Redfish Village Beach Access

Kevin,

>>>that the written advertisements on which you rely do not identify the
location of the private beach access

Just to make sure that this does not imply that there is no written documentation identifying the location of the beach lot, see the attached RFV plot plan.

They may be splitting hairs here if the only beach lot described does not state that it does not have private beach access.

Hmmmm..... Let's see here:

1. KT thinks the County should approve bathroom lot #2 because KT does not want the County to approve bathroom lot #1 nor does KT want people from RFV going past his house on their way to the beach.

2. KT says bathroom lot #1 is zoned reservation preservation / single family homes.

3. KT says bathroom lot #2 (and rightly so) is zoned infill. However a requirement for infill zoned projects is that it must be COMPATIBLE (remember it still is residential with density limitations). Yea, I know this is repetitive, but it's a fact, JACK!

4. In just about everyone's opinion EXCEPT for COUNTY PLANNING and EXCEPT for the DEVELOPER (and friends of), that this project is NOT COMPATIBLE. The Commissioners' positions are yet to be determined.

5. KT (and I'll add BMBCA via my opinion) refuses to join in the fight to oppose this project for (again) "selfish" reasons.

6. SOOOooo, if this project passes with such problematic interpretation of the land code and for total disregard for the quiet enjoyment of private property, then what makes KT think that the county won't allow RFV to go back and use bathroom lot#1 for another project?

Just simply build a single family home on lot #1 and a walkover and always have a constant open invitation for the guests and owners of RFV to pass through the property. There's your private gated access for Redfish Village "Phase II"... nothing I know of now would prevent this. Remember when someone asked RFV if they owned any other property during the "public meeting"? This was in regards to other properties using the same access. RFV replied "Why do you want to know?" Hmmm.

Seems to me that the "East End Boys" should have joined in this fight and squashed this whole thing all together and prevented any type of "resurgence" of this matter.

Oh well. I tried to do the right thing for our neighborhood. Let's see if the Commissioners will tomorrow.

Just a reminder...
Commissioners Meeting, Tuesday, January 23rd (today) at 4:00 in DeFuniak Springs

Thanks.

...and Redfish Village developers purchased a Gulf front lot (owning) only 5 months after buying the dirt for the primary development on the corner of 30A/83 in order to try to provide the private access which they are promising. The trees were still not cleared from the primary lot when that lot #1 was purchased. What is your point?

Guys, this is as simple as pre-ordering Girl Scout Cookies. The kid (or her parent in many cases:funn comes around taking pre-orders. You promise to pay, and she promises to deliver when the cookies are shipped. If she doesn't deliver the cookies, she is in breach of the contract and you don't have to pay, and you are not penalized for not paying. If she delivers Thin Mints when you ordered Samoas, she didn't deliver as promised and you do not have to pay, ( however, I hear the Samoas are delicious ) You are able to keep your money unless she can produce those Thin Mints as contracted to do so.

Real Estate doesn't have to be so darn difficult. A five year old Daisy Scout knows the basic principle. ;-) (forgive my simple example, but it is that time of year, again.)

Let's call a spade a spade. The developer was overhyping the facts in order to sell product. I call this lying. A white lie is the same as a big fat lie.

...
Guys, this is as simple as pre-ordering Girl Scout Cookies. The kid (or her parent in many cases:funn comes around taking pre-orders. You promise to pay, and she promises to deliver when the cookies are shipped. If she doesn't deliver the cookies, she is in breach of the contract and you don't have to pay, and you are not penalized for not paying. If she delivers Thin Mints when you ordered Samoas, she didn't deliver as promised and you do not have to pay, ( however, I hear the Samoas are delicious ) You are able to keep your money unless she can produce those Thin Mints as contracted to do so.

I was wondering when the Girl Scouts were going to be dragged into this! I promise the Daisies will not make any promises about cookies that can't be delivered. I you want Thin Mints, then you will get Thin Mints.

I wish for you all that this RFV mess was as simple as selling GS cookies.

Response in Red

Hmmmm..... Let's see here:

1. KT thinks the County should approve bathroom lot #2 because KT does not want the County to approve bathroom lot #1 nor does KT want people from RFV going past his house on their way to the beach.

Well put. And Vagrant does not want the County to approve Lot #2 because he does not want people near his condo on his beach and parking near his condo on the road.

2. KT says bathroom lot #1 is zoned reservation preservation / single family homes.

Well put.

3. KT says bathroom lot #2 (and rightly so) is zoned infill. However a requirement for infill zoned projects is that it must be COMPATIBLE (remember it still is residential with density limitations). Yea, I know this is repetitive, but it's a fact, JACK!

Well put. It must be compatible determined by Walton County technical staff, planning department and planning commission. And of course Vagrant and Walton Sun. I guess it is exceeding the residential density limitation of 4-5 condo units by building ZERO units right?

4. In just about everyone's opinion EXCEPT for COUNTY PLANNING and EXCEPT for the DEVELOPER (and friends of), that this project is NOT COMPATIBLE. The Commissioners' positions are yet to be determined.

Poorly put. This what you say Vagrant. Vagrant says this is not compatible and others say it is. All the "East End Boys and Girls" think it is. Vagrant, Edroedrog who do not live in Walton County believe it is not. You are really good at saying something and fooling yourself that your opinion is fact (especially when you read it in the paper). If you have a wife or husband they must have a terrible inferiority complex by now. You might be pathological though since now that you see that the letter from the County you have spoken about for months was ill-sent. Just like the letter discussed on the Seawall thread.

5. KT (and I'll add BMBCA via my opinion) refuses to join in the fight to oppose this project for (again) "selfish" reasons.

Well put. Of course, with the beach access most owners will not be walking in front of my house. Instead they either walk or bike to Lot 2 or take a shuttle to Lot 2 which is closer to the development for them than Lot 1. It will also keep people from cutting across 30A right across from their development and getting hit by a car.

6. SOOOooo, if this project passes with such problematic interpretation of the land code and for total disregard for the quiet enjoyment of private property, then what makes KT think that the county won't allow RFV to go back and use bathroom lot#1 for another project?

Confusingly put. Our private enjoyment on the east side is improved. Yours stays the same. The way I see it from standing on Lot 2 yesterday, you will never see these people until they get to the beach. We would have. From your posts,(and maybe the Walton Sun article?) you either have a condo in Blue Mtn Condos or Seabreeze which by the way part of is outside of the 300 ft from my measurements. Neither of these condos can even see Lot 2. You are just upset because people are coming to "your beach". And now you are saying that you think the County would approve Lot 1? I thought you were the one saying it was denied and Redfish lied about it being denied and advertised approval? I see you had no comment on the letter above. Nice pattern when you are proved wrong you either ignore it or start posting these goofy doctored pictures.

Just simply build a single family home on lot #1 and a walkover and always have a constant open invitation for the guests and owners of RFV to pass through the property. There's your private gated access for Redfish Village "Phase II"... nothing I know of now would prevent this. Remember when someone asked RFV if they owned any other property during the "public meeting"? This was in regards to other properties using the same access. RFV replied "Why do you want to know?" Hmmm.

Interestingly put. I would guess that if they could have done this they would have. Could it be that they went to Lot 2 because it was better for the community and their owners? That's what I think from talking to them. Why wouldn't they just sell the other lot? More of your fear tactics.

Seems to me that the "East End Boys" should have joined in this fight and squashed this whole thing all together and prevented any type of "resurgence" of this matter.

Hypocritically put. Why would I (or any other "East End Boy or Girl") fight it if I think it is the best solution for our community? The Planning Commission put it very well at the meeting. There is nothing about this that is not great for our neighborhood. Except of course that you don't want more people on the beach which of course is going to happen anyway whether they have a private or public beach access. Why can't I fight just as hard as you here FOR IT if it takes people off my road and improves my private enjoyment. You need to admit you are as selfish as I am.

