South Walton's Community Website
Beach Like A Local!
Create Account
New posts

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
I stopped reading the book thread after the book signing. Are you telling me that there has been discussion regarding Redfish Village Beach Access on that thread? :bang: What meeting are you talking about? Did I miss something? :dunno:. Off to the book thread.
 

John R

needs to get out more
Dec 31, 2005
6,772
808
Conflictinator
I was there. it seemed very subdued until someone named Albert raised the ire of Mr Zeitlin with questions that seemed like Albert already knew the answers to, and Mr. Zeitlin knew were coming.

Parking on Blue Mountain Rd seems to be an issue, as well as containment of all owners on the property, which everyone except the developers, admits won't happen. There's more, but I'm sure those to be affected can give more detail.
 

BMBWalker

Beach Lover
Nov 1, 2006
130
0
In an effort not to trample Mr. Wise's book thread any longer, here is a new thread specifically for discussion about Redfish Village and their beach access.

So, BMBV, how did it go last night? Anything get ironed out?

John R...why don't you tell all of us how it went. I heard you were there.
 

BMBWalker

Beach Lover
Nov 1, 2006
130
0
In an effort not to trample Mr. Wise's book thread any longer, here is a new thread specifically for discussion about Redfish Village and their beach access.

So, BMBV, how did it go last night? Anything get ironed out?

John R...has Redfish Village violated the Florida Statues listed below?

1. 475.25(1)(c). False, deceptive, or misleading advertising. Administrative fine of $1,000 to a 1-year suspension.

2. 475.421. Publication of false or misleading information; promotion of sales, leases, and rentals. Administrative fine of $1,000 to a 1-year suspension.

I ask you this specifically because I heard you spoke positively about this developmentand and thought it was an appropriate development and that Redfish Village was being fair in their approach.
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
John R...has Redfish Village violated the Florida Statues listed below?

1. 475.25(1)(c). False, deceptive, or misleading advertising. Administrative fine of $1,000 to a 1-year suspension.

2. 475.421. Publication of false or misleading information; promotion of sales, leases, and rentals. Administrative fine of $1,000 to a 1-year suspension.

I ask you this specifically because I heard you spoke positively about this developmentand and thought it was an appropriate development and that Redfish Village was being fair in their approach.
:popcorn: BMBWALKER, I don't think your questions will be answered until a decision has been reached regarding the dedicated beach access.
 

John R

needs to get out more
Dec 31, 2005
6,772
808
Conflictinator
John R...has Redfish Village violated the Florida Statues listed below?

1. 475.25(1)(c). False, deceptive, or misleading advertising. Administrative fine of $1,000 to a 1-year suspension.

2. 475.421. Publication of false or misleading information; promotion of sales, leases, and rentals. Administrative fine of $1,000 to a 1-year suspension.

I ask you this specifically because I heard you spoke positively about this developmentand and thought it was an appropriate development and that Redfish Village was being fair in their approach.

ok, i'll bite. this may get long.

regarding the statutes, i won't waste my time reading them since you already must have, and for some reason don't care to cite pertainent data, and i could care less if they've broken them. i'm sure they relate to some arcane real estate rules, and i guess the suspension relates to the brokers license. ho hum... but, in the sprit of fun, baiting discussion, i'll play devil's advocate. their extemely annoyingly slow, flash based site indicates that they will provide: BEACHWALK. An owners-only, private gateway and vista to the white sand beaches of the Gulf of Mexico is just a short stroll away.

based only on what i heard, since i was in the same room as those you apparently have spoken to, they(redfish) can provide the above twice, since they own two pieces of property with direct beach access. they could, if they like, erect a fence, with a coded gate, build a single width boardwalk to the beach, and call it good. seems like the least impactful to me, but i'm sure some beachfront owner would find something wrong with that scenario. i actually like this idea.

what they plan to do, is erect a contination of the redfish "experience" (steve seems locked in on this word)on their property, and construct what some architect somewhere thinks is asthetically pleasing, and hopes to get himself published with. that includes, as you know, a bike parking area, a vehicular turnaround for their delivery vehicle(i think), seperate male and female bathroom/bathhouse, and what steve states will be a single width boardwalk to the sand. i believe he also indicated that they would install tall(hopefully native) vegetation along the property lines to lessen visual impact to the adjacent neighbors. physically, looked quite pleasing, appeared to be low impact on the property(taken by itself) and as mentioned above, a continuation of what the developer is delivering north of 30a.

