BMB I would really like to pick this up after the 25th you can keeping going after this but you really are getting to your problem which is "beach usage". What I am talking about is only the Redfish and that they are here. Future developers will build no matter what and those people will come to our beach and our only choice would be to move to a place quieter. I have had a home east of 83 for years and it keeps changing and have been involved in challenging what I can. Where do you live? We have a choice right now to control those people instead of having them stomping, driving, dropping trash down our roads. I feel like I am the only one talking about the facts and those are the best way to route those people to the beach if they want to come because I don't see a law where we can stop them from coming I am not insensitive to it I am just a realist and know they are coming it is only about how they get there. We may just have opposing views which is fine in the spirit of the day why don't we just pick this up in a couple days. And those Naturewalk owners are also going to the beach if they want to right? It is just a question of where they go and where they park their cars. Do you really think we can stop all those people from coming to "our beach". Are you BEACHFRONT?
Redfish Village Beach Access
- Thread starter John R
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
BeachSteelers...ditto; can you mobilize Seagrove and help resist our Redfish Village access issue?
Kevin...Redfish Village users will use your roads anyway; they are not going to sit around and wait for RFV's "trolley or SUV service"...they will hop in their cars, or walk down to the beach, the quickest and easiest way possible and that will be down all four roads off C-30A, including, unfortunately, yours. You knew this was a possibility when you originally bought your property since you apparently bought on a public road; this was not the case when owners west of CR-83 public access bought their property. Big difference!
I have beachfront property. Do you?
No, I don't think we can stop people from coming to the beach, nor should we; I do think we can attempt to stop 100 to 300 people, during the season, from being deposited on a 75 foot wide lot on the beach. To much concentration in a small space.
Bye for now...We'll pick back up after the holidays.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.
if the rfv access gets approved, these second class non-beachfront owning citizens will have 5 accesses. maybe BMBW could stand out front with a clicker and redirect the shuttles when the maximum concentration is reached on lot 2. 8ppl, 10? BMBW, what is your alternative, have them not come to the beach? the thing is there, it will be filled, they will come.
a question(s) to anyone, since BMBW doesn't answer questions. what it RFV just built boardwalks and stairs? on both property's? would that still be considered incompatable?
regarding H20, who's sleeping with who's enemy?
Merry Christmas.
a question(s) to anyone, since BMBW doesn't answer questions. what it RFV just built boardwalks and stairs? on both property's? would that still be considered incompatable?
regarding H20, who's sleeping with who's enemy?
Merry Christmas.
Last edited:
http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/stories/2005/07/18/focus1.html?from_rss=1
KT-LyingFish Trailer Park's attorney said duirng the official community meeting, that it was because of ZONING on lot 1 that LyingFish Trailer Park decided to pursue lot 2.
KT-Read the part about LRI and H20. Why would you ask the trailer? I am telling you they are out to make a buck or two.
Hard2Sell-I am guessing this article was a misprint too.. Maybe we can have local Memphis.gov correct these typos. As I see it KA owns LRI and H20. This would be a conflict of interest were I work.
Again KT the facts.
Last edited:
Edroedrog I know two people who were at that meeting and the attorney said it had more favorable zoning there is a difference when asked why lot 2 was purchased. The attorney did not say anything against what the developers were saying.
Where in that article does it say that H2O owns 20% of Redfish. Go reread your post. And more to the point who cares and who cares if KA whoever that is owns LRI, which I think you mean LGI whoever they are from the article and H2O. Do you know these people? How does that matter to whether I don't want to have people streaming down our east of 83 roads when they could be shuttled in an orderly way to one spot? No use debating this right? Why wouldn't I and everybody else in Blue Mountain east of 83 think this is a great idea?
Where in that article does it say that H2O owns 20% of Redfish. Go reread your post. And more to the point who cares and who cares if KA whoever that is owns LRI, which I think you mean LGI whoever they are from the article and H2O. Do you know these people? How does that matter to whether I don't want to have people streaming down our east of 83 roads when they could be shuttled in an orderly way to one spot? No use debating this right? Why wouldn't I and everybody else in Blue Mountain east of 83 think this is a great idea?
between the people who were at the meeting and who have posted here(1 or 2), and the people who were at the meeting and for some reason, have not posted here(1 or 2), and the people who were not at the meeting and do post here(3-4), someone should scan their copy of the minutes so the record can be set straight. this way we won't have uninformed comments being thrown around willy-nilly.
BMBW, could you please supply us with a scanned copy of the minutes? you seem to know what was said there.
BMBW, could you please supply us with a scanned copy of the minutes? you seem to know what was said there.
Kevin...my post #173 answers some of you questions:
Kevin...Redfish Village users will use your roads anyway; they are not going to sit around and wait for RFV's "trolley or SUV service"...they will hop in their cars, or walk down to the beach, the quickest and easiest way possible and that will be down all four roads off C-30A, including, unfortunately, yours. You knew this was a possibility when you originally bought your property since you apparently bought on a public road; this was not the case when owners west of CR-83 public access bought their property. Big difference!
I have beachfront property. Do you?
No, I don't think we can stop people from coming to the beach, nor should we; I do think we can attempt to stop 100 to 300 people, during the season, from being deposited on a 75 foot wide lot on the beach. To much concentration in a small space.
Bye for now...We'll pick back up after the holidays.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.
Another problem this usage creates is the precedent it sets. If this is allowed to occur, it can occur again and again; this will completely change the the structure and usage of the beach. Your position does not seem to take this into consideration and, again, makes me think you don't care about the negative consequences of this project to the area. I'm beginning to suspect you do not own property in this area.
John R...Didn't Redfish Village make a transcript of the meeting? Since you were there, you might give them a call and ask for a copy, if you need one; since they know you are supportive of their project, they may even give it to you gratis.
...uninformed comments being thrown around willy-nilly... Like I said...
I don't know if they did or not. Some of your BMB buddies sure were whining like schoolgirls for a copy. I really don't need one, since, as you continue to remind me, as I was there. How's that Surfrider thing going?