More Illegal Activity -- Filling in Wetlands

[John R]

Originally Posted by John R
your response is really hard for me to follow, and i'm not sure if it addresses my questions. but i'll give it a try...

people disagree with me all the time, they just make sense and provide backup with their points.


which "you folks"? south floridians, or anyone who has moved here in the last 20 years? handing out what?

Bdarg; peaboy;John R; rapunzel; Smiling JOe; TooFarTampa; Miss Kitty; jdarg; 30A Skunkape; jollyroger; to name a few.

so, basically anyone who doesn't agree with you or asks you for backup to your claims, people who seem(to you) as johnny-come-lately's. included in the above list are treehuggers, people who have asked you directly for substantiation of your claims, and people who have directly offered scientific data to refute yours. is the CDC not to be believed? if not, we are in big trouble. I'm pretty flattered to be included in this list, btw.


dish what out? requests for you to provide backup to your points? yeah, sorry about that. again, i can take it, if you would remove your emotions and counter with some support. no this isn't the everglades, obviously my point was(still) lost on you.

no, i didn't grow up here(in south walton), so i have no idea of the growth challenges faced by a resort community(region), thanks for setting me straight. exactly, what's the difference? so. fla vs no. fla? surprised at what? what i'm surprised at, is i can't figure if you want controlled growth, or no growth, your responses are too scattered.

Why are we compared with South Florida? How much of South Florida is owned by the state? Have you seen the map?

I'll explain it to you like I was a third grader: Because that's where I grew up. That's the history of the state that I have knowledge of, and what happened there while you were a child is now happenning here. Get it? This is not new stuff. The state owns more land percentage wise in Dade and Broward counties than it does in Walton. Yes, I've seen the map. Did you bother to look at it, or your own reference to the numbers? http://www.fnai.org/pdf/ma_counties_200609.pdf

somewhat off topic of filling in wetlands, did you ever find any backup to mosquitos transmitting AIDS?

As AIDS is an infectious disease, have you ever heard anyone being quarantined because of it? Why the laws concerning secrecy?

I have no idea how that relates to the question regarding backup of your mosquito claim

 

[Smiling JOe]

You know, if the state owns 25,000 acres in South Walton, and St. Joe owns a considerable portion, why the fuss over a .10 of an acre? Talk about a mountain and a molehill.

actually, the lot to which I refered when beginning this thread is .17 acres, and the reason why is because other people's property may be negatively affected by the actions of this individual landowner. I shouldn't have to give you more reason that this one, but I have some more. ;-)

 

[Smiling JOe]

I think the state instead of condeming the small amount of land that's left, needs to exchange it with state owned uplands if the privately owned land is sensitive. I don't think the state needs to be in the real estate business, and I don't think the prices would be what they are creating a greed frenzy if there were more acres available. I think the problem is greed, unrestrained, and I want to call it like I see it. To call these masive entities family friendly is hogwash, a snowjob.

And why do you think the State would want to manage bits and pieces of land scattered throughout neighborhoods? The State often refers to those parcels as surplus lands, and they would rather sell them, rather than buy them and have someone else living in the middle of the State Forest, where roads, utilities, sewer and water would need to be ran through State Forests. Occasionally, they receive gifts of land from Estates and that is how they most often end up with the unwanted segmented surplus lands.

By the way, if you hear of the State exchangin uplands for wetlands, please let me know, because I would love to live in the middle of the middle of the State Forest on uplands, for the price of some lots which are under water.

 

[30A Skunkape]

This is too good. I am both PC and a tree hugger. Somebody go tell Bob:funn:

 

[Jdarg]

This is too good. I am both PC and a tree hugger. Somebody go tell Bob:funn:

Is this like being bipolar? Poor Skunky!

 

[Miss Kitty]

This is too good. I am both PC and a tree hugger. Somebody go tell Bob:funn:[/quote

At least you are on the list with me. When did you become PC?

I get it now...Pretty Cute.

 

[Rita]

If you had read earlier posts, the definition of wetlands has changed in the last 30 years, what was once considered lowland, now is considered wetland. Saltmarsh was considered wetland. Sandestin came about when Mrs Coffeen died, and left her considerable estate to the organizations, as I understand, National Wildlife Foundation and the Sierra Club. They chose to develop Sandestin, and keep Four Mile as a sanctuary. What's done is done in that regard, what gets me is the very entities that protest the loadest, are the same who started the whole environmental problem here. Call it like it is, hype! Those who accuse or excuse the loadest are usually the culprits of the very thing they fuss against!

I can't follow the logic in many of your posts, but this has me most confused

.

 

[Bdarg]

I think the state instead of condeming the small amount of land that's left, needs to exchange it with state owned uplands if the privately owned land is sensitive. I don't think the state needs to be in the real estate business, and I don't think the prices would be what they are creating a greed frenzy if there were more acres available. I think the problem is greed, unrestrained, and I want to call it like I see it. To call these masive entities family friendly is hogwash, a snowjob.

Therefore, what you are saying is that we (as in, WE the people of the State of Florida) should take high worth land that happens to be owned by the state (i.e. you and me), and give it to developers that were suckered into buying worthless swampland.

If the state were ever stupid enough to make that exchange then watch out, because there would be such a run on swampland the realtors would be smiling again. Everyone seeking to flip it quick on the government for a tidy profit. That would put a capital G in Greed.

I will agree that you are a free thinker? ...but those free thoughts sure would cost the people of this state a bundle.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Are you sure? If he reads the commentaries of 15 newspapers, it would make truth hard to detect. Ever heard of confused as a termite in a yoyo?

Are you saying that international newspapers are nothing more than editorials because I certainly never mentioned anything about commentaries. I guess in your world, it is best to make your own decisions based upon only one source -- your father.

 

[jollyroger]

Does "loadest" stand for a load of something?