Now to more of your hypocrisy. VAGRANT IF YOU ARE SERVING A HIGHER PURPOSE AND BLAMING ME, BMBCA, SWCC, ANITA PAGE, RICHARD FOWLKES, PAT BLACKSHEAR NOW AND IN YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS FOR NOT FIGHTING THIS, WHY HAVEN'T YOU POSTED AS VIGOROUSLY (OR AT ALL?) ON THE NATUREWALK BEACH CLUB THREAD? Because you have your personal opinion about what is right and wrong in your "own backyard" and that's all. You just happen to have a forum here and in the Walton Sun to push your point (which you have done very well). That doesn't mean you are right.

Oh well. I tried to do the right thing for our neighborhood. Let's see if the Commissioners will tomorrow.

Just a reminder...
Commissioners Meeting, Tuesday, January 23rd (today) at 4:00 in DeFuniak Springs

Thanks.

...

6. SOOOooo, if this project passes with such problematic interpretation of the land code and for total disregard for the quiet enjoyment of private property, then what makes KT think that the county won't allow RFV to go back and use bathroom lot#1 for another project?
...

very good point, Vagrant.

I was wondering when the Girl Scouts were going to be dragged into this! I promise the Daisies will not make any promises about cookies that can't be delivered. I you want Thin Mints, then you will get Thin Mints.

I wish for you all that this RFV mess was as simple as selling GS cookies.

What happens if the storage facility for all of the Thin Mints were to catch on fire and all of the Thin Mints were destroyed before delivery? The buyers of the Thin Mints could keep their money. It is fairly simple, people just make it complicated.

As for the access, in my opinion, lot #2 is not zoned properly for part of a development project for an 80 unit condo. Redfish Village developers could have more easily resolved this issue by buying lot #1 or #2, built public restrooms and public walkover, before donating it to the County, with all maintanance and repairs to be made and paid for by Redfish Village.

The irony of that is fantastic. We have spent a month arguing about whether the County denied Lot 1. Am I hearing draw a conclusion that if an Infill project is found compatible then Redfish will get to build bathrooms on Lot 1?

As for the access, in my opinion, lot #2 is not zoned properly for part of a development project for an 80 unit condo. Redfish Village developers could have more easily resolved this issue by buying lot #1 or #2, built public restrooms and public walkover, before donating it to the County, with all maintanance and repairs to be made and paid for by Redfish Village.

careful, pretty close to what i suggested, and I have been labeled a supporter of the project. Don't allow yourself to be thrown in with the likes of me. Someone in BMB would have a problem with that idea, and the barbs would be flying.

The irony of that is fantastic. We have spent a month arguing about whether the County denied Lot 1. Am I hearing draw a conclusion that if an Infill project is found compatible then Redfish will get to build bathrooms on Lot 1?

You are the one with the letter KT..

...

Well put. Of course, with the beach access most owners will not be walking in front of my house. Instead they either walk or bike to Lot 2 or take a shuttle to Lot 2 which is closer to the development for them than Lot 1. It will also keep people from cutting across 30A right across from their development and getting hit by a car....

You are correct about lot #2 being closer to Redfish Village(RV) than lot #1, but I think there is a difference in perception for a person standing on RV main property. When standing on the main parcel of RV and looking down Sand Dunes Rd or Gulf Point Rd at the homes on the Gulf, there is a perception that walking down that street would be the most direct route to access the beach, and there is a private, though not repaired, access at the end of Gulf Point Rd. When telling someone that they have to walk down 83, and turn the corner to the right, then access the beach to the left, not being able to see that access, will leave a quetion in people's mind as to how close it is.

In reality, the walking path from RV to lot #1 is .21 miles according to my measuring stick, and the distance along the walking path from RV to lot #2 is .19 miles -- not much actual difference but perception is quite different in my opinion.

