private?

Edroedrog what is wrong with you there is nothing you say that makes sense. What does a smoothie have to do with anything first of all and second of all the beach in front of Lot 1 is public do you understand what that means to this discussion? Did you see Vagrant take some shots at me and think you can just pile on now? Do you not think we all remember your agenda and you don't live here and don't own property here.

Does anybody else find it a little ironic that the two people who stir up the most "static" don't even live here?

I'm really just curious about the access at Grande Beach that you mentioned. Honestly I think you're looking at the private access for Sun Seekers that is just owned (underlying fee) by the county but is still private none the less. If it "shows" 4 feet wide, that's the one.

To clarify an earlier statement -- I don't have my quote in front of me, but I believe I was referring to the property located west of Grande Beach, not Grande Beach itself.

Vagrant talk about static you said absolutely nothing except that at least we know now that you are just sticking up for your capitalized neighbors. You are a good person. Are you really saying the beach east of 83 is private?

Edroedrog what is wrong with you there is nothing you say that makes sense. What does a smoothie have to do with anything first of all and second of all the beach in front of Lot 1 is public do you understand what that means to this discussion? Did you see Vagrant take some shots at me and think you can just pile on now? Do you not think we all remember your agenda and you don't live here and don't own property here.

Does anybody else find it a little ironic that the two people who stir up the most "static" don't even live here?

KT-It all makes since to the RFVers.

Look KT - I do understand the difference between Private and PUBLIC. Remember my earlier comments about your buddies at RFV.? Maybe they need to understand the difference.

My agenda is to make sure that you get everything in writing that RFV tells the community that is all.

Vagrant talk about static you said absolutely nothing except that at least we know now that you are just sticking up for your capitalized neighbors. You are a good person.

"capitalized"???? What's your real beef and what difference does that make?

Are you really saying the beach east of 83 is private?

Do you know for sure that it's public? Just SHOW ME the warranty deed or quit claim deed or easement or something and I'll shut up about the beach east of the 83 access. But remember YOU brought it up again saying it was public.

....and second of all the beach in front of Lot 1 is public do you understand what that means to this discussion? Did you see Vagrant take some shots at me and think you can just pile on now?

Just damn....

Does anybody else find it a little ironic that the two people who stir up the most "static" don't even live here?

Just damn....again....

I'm done debating you KT, unless I see some evidence of a thoughtful post. I'll just yield to edroedog and BMBW to reply to your nonsense.

You can answer a couple of simple questions for me, if you can:
1. Has BMBCA turned their back on the neighborhood?
2. Have you found the document that makes "your" part of the beach public?

Let's see if you're capable of adding anything real to this discussion besides your calling yourself, selfish AND your calling me selfish. Why not give someone else a chance to call US selfish. Oh yea, that's just you being selfish AGAIN .

You are mean spirited. Go cuss somebody else. Read your posts and read mine and see who has a problem. Other opinions than yours are important and you are not the final say whether they add something "real". Who appointed you?

Do you know for sure that it's public? Just SHOW ME the warranty deed or quit claim deed or easement or something and I'll shut up about the beach east of the 83 access. But remember YOU brought it up again saying it was public.

It sounds like you've been listening to Neil Bortz's side kick with the "just damns." :funn:


Vagrant, you are being a little stickler about the beach east of the 83 access. I have posted the plat of the subdivision and one thing is definitely clear -- The Gulf front property owners do not own to the Mean High Water Mark. I have a goal for you. Find me a deed that shows who owns it, and until then, drop the issue. Since the seller of that subdivision in front of that beach did not have a deed for that beach, they had no authority to dedicate it as public, so it was probably always considered as public.

It sounds like you've been listening to Neil Bortz's side kick with the "just damns." :funn:

YEP! :clap_1: I just couldn't figure out any other reply to useless rhetoric. Looks like his feelings were hurt with such language.

Vagrant, you are being a little stickler about the beach east of the 83 access. I have posted the plat of the subdivision and one thing is definitely clear -- The Gulf front property owners do not own to the Mean High Water Mark. I have a goal for you. Find me a deed that shows who owns it, and until then, drop the issue.

What is "definitely clear" is that the individual lot lines for each lot do not go to the MHW line. What is NOT definitely clear from what you've seen is who owns the beach. Don't make assumptions.

think Since the seller of that subdivision in front of that beach did not have a deed for that beach, they had no authority to dedicate it as public, so it was probably always considered as public.

I have a reason to be elusive here...a promise to others.

Just for the sake of argument (which we never do here on SoWal ;-) ), let's say it's public. What then?
I say it makes no difference regarding bathroom lot #1. What's your take?

Then let's say it's private. What then?
Again, I say it makes no difference regarding bathroom lot #1. Same question...what's your take?

Truthfully, I'm confused why bathroom lot #1 even comes in to consideration at all after all that's happened. KT kept bringing it up, saying that it's still a possiblity and that he does not want to see RFV try to use it again....oh yea, for "selfish reasons".;-)

Don't you worry about me Vagrant. I will sleep well knowing you are an out of towner, YOU DON'T EVEN LIVE HERE (that's what I meant by capitalized) and that you are "elusive" as you put it. That makes us all feel good that we should take at face value your two page rants every day and every night you are the king of "rhetoric".

Kevin, do you think that property owners who are not full time residents shouldn't have a voice in what goes on in an area near their property? From reading these last few posts, it sure seems that way. If I owned property near this access (and I don't), I doubt I would give out my the details of my property either from fear of what some nut-case might do based on what I say on this board. (not at all saying you are a nut-case, but you know what I mean.)

