• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

Gingersnap

Beach Lover
Jul 23, 2016
113
36
Santa Rosa Beach
I agree with you to a point LVT. Why do citizens have to hire an attorney to fight the government they elected? This is not how government is supposed to work. We write their paychecks not vice versa. They are paid to listen to their Constituents and act accordingly not ignore them for big money/developers.
 

justhavinfun

Beach Fanatic
Nov 13, 2008
373
140
Eastern Lake
I saw an interesting post on one of the Walton County Facebook site which I did a cut and paste below - I;'m sure Kurt will keep me out of trouble but the net is the 2 new commissioners will not be voting on this project. I did not include the posters name as I am not sure if they would endorse this but if you go to the Visioning group site, you can find in.

Why and how would a county commissioner be prohibited from voting on an issue?
Received from Tony Anderson.......

Thank you for taking the time to write with your concerns on the Dalton Drive Project.

It has been decided that new commissioners to the BCC will not be allowed to vote on this issue. Therefore, I along with Commissioner Nipper, will not be voting at the January 10th meeting regarding Dalton Drive. Commissioner Chapman, Jones, and Comander will be voting on Tuesday.

Please know that I acknowledge your position and that my door is always open.

Tony Anderson
Walton County Commissioner, District 5

Walton County Board of County Commissioners
70 Logan Lane
Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459
850-231-2978 (Telephone)
850-231-3872 (Fax)
 

Lake View Too

SoWal Insider
Nov 16, 2008
6,861
8,297
Eastern Lake
Yes, I've seen several copies of that letter from Anderson and similar ones from Nipper. The reasoning is that this is a continuation of the hearings that were held before the elections. Rather dubious to me. The two new commissioners could read the minutes of earlier meetings and get up to speed. However due to the importance of this particular project, my view is this whole hearing should be started over with all five commoners becoming involved in the importance of what they are making a decision about. This project will set a very bad precedent for the development of VMU parcels south of 30-A.
 

Jimmy T

Beach Fanatic
Apr 6, 2015
866
1,235
Yes, I've seen several copies of that letter from Anderson and similar ones from Nipper. The reasoning is that this is a continuation of the hearings that were held before the elections. Rather dubious to me. The two new commissioners could read the minutes of earlier meetings and get up to speed. However due to the importance of this particular project, my view is this whole hearing should be started over with all five commoners becoming involved in the importance of what they are making a decision about. This project will set a very bad precedent for the development of VMU parcels south of 30-A.

I've been following this on Facebook. It's unbelievable to me that the development is in District 5 and we don't have any representation simply because a different commissioner was elected. It's preposterous.
 

Gingersnap

Beach Lover
Jul 23, 2016
113
36
Santa Rosa Beach
The original hearing was a quasi judicial hearing. The commissioners serve as "a jury". The case was continued and now only three "jurors" have heard all of the testimony. Inserting 2 new "jurors" that have not heard ALL of the testimony would not follow court procedures.

What coulda/shoulda happened here in my opinion is the developer should have been made to start the process over after the 2 new Commissioners came on board. Rather than that happening the County Attorney determined only the 3 previous Commissioners could vote.

I suppose the fact T. Anderson took a $500.00 campaign contribution from the developer coupled with the engineer donating $1000.00 it wouldn't look good for him to vote on the issue. I also assume that a previous EX planning department employees working on the project is a moot point as well.
 

Jimmy T

Beach Fanatic
Apr 6, 2015
866
1,235
The original hearing was a quasi judicial hearing. The commissioners serve as "a jury". The case was continued and now only three "jurors" have heard all of the testimony. Inserting 2 new "jurors" that have not heard ALL of the testimony would not follow court procedures.

What coulda/shoulda happened here in my opinion is the developer should have been made to start the process over after the 2 new Commissioners came on board. Rather than that happening the County Attorney determined only the 3 previous Commissioners could vote.

I suppose the fact T. Anderson took a $500.00 campaign contribution from the developer coupled with the engineer donating $1000.00 it wouldn't look good for him to vote on the issue. I also assume that a previous EX planning department employees working on the project is a moot point as well.
Agreed.
 

Gingersnap

Beach Lover
Jul 23, 2016
113
36
Santa Rosa Beach
Just in case anyone is wondering...the project on Dalton passed with Jones and Chapman voting Yes and Sara Comander voting No.

Suffice it to say there were at least 3 attorney's there representing homeowners.

I got the distinct impression the Courts are going to decide this one.
 

Jimmy T

Beach Fanatic
Apr 6, 2015
866
1,235
This is something that would have to be addressed by the BCC. They would have to have the will to do this. The people on the board only see this as a decrease in revenues. The way I see it, the majority of the south of the county is owned by absentee owners. They are oblivious to legitimate concerns, as long as they get their rent money. Also, they don't vote. There is a comparatively small contingency of full time resident voters who actually live in South Walton and have no one representing them on the board. I refuse to end this post in pessimism. One tactic I could potentially see is to get the uber-rich absentee owners to gain awareness of the problems (perhaps through their realtors, far-fetched, I know) and to somehow unite their resources to get aggressive lawyers to challenge the county at every "battleground". At this Dalton Street showdown, locals are "passing the hat" to raise around $3000 for a local lawyer to attempt a challenge, but that is simply not enough.

2-1 vote to approve tonight. Bad huevos. How can we donate to your lawyer fund?
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter