General discussion & info about South Walton, Florida.

All About SoWal

Advertise or find a business, discuss business.

Business & Services

Jobs

Festivals, classes, gatherings, activities.

Events & Music

Food & Dining

Marketplace

property, realtors, builders, development, infrastructure ...

Real Estate

For Sale

Wanted

Other

Commercial

Long Term Rentals

Vacation Rentals

SoWal Lounge

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic

Take a look at the last post [B][URL="http://www.sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?t=9814&page=21"]here[/URL][/B]. The numbers you are quoting would seem about right. 
 
Originally, RFV was originally going to build their access in Blue Mountain Beach subdivision. Had they succeeded, the owners of RFV would have had FULL access to over 1/2 MILE of "their" beach (shared with BMB Subdivision). Now with the alternate beach access, they have only 80 feet of beach which they share with the public (via deeded easement).

Take a look at the last post <a href="http://www.sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?t=9814&amp;page=21" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">here</a>. The numbers you are quoting would seem about right. 
 
Originally, RFV was originally going to build their access in Blue Mountain Beach subdivision. Had they succeeded, the owners of RFV would have had FULL access to over 1/2 MILE of &quot;their&quot; beach (shared with BMB Subdivision). Now with the alternate beach access, they have only 80 feet of beach which they share with the public (via deeded easement).

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert

That's not true, according to the deeds I've read, BMBV. You even shared them with us. Did you not read them?

That&#039;s not true, according to the deeds I&#039;ve read, BMBV. You even shared them with us. Did you not read them?

[quote="Smiling JOe, post: 362417"]That's not true, according to the deeds I've read, BMBV. You even shared them with us. Did you not read them?[/quote]
 
For the benefit of those not following all threads...
 
From instrument # 1011222 filed in September, 2007: [I]"....will not interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of said beach area by any owner of property in Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision No. 1."[/I]


[IMG]http://www.sowal.com/bb/gallery/files/6/8/4/BMBwest.GIF[/IMG]

<blockquote class="xfBb-quote" data-name="Smiling JOe">That&#039;s not true, according to the deeds I&#039;ve read, BMBV. You even shared them with us. Did you not read them?</blockquote> 
For the benefit of those not following all threads... 
 
From instrument # 1011222 filed in September, 2007: &quot;....will not interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of said beach area by any owner of property in Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision No. 1.&quot; 
 
 
<img src="http://www.sowal.com/bb/gallery/files/6/8/4/BMBwest.GIF" alt="" />

Thank you for sharing that. I stand corrected.

BeachSiO2

Anybody know what sparked the change in September 2007?  Was it due to seawall construction and making sure the walls were constructed on private property (i.e. Seagrove issues) or beach use?

[quote="BeachSiO2, post: 362506"]Anybody know what sparked the change in September 2007? Was it due to seawall construction and making sure the walls were constructed on private property (i.e. Seagrove issues) or beach use?[/quote]
What do you mean by "sparked the change"?

<blockquote class="xfBb-quote" data-name="BeachSiO2">Anybody know what sparked the change in September 2007? Was it due to seawall construction and making sure the walls were constructed on private property (i.e. Seagrove issues) or beach use?</blockquote>What do you mean by &quot;sparked the change&quot;?

[quote="BlueMtnBeachVagrant, post: 362597"]What do you mean by "sparked the change"?[/quote]

I was referring to why it was done in September 2007 and not back when the property was originally purchased.  For example the first property to the east of the main access was owned by the same family since 1987, but didn't acquire the beach area until 2007.  Another couple of properties down has been owned since 1989 but got the beach for $100 in 2007.  It just seems odd that it took 20 years to acquire that land.  Did it take that long in court proceedings?  

One item of note, since the upland owners only paid $100 for the beach, is that all it is worth?  I wonder how they came up with that number?

<blockquote class="xfBb-quote" data-name="BlueMtnBeachVagrant">What do you mean by &quot;sparked the change&quot;?</blockquote> 
I was referring to why it was done in September 2007 and not back when the property was originally purchased. For example the first property to the east of the main access was owned by the same family since 1987, but didn&#039;t acquire the beach area until 2007. Another couple of properties down has been owned since 1989 but got the beach for $100 in 2007. It just seems odd that it took 20 years to acquire that land. Did it take that long in court proceedings? 
 