allow me to take a little side bar here. i have not been to the neighborhood of the property in question. i have driven by, but not taken notice of the adjacent properties, or gone down to the beach there(who knows, i could be accosted for just walking around). so, i can't comment on what things there look like. i don't know if the developers property is surrounded by garrishly colored stucco mcmansions behind metal gates with huge walls, or they're wood frame beach cottages surrounded by a picket fence. or something in between. i will make it a task to go there today, so i have a point of reference. BMBV, please don't throw heavy objects at me

ok, back. additionally, what was discussed, was the concerns of the homeowners that the entire population at 100% occupancy could be funneled through the property to the sand, and that the property could not contain all those people. as i mentioned above in another post, we all realize that will happen, and i believe i mentioned that in the meeting. the developer really never seemed to directly answer that issue. at some point mr. zeitlin mentioned that people could walk down all the south connecting streets toward the beach, and they were offering to mitigate that by running the shuttle(s). i never got the logisitics of how this will be performed, especially the return requests. there was a lady owner who lives across the street and a couple of houses down(west) who was concerned about people parking on the street. a legitimate concern that was never directly addressed either, imo.

the man albert made some statements regarding a stop work order on the 1st property, and what he felt were some dirty dealings, but i am unqualified to discuss that.

i stated that people will disperse all over the beach, and asked did the developer offer the county the money to be spent on their private lot, towards the public beach access for the inevitable increased use, and build new, or improve the existing bathhouse, access, etc. he stated that they had made that offer, and that all the county would accept was $50,000 toward improvements of the parking area. i believe it would cost less to have an employee with a radio at the public access, than maintan their proposed improved lot, but that is now moot.

there was some other discussion that i can't recall, and the developers lawyer and engineering firm(i think) were referenced for clarification a couple of times. some man made a big deal of receiving a copy of the minutes(that was a annoying exchange).

it appered that this meeting hosted by the developer, was just an open door for the neighbors to rehash what they've already discussed and throw barbs toward him, since no one really offered a working alternative.
i'm not sure how my question/suggestion to the developer was perceived as positive toward his development. and. i'm sure this post will be picked apart and taken out of context(as apparently were, my statements) thereby supplying more justification to label me as some developer friendly, pinko commie, johnny come lately, artsy fartsy, homo loving, nonbeachfront owning surfrider menber...

i can't believe i wasted so much time on this since i was in the same room as your (i think)friends, none of which have the balls to comment to date, when i was hoping to hear the neighbors state if they got any issues answered. i thought i had no stake in this issue, but another board member clarified it for me. he posed the scenario of an owls head type community buying up 4,5,6,7 lots and bringing down their population of 1200 homes and what would happen then. so, this is kind of a prescident(sp?) setting issue. either way, i can envision it turning into a bunch of little feifdoms with signs in the sand saying private, where one's neighbors are literally not in my backyard.

were you there? if not, in the future, please do not call me out on topics that you do not have first hand knowledge of. please run back to the clique and report, but report accurately thanks.
 
Last edited:

Beachbummette

SoWal Insider
Jul 16, 2005
5,748
207
Birmingham and Watersound
I was there. it seemed very subdued until someone named Albert raised the ire of Mr Zeitlin with questions that seemed like Albert already knew the answers to, and Mr. Zeitlin knew were coming.

Parking on Blue Mountain Rd seems to be an issue, as well as containment of all owners on the property, which everyone except the developers, admits won't happen. There's more, but I'm sure those to be affected can give more detail.

Ok SoWalSteve...since you were there please give us more details. What were the questions asked of Mr. Zeitlin by the man named Albert?:dunno: What were Mr. Zeitlin's answers? We need more details.
 
Last edited:

Jim Tucker

Beach Fanatic
Jul 12, 2005
962
373
the scenario of an owls head type community buying up 4,5,6,7 lots and bringing down their population of 1200 homes and what would happen then. so, this is kind of a prescident(sp?) setting issue. either way, i can envision it turning into a bunch of little feifdoms with signs in the sand saying private, where one's neighbors are literally not in my backyard.

This idea is very worrisome and should concern everyone who is interested in the public/privtae beach issue, beach access, and property rights.

In addition to what they're proposing not being compatible with surrounding uses, it is a bad idea for a private access for 80 units, or 1200. Next thing you know, large inland developments will be buying gulf front lots with hundreds or thousands of private users. Even buying small old condos and knocking them down for their private access clubs if needed.

The gulf front lot in question is zoned infill which allows for 8 units. So lets say that is accepeted as an acceptable use. What the developer is proposing is a use with TEN TIMES the impact (80 units).

The county should see this easily and deny the request. It shouldn't have gotten this far and is a waste of everyone's time and money.
 
New posts