Kevin, do you think that property owners who are not full time residents shouldn't have a voice in what goes on in an area near their property? From reading these last few posts, it sure seems that way. If I owned property near this access (and I don't), I doubt I would give out my the details of my property either from fear of what some nut-case might do based on what I say on this board. (not at all saying you are a nut-case, but you know what I mean.)

SJ I think they should have a voice but not one that drowns out the rest of us who have what we might think are "real" issues. It really seemed ironic to me after thinking about it that I was taking so much heat for admitting that part of the reason I thought the access on Lot 2 was a good idea was that it would keep people (ok maybe not everybody) from walking down the road in front of my house. Vagrant jumped all over my admitting being selfish on that point in a very overbearing, pompous, self-righteous way.:nono1: (just learned that feature).

What really got me was that if you come on this posting system and read you see that the three most vocal people (I have to include you), don't even live here. I am not saying your intentions are not honorable because you seem to look at all sides of the issue and I think help moderate the craziness. But Vagrant and Edroe just want a place to argue, stir the pot and if it wasn't revealed that they don't even live here (and Edroe doesn't even own property there) then maybe some people wouldn't realize what is going on here because I sure didn't but it is more clear to me now and probably everybody else who reads this.

SJ I think they should have a voice but not one that drowns out the rest of us who have what we might think are "real" issues. It really seemed ironic to me after thinking about it that I was taking so much heat for admitting that part of the reason I thought the access on Lot 2 was a good idea was that it would keep people (ok maybe not everybody) from walking down the road in front of my house. Vagrant jumped all over my admitting being selfish on that point in a very overbearing, pompous, self-righteous way.:nono1: (just learned that feature).

What really got me was that if you come on this posting system and read you see that the three most vocal people (I have to include you), don't even live here. I am not saying your intentions are not honorable because you seem to look at all sides of the issue and I think help moderate the craziness. But Vagrant and Edroe just want a place to argue, stir the pot and if it wasn't revealed that they don't even live here (and Edroe doesn't even own property there) then maybe some people wouldn't realize what is going on here because I sure didn't but it is more clear to me now and probably everybody else who reads this.

KT-I like the toned down version of you a lot better as you probably like me a lot better without all my innuendos.

I think the point of this board is to let people know what is going on. Again, like I have said in the past I am posting the facts and just want people to know that the development can not be trusted(I know we have a difference of opinion on this one). Just look at how they have handled this whole thing and you tell me. KT-I do not have a personal vendetta against you and your pro 260 Blue Mountain Rd east side group but I do have a bone to pick with the folks that caused this commotion in "YOUR" community. My issue is the way it has all been handled. If RFV would have gotten all proper approval prior to clearing the land than this would be a moot point. I know I have read on myflorida.com that the development is responsible for making sure that they cover their basis before advertising things they do not have.

I would encourage more guests to sign up and post their thoughts on the subject. I have noticed that sowal has more guest than they have members signed on at any given time(Not sure it the online stat is true or not). Not sure what that means but I would encourage you if you are a guest reading this to signup and post.

KT-I like the toned down version of you a lot better as you probably like me a lot better without all my innuendos.

I think the point of this board is to let people know what is going on. Again, like I have said in the past I am posting the facts and just want people to know that the development can not be trusted(I know we have a difference of opinion on this one). Just look at how they have handled this whole thing and you tell me. KT-I do not have a personal vendetta against you and your pro 260 Blue Mountain Rd east side group but I do have a bone to pick with the folks that caused this commotion in "YOUR" community. My issue is the way it has all been handled. If RFV would have gotten all proper approval prior to clearing the land than this would be a moot point. I know I have read on myflorida.com that the development is responsible for making sure that they cover their basis before advertising things they do not have.

I would encourage more guests to sign up and post their thoughts on the subject. I have noticed that sowal has more guest than they have members signed on at any given time(Not sure it the online stat is true or not). Not sure what that means but I would encourage you if you are a guest reading this to signup and post.

Well I don't like not being able to say my position without getting crushed by a page long post by Vagrant. And I still think you are the worst enemy of the truth and the person who through innuendo acts like he knows the facts. Are you a lawyer or developer? Do you really think that developers always have a guarantee of all their approvals? I would jump right into that business if they did because they sure seem to make money and I would guess it is because they take some risk. You have called them liars, untrustworthy and acted like they are thieves until everybody here called you out and then you all of sudden said "I like them too". You are not to be trusted. I have never shied from saying I have friends there and will do what I can not to let you smear them.

Well I don't like not being able to say my position without getting crushed by a page long post by Vagrant. And I still think you are the worst enemy of the truth and the person who through innuendo acts like he knows the facts. Are you a lawyer or developer? Do you really think that developers always have a guarantee of all their approvals? I would jump right into that business if they did because they sure seem to make money and I would guess it is because they take some risk. You have called them liars, untrustworthy and acted like they are thieves until everybody here called you out and then you all of sudden said "I like them too". You are not to be trusted. I have never shied from saying I have friends there and will do what I can not to let you smear them.

You keep on saying that I am not truthful but yet you never take our challenge to answer the questions. I do know the facts I do have the facts. I receive more and more facts everyday KT because of this board. The only thing that I was wrong about was the 20% but NOG does have a financial relationship with H20 and that would be thought LGI (Not that it matters).

I said 'I liked them too" before you and SJ got onto me for calling it they way I see it.

I am not smearing them I am just exposing them and you do not like it KT. The truth will come out in the END.

Reminder to all - personal attacks are not allowed. Stick to attacking the issues.