One item of note, since the upland owners only paid $100 for the beach, is that all it is worth? I wonder how they came up with that number?

scooterbug44

[quote="BeachSiO2, post: 362617"]
One item of note, since the upland owners only paid $100 for the beach, is that all it is worth?  I wonder how they came up with that number?[/quote]

Hmmm - even though prices have gone down I'll definitely pay $100 for each of those chunks of beach. ;-)

Do you think I'll get my own blue sign if I make it all a dedicated public beach?

<blockquote class="xfBb-quote" data-name="BeachSiO2">One item of note, since the upland owners only paid $100 for the beach, is that all it is worth? I wonder how they came up with that number?</blockquote> 
Hmmm - even though prices have gone down I&#039;ll definitely pay $100 for each of those chunks of beach. ;-) 
 
Do you think I&#039;ll get my own blue sign if I make it all a dedicated public beach?

[quote="BeachSiO2, post: 362617"]I was referring to why it was done in September 2007 and not back when the property was originally purchased. For example the first property to the east of the main access was owned by the same family since 1987, but didn't acquire the beach area until 2007. Another couple of properties down has been owned since 1989 but got the beach for $100 in 2007. It just seems odd that it took 20 years to acquire that land. Did it take that long in court proceedings? 
 
One item of note, since the upland owners only paid $100 for the beach, is that all it is worth? I wonder how they came up with that number?[/quote]
 
I see. What do you think? I believe you have a reason for asking this. I have my suspicions why those owners made their move last year and I believe you do too.
 
BTW, $100 is 100 times more than $1.00 which seemed to be the norm in the old days for officially consumating an agreement, I believe. So I guess one could also conclude that beach front property is worth 100 times more than it use to be.
 
In the end, does it really matter when it was done? The property was always private: previously legally owned by the developer and now legally owned by the gulf-front property owners per the developer's wishes should the developer no longer exist.
 
Oh.....
 
I almost forgot....
 
 
A well respected Walton county government official in no uncertain terms incorrectly claimed (probably unintentional) that the beach to the east of the 83 access was public for all to use. And he made his claim here on SoWal during some of the hotly contested exchanges regarding private vs. public beaches and RFV.
 
edit: [U]Bottom line - that's over 1/2 mile of beachfront that the county was incorrectly claiming as public[/U].
 
I can not blame the owners for defending their private property. You would do the same. 
 
What's ironic is that it appears "some people" in the BMB Subdivision perceive this deed-update as a threat when in fact it protects them as well from the future floodgate of uncontrolled "remote" growth and beach access as evidenced by RFV and (the now defunct) Nature's Walk.
 
The fact that the BMB Community Association aggressively fought off Redfish Village from developing the first access in their residential neighborhood but then actually [U]SUPPORTED[/U] the development of the access in "our" neighborhood has always and will continue to be a thorn in my side.
 
Tying all this with the Wallymom's intital post here: In my (non-legal and totally personal) opinion, there seemed to be a significant and material change to the original RFV development based on the original beach access. 
 
I laid low with this concept as I figured most RFV contract holders would see this on their own - and word does get around. So I am guessing that those that are suing to get out of their contracts are doing so for the above reason.

<blockquote class="xfBb-quote" data-name="BeachSiO2">I was referring to why it was done in September 2007 and not back when the property was originally purchased. For example the first property to the east of the main access was owned by the same family since 1987, but didn&#039;t acquire the beach area until 2007. Another couple of properties down has been owned since 1989 but got the beach for $100 in 2007. It just seems odd that it took 20 years to acquire that land. Did it take that long in court proceedings? 
 
One item of note, since the upland owners only paid $100 for the beach, is that all it is worth? I wonder how they came up with that number?</blockquote> 
I see. What do you think? I believe you have a reason for asking this. I have my suspicions why those owners made their move last year and I believe you do too. 
 
BTW, $100 is 100 times more than $1.00 which seemed to be the norm in the old days for officially consumating an agreement, I believe. So I guess one could also conclude that beach front property is worth 100 times more than it use to be. 
 
In the end, does it really matter when it was done? The property was always private: previously legally owned by the developer and now legally owned by the gulf-front property owners per the developer&#039;s wishes should the developer no longer exist. 
 
Oh..... 
 
I almost forgot.... 
 
 
A well respected Walton county government official in no uncertain terms incorrectly claimed (probably unintentional) that the beach to the east of the 83 access was public for all to use. And he made his claim here on SoWal during some of the hotly contested exchanges regarding private vs. public beaches and RFV. 
 
edit: Bottom line - that&#039;s over 1/2 mile of beachfront that the county was incorrectly claiming as public. 
 