There is an answer to solving the numerous potential car/people collisions which will be likely to happen, and I have not heard anyone speak to it. This answer would also solve the issue of people from Redfish Village walking down Gulf Point Rd and Sand Dunes Rd. The answer is to erect a fence or natural vegetation of the prickly sort along RV property adjacent to 30A. People are like cattle in the shoot. They will take the path of least resistance. Direct people down 83 at one cross walk rather than having them scatter across the busy 30A road at random, by using landscaping and fencing. Once people are at the 30A/83 intersection, they will walk straight down the street, or sidewalk if you can get them to cross that street too, to the beach, many will never even go to lot#2, because it is a farther distance to carry all of their kid's crap. They will use lot #2 for the bathrooms, but not for access, unless they get the short bus to drop them off, and no one likes to ride the short bus.;-)

careful, pretty close to what i suggested, and I have been labeled a supporter of the project. Don't allow yourself to be thrown in with the likes of me. Someone in BMB would have a problem with that idea, and the barbs would be flying.

Well, you know that I have stated that I don't live in that BMB neighborhood, nor in Seagrove on Montgomery St, so my opinion doesn't carry any weight. :roll:

Kevin,

>>>that the written advertisements on which you rely do not identify the
location of the private beach access

Just to make sure that this does not imply that there is no written documentation identifying the location of the beach lot, see the attached RFV plot plan.

They may be splitting hairs here if the only beach lot described does not state that it does not have private beach access.

KT-Did you miss this. Noticed you did not comment on this great find by whitesys..

This rendering came from the same folks that are listed on www.redfishvillage.com. Looney Kiss Ricks Architect. Is this coincidental or is this some work they were doing for redfish too?

This should be sent to the local gov for any future phone conversations they have with Holland & Knight. Who is Holland & Knight KT?

Thanks Whitesys for the info. Do you have anymore Exhibits you can post?

You are correct about lot #2 being closer to Redfish Village(RV) than lot #1, but I think there is a difference in perception for a person standing on RV main property. When standing on the main parcel of RV and looking down Sand Dunes Rd or Gulf Point Rd at the homes on the Gulf, there is a perception that walking down that street would be the most direct route to access the beach, and there is a private, though not repaired, access at the end of Gulf Point Rd. When telling someone that they have to walk down 83, and turn the corner to the right, then access the beach to the left, not being able to see that access, will leave a quetion in people's mind as to how close it is.

the keycard will leave little to the imagination as to where their bathrooms/access are.

Edroedrog I am not sure I can ever remember having a conversation with someone in English and completely not understanding anything they say.

Edroedrog I am not sure I can ever remember having a conversation with someone in English and completely not understanding anything they say.

That would be your response. You missed commenting on a post by whitesys.

Come on KT do not be so narrow minded. Please go back and read his post if you do not understand my post. Do you not even know the architect for this development? Get with the program my man.

What KT does not want everyone to know is that RFV did publish documents. The documents that they published is provided by whitesys in last nights post.


I can not believe I am having to explain this to you.

Am I the only one wondering why I didn't receive this map of the beach lot in my packet of Redfish Village Info.?

Edroedrog, are you attempting to tell us that you received the map in with your sales packet? What about you, whitesys? Or, is this a map of which they used in trying to describe their plans for the beach access, just as the sketches of the Redfish Village condos showed what they intended to build? Seeing this map means nothing to me and most other users on this board. Again, this topic has faded to who may be blatently lying or not, rather than the legal question of whether Redfish Village building the private access. It is obvious where your real thoughts are focused.

....
Now to more of your hypocrisy. VAGRANT IF YOU ARE SERVING A HIGHER PURPOSE AND BLAMING ME, BMBCA, SWCC, ANITA PAGE, RICHARD FOWLKES, PAT BLACKSHEAR NOW AND IN YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS FOR NOT FIGHTING THIS, WHY HAVEN'T YOU POSTED AS VIGOROUSLY (OR AT ALL?) ON THE NATUREWALK BEACH CLUB THREAD?

Beacuse I have learned from you how to be selfish.

edroe, your wish has come true. this is the second most viewed thread on the board, besides the 'favorite restaurants' thread. still, i'm not really sure what your stake is here, besides that of a concerned citizen. but, the quantity and fervor of your posts leads me to believe it is more than that.

So,
1. what exactly are you trying to acomplish here?
2. do you own property on Blue Mountain Road?
3. do you own property in Blue Mountain Beach?
3. are you a former employee of RFV?
4. do you hold a current reservation in RFV?

pretty simple yes or no answers will suffice, except for #1. i ask only because if your readers have a better idea of your involvement, it may be easier for them to understand your posts, and/or help you with your quest.

thanks in advance for your direct response.

Response in Red

Hmmmm..... Let's see here:

1. KT thinks the County should approve bathroom lot #2 because KT does not want the County to approve bathroom lot #1 nor does KT want people from RFV going past his house on their way to the beach.

Well put. And Vagrant does not want the County to approve Lot #2 because he does not want people near his condo on his beach and parking near his condo on the road.

2. KT says bathroom lot #1 is zoned reservation preservation / single family homes.

Well put.

3. KT says bathroom lot #2 (and rightly so) is zoned infill. However a requirement for infill zoned projects is that it must be COMPATIBLE (remember it still is residential with density limitations). Yea, I know this is repetitive, but it's a fact, JACK!

Well put. It must be compatible determined by Walton County technical staff, planning department and planning commission. And of course Vagrant and Walton Sun. I guess it is exceeding the residential density limitation of 4-5 condo units by building ZERO units right?

4. In just about everyone's opinion EXCEPT for COUNTY PLANNING and EXCEPT for the DEVELOPER (and friends of), that this project is NOT COMPATIBLE. The Commissioners' positions are yet to be determined.

Poorly put. This what you say Vagrant. Vagrant says this is not compatible and others say it is. All the "East End Boys and Girls" think it is. Vagrant, Edroedrog who do not live in Walton County believe it is not. You are really good at saying something and fooling yourself that your opinion is fact (especially when you read it in the paper). If you have a wife or husband they must have a terrible inferiority complex by now. You might be pathological though since now that you see that the letter from the County you have spoken about for months was ill-sent. Just like the letter discussed on the Seawall thread.

5. KT (and I'll add BMBCA via my opinion) refuses to join in the fight to oppose this project for (again) "selfish" reasons.

Well put. Of course, with the beach access most owners will not be walking in front of my house. Instead they either walk or bike to Lot 2 or take a shuttle to Lot 2 which is closer to the development for them than Lot 1. It will also keep people from cutting across 30A right across from their development and getting hit by a car.

6. SOOOooo, if this project passes with such problematic interpretation of the land code and for total disregard for the quiet enjoyment of private property, then what makes KT think that the county won't allow RFV to go back and use bathroom lot#1 for another project?

Confusingly put. Our private enjoyment on the east side is improved. Yours stays the same. The way I see it from standing on Lot 2 yesterday, you will never see these people until they get to the beach. We would have. From your posts,(and maybe the Walton Sun article?) you either have a condo in Blue Mtn Condos or Seabreeze which by the way part of is outside of the 300 ft from my measurements. Neither of these condos can even see Lot 2. You are just upset because people are coming to "your beach". And now you are saying that you think the County would approve Lot 1? I thought you were the one saying it was denied and Redfish lied about it being denied and advertised approval? I see you had no comment on the letter above. Nice pattern when you are proved wrong you either ignore it or start posting these goofy doctored pictures.

Just simply build a single family home on lot #1 and a walkover and always have a constant open invitation for the guests and owners of RFV to pass through the property. There's your private gated access for Redfish Village "Phase II"... nothing I know of now would prevent this. Remember when someone asked RFV if they owned any other property during the "public meeting"? This was in regards to other properties using the same access. RFV replied "Why do you want to know?" Hmmm.

Interestingly put. I would guess that if they could have done this they would have. Could it be that they went to Lot 2 because it was better for the community and their owners? That's what I think from talking to them. Why wouldn't they just sell the other lot? More of your fear tactics.

Seems to me that the "East End Boys" should have joined in this fight and squashed this whole thing all together and prevented any type of "resurgence" of this matter.

Hypocritically put. Why would I (or any other "East End Boy or Girl") fight it if I think it is the best solution for our community? The Planning Commission put it very well at the meeting. There is nothing about this that is not great for our neighborhood. Except of course that you don't want more people on the beach which of course is going to happen anyway whether they have a private or public beach access. Why can't I fight just as hard as you here FOR IT if it takes people off my road and improves my private enjoyment. You need to admit you are as selfish as I am.

Now to more of your hypocrisy. VAGRANT IF YOU ARE SERVING A HIGHER PURPOSE AND BLAMING ME, BMBCA, SWCC, ANITA PAGE, RICHARD FOWLKES, PAT BLACKSHEAR NOW AND IN YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS FOR NOT FIGHTING THIS, WHY HAVEN'T YOU POSTED AS VIGOROUSLY (OR AT ALL?) ON THE NATUREWALK BEACH CLUB THREAD? Because you have your personal opinion about what is right and wrong in your "own backyard" and that's all. You just happen to have a forum here and in the Walton Sun to push your point (which you have done very well). That doesn't mean you are right.

Oh well. I tried to do the right thing for our neighborhood. Let's see if the Commissioners will tomorrow.

Just a reminder...
Commissioners Meeting, Tuesday, January 23rd (today) at 4:00 in DeFuniak Springs

Thanks.

KT...your employers can never say you didn't try...

Main Entry: pet?ti?fog?ger
Pronunciation: 'pe-tE-"fo-g&r, -"f?-
Function: noun
Etymology: probably from petty + obsolete English fogger pettifogger
1 : a lawyer whose methods are petty, underhanded, or disreputable

Am I the only one wondering why I didn't receive this map of the beach lot in my packet of Redfish Village Info.?

Edroedrog, are you attempting to tell us that you received the map in with your sales packet? What about you, whitesys? Or, is this a map of which they used in trying to describe their plans for the beach access, just as the sketches of the Redfish Village condos showed what they intended to build? Seeing this map means nothing to me and most other users on this board. Again, this topic has faded to who may be blatently lying or not, rather than the legal question of whether Redfish Village building the private access. It is obvious where your real thoughts are focused.

SJ-If I had that map I would have posted it a month ago. We were just wondering why KT did not respond to it since he had he letter from Holland & Knight.

Anyway the docs are public you just have to pay someone to get them to you. Maybe that is what whitesys did not sure but at least we have them to compare them against KT's letter from Holland & Knight. I do not care about whitsys and his intentions.

oh jeez, look who's back to mangle the internets. are you out on a supervised visit, or did you escape? or, has all this time been spent trying to enter the tax id number of the surfrider foundation in some seach field?

Is KT implying that Blue Mountain Beach Community Association and South Walton Community Council is taking the "noble" cause of opposing NatureWalk by my not participating on the NatureWalk thread?

Didn't NatureWalk abandon 3 single family gulf front homes (back on the market) because those properties did not have the correct zoning?

Didn't NatureWalk buy Seagrove Villas Motel instead because it DID (supposedly) have the right zoning?


SOOOOOoooooo IF BMBCA and SWCC are opposing NatureWalk but not Redfish, where's the consistency (i.e. lack of hipocracy)?

oh jeez, look who's back to mangle the internets. are you out on a supervised visit, or did you escape? or, has all this time been spent trying to enter the tax id number of the surfrider foundation in some seach field?

JohnR...how sweet, you missed me!

JohnR...how sweet, you missed me!

missed? not the term i would have used. looking forward to some free entertainment though.