Cuchens' ethics to be questioned if found

[IGN]

Not to speak for Shelley but the point is the county needs to grow a pair and remove some walls at the offending land owners' expense, or just admit they don't give a damn and stop the charade.

I am stunned the owners around these properties aren't pursuing legal action.:bicycle:

The neighborhood this seawall is located in has a litigous history regarding common property, or neighborhood property, rights. IMO this house was never in immediate danger of being undermined...no more so than it's neighbors. Take a look at the aerial after Dennis. The house in this article is in the lower right hand corner of the picture...the large one with pool and white roof. There are homes in this aerial that are closer, very close, to being undermined. A few of these homes have shored up by adding sand, there have been no other seawalls built (within the limits of this aerial) other than the one mentioned in the article.

 

[Here4Good]

Sorry, but I love this headline - does it mean that Ro's ethics will be questioned, if we can ever find them?

In that case, he's safe.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Ro Cuchens and ethics should never be used together.

 

[Miss Kitty]

Ro Cuchens and ethics should never be used together.

Oxymoron

 

[Smiling JOe]

Oxymoron

You've got that right.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Posts from Impooster JOe should never be taken seriously.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

The neighborhood this seawall is located in has a litigous history regarding common property, or neighborhood property, rights. IMO this house was never in immediate danger of being undermined...no more so than it's neighbors. Take a look at the aerial after Dennis. The house in this article is in the lower right hand corner of the picture...the large one with pool and white roof. There are homes in this aerial that are closer, very close, to being undermined. A few of these homes have shored up by adding sand, there have been no other seawalls built (within the limits of this aerial) other than the one mentioned in the article.

First, .

Second, at least you used the letters "IMO" to qualify your statement about the house not being in immediate danger. It's your opinion but it may not be an accurate one. ASSUMING your house is not in immediate danger of burning down, would you forgo buying insurance? My point is that the words "immediate danger" is very subjective. A tropical storm may not threaten him... a category 4 would wipe him (and many others without retaining walls) out from undermining.

Third, talking about "shored up by adding sand"... do you think this will protect these homes if another Dennis hits now during the beach's current weakened state? I'm not sure why you mentioned this in the scope of this discussion.

Fourth, you said that no other seawalls have been built in the area. Are you suggesting that if your neighbor elects to go down their ship (by not installing their own retaining walls), that you should as well? I'm just trying to understand your logic.

Do you own property in the area? A little perspective would help us understand your position. Thanks.

 

[Smiling JOe]

First, .

Second, at least you used the letters "IMO" to qualify your statement about the house not being in immediate danger. It's your opinion but it may not be an accurate one. ASSUMING your house is not in immediate danger of burning down, would you forgo buying insurance? My point is that the words "immediate danger" is very subjective. A tropical storm may not threaten him... a category 4 would wipe him (and many others without retaining walls) out from undermining.

Third, talking about "shored up by adding sand"... do you think this will protect these homes if another Dennis hits now during the beach's current weakened state? I'm not sure why you mentioned this in the scope of this discussion.

Fourth, you said that no other seawalls have been built in the area. Are you suggesting that if your neighbor elects to go down their ship (by not installing their own retaining walls), that you should as well? I'm just trying to understand your logic.

Do you own property in the area? A little perspective would help us understand your position. Thanks.

Did Ro write a letter for you, too?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I bolded the part of your post above because in this particular instance, this is not considered public property. The beach in front of this wall, and which the wall was apparently built, is the common property of the neighborhood. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Hi pgurney,

I'm glad you clarified the public property issue in this case. There are many here on the board that fail to understand the differences between public, private and common beach property.

Another observation (not aimed at you BTW, pgurney)...

Here's a quote from the article..."A second warning letter from The DEP issued June 26 cautioned the Spires? that ?sand fill appears to have been done outside the subject property boundaries.? Today, between 12-18 inches of wall still protrude from the top of the sand fill, and the project is not complete. "

It doesn't say that the wall is on common property but just the sand.

Now, many here believe it is a requirement to cover a retaining wall with sand. From my research, it is not a requirement. I can understand that it is a strong desire of Walton County from a tourism standpoint as a covered wall project does look a little nicer because you can't see it.

With that said, why are people opposing the adding of sand to cover this wall? Because it is taking away from the beach in regards to the "common (private) property" of the neighborhood? Shouldn't the neighborhood be the ones passing judgement and not the rest of us?

Along the same lines, the article perpetuates the idea that the walls have to be covered in order for the project to be deemed complete.

Thoughts appreciated.

 

[buckjones]

yes.

The neighborhood association should be passing judgement, and I hope they do. If this was built on community property, it still doesn't change the fact that the owner DOES NOT own the property where he built the thing. If it is on community property, shouldn't he have sought permission from them? Also it doesn't change the fact that not a permit was pulled from any agency prior to it being built-which IMO makes it free game for any taxpayer in the County to object and make it their business.