I can not blame the owners for defending their private property. You would do the same. 
 
What&#039;s ironic is that it appears &quot;some people&quot; in the BMB Subdivision perceive this deed-update as a threat when in fact it protects them as well from the future floodgate of uncontrolled &quot;remote&quot; growth and beach access as evidenced by RFV and (the now defunct) Nature&#039;s Walk. 
 
The fact that the BMB Community Association aggressively fought off Redfish Village from developing the first access in their residential neighborhood but then actually SUPPORTED the development of the access in &quot;our&quot; neighborhood has always and will continue to be a thorn in my side. 
 
Tying all this with the Wallymom&#039;s intital post here: In my (non-legal and totally personal) opinion, there seemed to be a significant and material change to the original RFV development based on the original beach access. 
 
I laid low with this concept as I figured most RFV contract holders would see this on their own - and word does get around. So I am guessing that those that are suing to get out of their contracts are doing so for the above reason.

wallymom

Beach Lover

Haven't heard anything for awhile on all the lawsuits filed by Redfish Village contract holders who claimed breach of contract because of the change in amenities. I understand there were 25-30 contract holders suing to get out of their contracts. Does anyone have any updates on these? I've noticed several units there that look to be occupied.

Haven&#039;t heard anything for awhile on all the lawsuits filed by Redfish Village contract holders who claimed breach of contract because of the change in amenities. I understand there were 25-30 contract holders suing to get out of their contracts. Does anyone have any updates on these? I&#039;ve noticed several units there that look to be occupied.

Any Updates on Redfish Village Contract Lawsuits

Grayton BeachCam

Dune Allen BeachCam

Seagrove Beach SkyCam

Inlet BeachCam

Miramar BeachCam Majestic Sun

Santa Rosa BeachCam

Walton County Fair

Queens of the Tiles: Mahjong at Ovide

Live Music @ Fish Out of Water

Cars of 30A At Alys Beach: Event Highlights & Photo Gallery

Sixth annual Run Watersound At Watersound Town Center October 24, 2026

Support Our Parks: The 2026 Friends of Camp Helen Pumpkin Patch Is Open

Annual Events and Festivals in South Walton

International Coastal Cleanup Day Was A Success In South Walton

Merchants Of Alys Beach Announce New Dining & Shopping Options

No beachcams yet

More cams

Include enough context for a reply on the first pass: who you are, what this is about, and anything time-sensitive we should know.

Write a clear note and we will route it fast

SoWal Contact Form

What helps the SoWal team reply on the first pass

Use these links when your request already has a clear destination.

Prefer a direct route before you write?

Use this when you are not sure where your request belongs and need the SoWal team to route it.

Questions, corrections, and quick help

Share newsworthy updates, corrections, community tips, or photography that can improve SoWal coverage.

Story tips, local leads, and photos

Reach the team for business visibility, partnership planning, or other commercial opportunities.

Listings, sponsorships, and business requests

Use this path for media coordination, press follow-ups, or requests that need a communications contact.

Press outreach and interview requests

Tell us what you need and how to reach you.

Send your note here and the SoWal team will route it appropriately.

Choose the quickest route for your message

Forum account areas

Log in to view member profile, alerts, messages, watched content, bookmarks, preferences, and staff tools.

Member-only forum areas use your SoWal forum account.

Use your forum username or email to post, reply, follow threads, and manage your account.

Log in to the forum

Log in to the SoWal forum

Find people and visit their public forum profiles.

Members

Enter the six-digit code sent to {email}.

Check your email

Join the conversation

Welcome to SoWal

Sign in to SoWal

Signature preview

Ads support our local stories, BeachCams, and community guides. If you use an ad blocker, allow SoWal, then check again.

Help keep SoWal local

Your feedback helps us make SoWal better.

How was this story?

Get local stories, events, and South Walton highlights in your inbox.

Stay close to the coast

Choose whether SoWal may use optional cookies. Necessary cookies keep the site working.

Your privacy, your choice

Site navigation

Submenu

Bite-sized stories, curated itineraries, and community events delivered to your inbox on the regular.

Any Updates on Redfish Village Contract Lawsuits

Latest conversations

Write a reply

Cars of 30A At Alys Beach: Event Highlights & Photo Gallery

Sixth annual Run Watersound At Watersound Town Center October 24, 2026

Support Our Parks: The 2026 Friends of Camp Helen Pumpkin Patch Is Open

Annual Events and Festivals in South Walton