Its people like you who are always going to think they are right no matter what is said, done, or written......that mislead the public. Seems you take this one personally, why? Blackshear removed the requirement for compatibility. Check your facts. The BCC didn't follow their own code. Check your facts. If you were in the position that these applicants were in and were told you could progress it fits all requirements, wouldn't you? Your banter gets old and some are sick of it. With you being an realtor, it would be a person like you to only gain from a project that would enhance the area. Why would the commission turn anything down in a "down" economy. That's the bigger issue here...any one ask if any of the commissioners have competing projects or are involved in some way with those projects? Hmmmmm.
County sued for $3 Million+
- Thread starter Matt J
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Everybody screams about property rights, but they also seem to forget about property responsibility. As SJ said someone could have a pig pen next door to the development and I'm sure that the developers would raise cane over something like that.
Honestly I think it would be hysterical at this point for the county to say go for it, but you've got 2 years to complete the project. This was actually a blessing that they didn't get approval, would they actually even be breaking ground if given the opportunity?
I'm curious what your ownership percentage of Jolly Bay LLC. is?
You are making a lot of assumptions, especially like the statement that I would benefit from such a project being approved, and that the project will improve the area. Save your rant for trial.
my guess is that he is 50%. He is probably living on the property and cuts the grass to prove it. (inside joke -- I guess you would have to be there when the applicant burst out during one of the meetings, and Commissioner Jones had to ask council to put the applicant in check.)
These comments you put out are laughable. No involvement, just a concerned citizen who has been watching this and other projects go through the county's game playing....signing off on this ridiculous rant...as you call it.
You state that Ms Blackshear, "removed the requirement for compatibility." However, she doesn't have authority to do such a thing. She cannot be selective as to which parts of the Code she wants to follow.
So you aren't the applicant, and are not the applicant's hired guns, you obviously didn't attend the meetings, and are getting your information third-hand.
So you aren't the applicant, and are not the applicant's hired guns, you obviously didn't attend the meetings, and are getting your information third-hand.
Sorry Smiling Joe. I wasn't asking you. When I ask you questions you obfuscate instead of answering. I suppose you think I don't deserve direct answers when I ask you something clear. Reciprocity is a value not seen much in people anymore.
In the past you asked me point blank questions. Whether the answer had positive or negative impact on my point doesn't matter to me. Being clear and truthful does.
Nothing to do with that. You asked about something which was irrelevant to the decision made by the BCC, trying to tie the two together. This project wasn't rejected because of building height.
I have no doubt you have property you might want to develop. Depends on where the property is. It boils down to one word that you claim is not a requirement - COMPATIBILITY.
If I decided to put a multi-story condominium on my property on the bay in Point Washington, I would expect that my neighbors would oppose it. I would ALSO expect the BCC to value public opinion and deny my project.
Perhaps I am just stuck in my perception of the way things were and the way things should be in the future. I'm still having issues with the nice new houses and townhomes on Thompson Road...
P.S. I am off today, so my personal statements are just that - personal. In case anyone wonders.
Last edited: