Redfish Village Beach Access

I remember hearing something about Draper. Maybe that the developers traded the neighborhood access for their compliance. Without opposition the county probably didn't blink an eye. The same corp. did Rosemary Beach so it's not like anybody is going to tell them no.

Leucadia is the parent company of Draper and Rosemary. They are more than able to get what they want. They had a sour land deal outside telluride that they eventually got their way with, but it was a huge fight. the golf cart thing is a bummer, but not surprising.

The point is not whether it is private beach access the point is whether a residential preservation lot is used for a bathroom facility building and golf cart parking rather than a single family lot. It's not whether the developer of Rosemary Beach did it or not it is whether it was done and a precedent. That's what everybody has seemed to be worried about that slippery slope that if Redfish can do it now then what happens for everybody else. Well Redfish is Infill what I don't understand which I hope somebody can answer is how can they have this a bathroom facility for their beach goers and golf cart parking on a residential preservation lot.

Vagrant your attempt to try to get people all pumped up because you say somebody advertised something early is pathetic (to use your words). The letter I have told you about makes your entire case ridiculous. I never thought I would see this but you are almost as goofy as Edroedrog, who by the way is so far gone I don't even understand what he is saying.

Let's be clear about something Vagrant. You have never said one thing which proves anybody advertised anything improperly. If you do then post it. And don't rely on the article in the Walton Sun which everybody in Walton County knows was biased and one-sided. I am calling you out and asking you, tell us exactly what you know about somebody advertising illegally and "playing by their rules". If you can't do that with facts then you should log off.

DISCLAIMER:

Oral representations cannot be relied upon as correctly stating representations of the developer. For correct representations, make reference to this web site and to the documents required by section 718,503, Florida Statues, to be furnished by a developer to a buyer or lessee. Redfish Village is proposed and need not be built.

Vagrant your attempt to try to get people all pumped up because you say somebody advertised something early is pathetic (to use your words).

Forward-Looking Statements. Some of the information on this website may contain forward-looking statements. These statements are only predictions based on our current expectations and projections about future events. Because these forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, there are important factors that could cause Red Fish Village's actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements to differ materially from the results, level of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

Vagrant your attempt to try to get people all pumped up because you say somebody advertised something early is pathetic (to use your words). The letter I have told you about makes your entire case ridiculous. I never thought I would see this but you are almost as goofy as Edroedrog, who by the way is so far gone I don't even understand what he is saying.

Let's be clear about something Vagrant. You have never said one thing which proves anybody advertised anything improperly. If you do then post it. And don't rely on the article in the Walton Sun which everybody in Walton County knows was biased and one-sided. I am calling you out and asking you, tell us exactly what you know about somebody advertising illegally and "playing by their rules". If you can't do that with facts then you should log off.

DISCLAIMER:

Oral representations cannot be relied upon as correctly stating representations of the developer. For correct representations, make reference to this web site and to the documents required by section 718,503, Florida Statues, to be furnished by a developer to a buyer or lessee. Redfish Village is proposed and need not be built.

KT-IF you were smart enough you would continue to read on before you go and pull out your Condo Rules. Goofy on some of this. Do not choke on your Cosmo.. Do not get me started again this is all public. You need to learn how to completely read these documents that you post.

I am not going to get off of the subject but I will not let someone come on here and act like the expert. Everytime you post KT you dig another hole for RFV..

718.506 Publication of false and misleading information.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0718/SEC506.HTM&Title=->2006->Ch0718->Section%20506#0718.506

(1) Any person who, in reasonable reliance upon any material statement or information that is false or misleading and published by or under authority from the developer in advertising and promotional materials, including, but not limited to, a prospectus, the items required as exhibits to a prospectus, brochures, and newspaper advertising, pays anything of value toward the purchase of a condominium parcel located in this state shall have a cause of action to rescind the contract or collect damages from the developer for his or her loss prior to the closing of the transaction. After the closing of the transaction, the purchaser shall have a cause of action against the developer for damages under this section from the time of closing until 1 year after the date upon which the last of the events described in paragraphs (a) through (d) shall occur:

KT-I am glad you pointed this out to us all.

KT-IF you were smart enough you would continue to read on before you go and pull out your Condo. Goofy on some of this. Do not choke on your Cosmo.. Do not get me started again this is all public. You need to learn how to completely read these documents that you post.

I am not going to get off of the subject but I will not let someone come on here and act like the expert. Everytime you post KT you dig another hole for RFV..

718.506 Publication of false and misleading information.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0718/SEC506.HTM&Title=->2006->Ch0718->Section%20506#0718.506

(1) Any person who, in reasonable reliance upon any material statement or information that is false or misleading and published by or under authority from the developer in advertising and promotional materials, including, but not limited to, a prospectus, the items required as exhibits to a prospectus, brochures, and newspaper advertising, pays anything of value toward the purchase of a condominium parcel located in this state shall have a cause of action to rescind the contract or collect damages from the developer for his or her loss prior to the closing of the transaction. After the closing of the transaction, the purchaser shall have a cause of action against the developer for damages under this section from the time of closing until 1 year after the date upon which the last of the events described in paragraphs (a) through (d) shall occur:

Great here we go again with the legal expert. You are the one in over your head. Edroedrog I asked you to post specifically the false and misleading information that you know about. Don't rely on the Walton Sun. Rely on what you specifically know so you can be the one saying it. I have asked you before, say what you know has been lied about. You made a goof of yourself with the 250 ft buffer and now you are doing it again. Maybe the internet is not such a good thing.:nono1:

Vagrant your attempt to try to get people all pumped up because you say somebody advertised something early is pathetic (to use your words). The letter I have told you about makes your entire case ridiculous. I never thought I would see this but you are almost as goofy as Edroedrog, who by the way is so far gone I don't even understand what he is saying.

This statement is pretty much identical when used in most ALL advertisements for properties for sale at Redfish:

"Redfish Village is a development by New Orchard Group.....The village will feature scenic trails and wooden boardwalks through the dunes and beside the lake. Redfish Village landmarks will include an open-air gathering place, a restaurant with bar, and the Redfish Village Beachwalk -- an owners only private gateway and vista to the white sand beaches of the Gulf of Mexico."

Here it is again in the September 2006 pullout of the Walton Sun called and "Owners-only beach boardwalk to the gulf."

(Did these people just make this up or were they spoon-fed "forward looking statements" from the PR sausage machine?)


.

This statement is pretty much identical when used in most ALL advertisements for properties for sale at Redfish:

"Redfish Village is a development by New Orchard Group.....The village will feature scenic trails and wooden boardwalks through the dunes and beside the lake. Redfish Village landmarks will include an open-air gathering place, a restaurant with bar, and the Redfish Village Beachwalk -- an owners only private gateway and vista to the white sand beaches of the Gulf of Mexico."

Here it is again in the September 2006 pullout of the Walton Sun

(Did these people just make this up?)


.

Shelly what about that is wrong? I see advertisements all the time for developments not yet built. The obligation of those advertisers is to deliver what they say. There are all kind of disclaimers in ads I see and I have seen developers in Walton County do this for the thirty years I have been here. What I am saying is that there are people here trying to smear people and that is wrong. They are using this to try serve their purpose but they are just digging themselves into a hole which I would imagine will end up bad for them.

Shelly what about that is wrong? I see advertisements all the time for developments not yet built. The obligation of those advertisers is to deliver what they say. There are all kind of disclaimers in ads I see and I have seen developers in Walton County do this for the thirty years I have been here. What I am saying is that there are people here trying to smear people and that is wrong. They are using this to try serve their purpose but they are just digging themselves into a hole which I would imagine will end up bad for them.

Let me get this straight--just because someone else has advertised falsely in the past, it makes it okay for Orchard Group to do the same thing????

This developer did not have the beach access when the ads were written, correct? And, there was no guarantee that they would get the access. I agree with the folks that call this false advertising regardless of past practices. The ad should have said, "developer is seeking property to give residents a private gateway to the beach, however, such property has not been acquired as of the date of this ad." I know it doesn't sound as good as the original, but it sure is truthful.

Shelly what about that is wrong? I see advertisements all the time for developments not yet built. The obligation of those advertisers is to deliver what they say. There are all kind of disclaimers in ads I see and I have seen developers in Walton County do this for the thirty years I have been here. What I am saying is that there are people here trying to smear people and that is wrong. They are using this to try serve their purpose but they are just digging themselves into a hole which I would imagine will end up bad for them.

Is it possible that this "appears" to be an "Artist's Rendition" of the toilets and private "Gateway to the Gulf?"

KT-You might want to go to the Draper Lake Thread and ask your questions that you do not have the answers for.

so, if a builder states that the house will have granite countertops before the house is at frame, he's practicing false advertising? aren't they only required to have this PBA in place by the time the first contract is closed?

Let me get this straight--just because someone else has advertised falsely in the past, it makes it okay for Orchard Group to do the same thing????

This developer did not have the beach access when the ads were written, correct? And, there was no guarantee that they would get the access. I agree with the folks that call this false advertising regardless of past practices. The ad should have said, "developer is seeking property to give residents a private gateway to the beach, however, such property has not been acquired as of the date of this ad." I know it doesn't sound as good as the original, but it sure is truthful.

Fisher no you didn't get that straight. The point is not false advertising which people should really understand before they say somebody else committed an illegal offense. The point is basically what Johnr says and that is that developers and builders can advertise that they plan to have a pool, that they plan to build a building, that they plan to have beach access, whatever they want. They just have to deliver what they advertise. Advertising something in advance is not wrong. This is the big point. This is not up for discussion. This is a fact. See all the billboards around town? See all the ads in the esteemed Walton Sun? Much of that is not built yet. Too many armchair quarterbacks here.

Let me get this straight--just because someone else has advertised falsely in the past, it makes it okay for Orchard Group to do the same thing????

This developer did not have the beach access when the ads were written, correct? And, there was no guarantee that they would get the access. I agree with the folks that call this false advertising regardless of past practices. The ad should have said, "developer is seeking property to give residents a private gateway to the beach, however, such property has not been acquired as of the date of this ad." I know it doesn't sound as good as the original, but it sure is truthful.

Nor did the developer have any of the other amenities such as the open-air gathering place and a restaurant with bar. Doesn't mean that they had not planned to get them built and in operation. If they don't doesn't mean that they are liars. If the advertised ammenities were material changes, the buyers may have a way out of the contracts without penalty.

What if the land on the property where the restaurant was going to be built was suddenly inhabited by an Ivory-billed Woodpecker and all construction was halted and the project was forever dead? Would you still call the developer a liar? Things change with time, and there are many unknowns when developing property. Was Redfish Village a little crazy for marketing the property with the Private Gateway to the Beach? In my opinion, yes. They will tell you that they were able to command higher prices with the private beach access, but during that frenzy, I don't think that would have stopped anyone from purchasing, at what even I thought were high prices.

It seems to me that you guys are still more pissed about the developer than you are concerned with the Private Beach Access. All of the above posts are regarding Redfish's statements and whether they were lying, and that is an issue for the people who have contracts, but that doesn't have anything to do with the Private Access being legally permissible to go onto lot #2.

Get out of the sandbox, boys, it's bedtime. ;-)

Fisher no you didn't get that straight. The point is not false advertising which people should really understand before they say somebody else committed an illegal offense. The point is basically what Johnr says and that is that developers and builders can advertise that they plan to have a pool, that they plan to build a building, that they plan to have beach access, whatever they want. They just have to deliver what they advertise. Advertising something in advance is not wrong. This is the big point. This is not up for discussion. This is a fact. See all the billboards around town? See all the ads in the esteemed Walton Sun? Much of that is not built yet. Too many armchair quarterbacks here.

KT-You do not want me to post the Developers Disclosure Prior to sale section do you?

KT-You do not want me to post the Developers Discloser Prior to sale section do you.

Edroedrog you have completely lost me with your "paste your development comments" and "Developers Discloser". Do you mean Developers Disclosure? Just keep babbling away and maybe you will "find the prospectus". You really need to think about what you say. The point with you is that you don't live here, you don't own property in Blue Mountain and you are trashing people I know and I won't let you do it without responding. Keep trying and I will keep defending them. Agreed it started because I was selfish and didn't want people walking down my road and now it is just because I think you and Vagrant can't go unchallenged.

All of the above posts are regarding Redfish's statements and whether they were lying, and that is an issue for the people who have contracts, but that doesn't have anything to do with the Private Access being legally permissible to go onto lot #2.

....I thought it was pretty ballsy of the developer to think the "private beach access" was a done deal when they started hawking the condos to the masses and that in the end their political lapdogs would roll over and do as they say....and as this thing plays out....it appears they were right.


.

Nor did the developer have any of the other amenities such as the open-air gathering place and a restaurant with bar. Doesn't mean that they had not planned to get them built and in operation. If they don't doesn't mean that they are liars. If the advertised ammenities were material changes, the buyers may have a way out of the contracts without penalty.

What if the land on the property where the restaurant was going to be built was suddenly inhabited by an Ivory-billed Woodpecker and all construction was halted and the project was forever dead? Would you still call the developer a liar? Things change with time, and there are many unknowns when developing property. Was Redfish Village a little crazy for marketing the property with the Private Gateway to the Beach? In my opinion, yes. They will tell you that they were able to command higher prices with the private beach access, but during that frenzy, I don't think that would have stopped anyone from purchasing, at what even I thought were high prices.

It seems to me that you guys are still more pissed about the developer than you are concerned with the Private Beach Access. All of the above posts are regarding Redfish's statements and whether they were lying, and that is an issue for the people who have contracts, but that doesn't have anything to do with the Private Access being legally permissible to go onto lot #2.

Get out of the sandbox, boys, it's bedtime. ;-)

Smiling Joe I am not saying you agree with everything I say but man you really say things well sometime. I just think there are some people, especially Edroedrog who have an axe to grind with these people and will try anything they can, any angle day after to day to try and do something. What that is I don't really know but it is all about trashing people who I think are good people. My only guess is they are disgruntled former employees of somebody or Redfish buyers who are desperate to get out of their contract. Why else would Edroedrog be on here every day all day when he doesn't live here and doesn't own property here?

Edroedrog you have completely lost me with your "paste your development comments" and "Developers Discloser". Do you mean Developers Disclosure? Just keep babbling away and maybe you will "find the prospectus". You really need to think about what you say. The point with you is that you don't live here, you don't own property in Blue Mountain and you are trashing people I know and I won't let you do it without responding. Keep trying and I will keep defending them. Agreed it started because I was selfish and didn't want people walking down my road and now it is just because I think you and Vagrant can't go unchallenged.

No I think it is "Developer Disclosure". Now that you helped me find it. lol

I just get so excited responding to you. I like it when you get upset and start kicking on everyone that posts something against your Village.

No I think it is "Developer Disclosure". Now that you helped me find it. lol

I just get so excited responding to you. I like it when you get upset and start kicking on everyone that posts something against your Village.

Well I am glad to entertain you since you are entertaining everybody else here.:clap_1: I had the last word last night so I will leave you with it. I am headed to Old Florida for some sushi if you want to join me for a drink.

so, if a builder states that the house will have granite countertops before the house is at frame, he's practicing false advertising? aren't they only required to have this PBA in place by the time the first contract is closed?

Come on--Big, BIG difference between granite countertops and saying you can provide a private beach access.

I am not talking about legally doing something. I talking about doing what's right, from an ethical standpoint.

Nor did the developer have any of the other amenities such as the open-air gathering place and a restaurant with bar. Doesn't mean that they had not planned to get them built and in operation. If they don't doesn't mean that they are liars. If the advertised ammenities were material changes, the buyers may have a way out of the contracts without penalty.

What if the land on the property where the restaurant was going to be built was suddenly inhabited by an Ivory-billed Woodpecker and all construction was halted and the project was forever dead? Would you still call the developer a liar? Things change with time, and there are many unknowns when developing property. Was Redfish Village a little crazy for marketing the property with the Private Gateway to the Beach? In my opinion, yes. They will tell you that they were able to command higher prices with the private beach access, but during that frenzy, I don't think that would have stopped anyone from purchasing, at what even I thought were high prices.

It seems to me that you guys are still more pissed about the developer than you are concerned with the Private Beach Access. All of the above posts are regarding Redfish's statements and whether they were lying, and that is an issue for the people who have contracts, but that doesn't have anything to do with the Private Access being legally permissible to go onto lot #2.

Get out of the sandbox, boys, it's bedtime. ;-)

No, but the developer did OWN the property on which such places could be built. Big difference between that and beach access. Just ask John Willis about private beach access for Cypress Dunes.

And, I agree that the prices are very, very high. Look down the street at Adagio. Bigger condos, pool overlooking the ocean, PRIVATE BEACH ACCESS, very large second pool, closer to ocean, etc. The non ocean front units are now being marketed by some folks for mid $800's fully furnished. The smaller lots at Redfish will be closing at around $1 million unfurnished. I would be seriously thinking about walking away from my deposit after looking at those numbers.

Sleep tight Joe.

Well I am glad to entertain you since you are entertaining everybody else here.:clap_1: I had the last word last night so I will leave you with it. I am headed to Old Florida for some sushi if you want to join me for a drink.

I am living up to my name today (inuendodrog). Love that name but it is hell to type on the keyboard.

Like I said in my earlier post I do not like the smell of fish. Maybe we can meet up for some Lobster stew and beer later to laugh about this whole thing.

I will do you one better. A nice letter was sitting on my fax on the way out the door. I am only typing the main part if you want the rest I would guess you can get it from Walton County it should be in the public records right? This to me puts to bed the issue of the County letter talked about in the Walton Sun (sure Vagrant will try to spin it). I am off to dinner so I will let Smiling Joe (if you would) to comment on this:



As we discussed Wednesday, Holland & Knight represents Redfish
Village, LLC and in this capacity has been provided a copy of your
letter dated May 5, 2006. The purpose of this letter is to memorialize
our conversation, and to further respond to your letter.

Your May 5 letter contains several unsubstantiated statements,
based on which you imply that Redfish Village, LLC ("Redfish") may have
made false and deceptive representations to prospective buyers.
Notwithstanding the seriousness of these statements, in our discussion
Wednesday morning you agreed that you do not have any direct personal
knowledge supporting these allegations, which are based on such things
as hearsay from self-interested persons.

As I explained, we simply cannot permit such accusations to remain unchallenged. Specifically, you indicate in your letter that Redfish has advertised in writing and in oral representations that Redfish has "county approval to construct a private beach access across a lot in Blue Mountain Beach for the use of residents of Redfish Village."

You acknowledged, however, that the written advertisements on which you rely do not identify the location of the private beach access, and that you cannot identify any oral representations supporting this claim. You further advised that you cannot identify any oral or written representation by an authorized Redfish representative to the effect that Walton County has approved the use of the Blue Mountain Beach lot for such access.

I am not talking about legally doing something. I talking about doing what's right, from an ethical standpoint.

so, this statement was soley about ethics?

Let me get this straight--just because someone else has advertised falsely in the past, it makes it okay for Orchard Group to do the same thing????

This developer did not have the beach access when the ads were written, correct? And, there was no guarantee that they would get the access. I agree with the folks that call this false advertising regardless of past practices. The ad should have said, "developer is seeking property to give residents a private gateway to the beach, however, such property has not been acquired as of the date of this ad." I know it doesn't sound as good as the original, but it sure is truthful.

No, but the developer did OWN the property on which such places could be built. Big difference between that and beach access. ...

...and Redfish Village developers purchased a Gulf front lot (owning) only 5 months after buying the dirt for the primary development on the corner of 30A/83 in order to try to provide the private access which they are promising. The trees were still not cleared from the primary lot when that lot #1 was purchased. What is your point?

Guys, this is as simple as pre-ordering Girl Scout Cookies. The kid (or her parent in many cases:funn comes around taking pre-orders. You promise to pay, and she promises to deliver when the cookies are shipped. If she doesn't deliver the cookies, she is in breach of the contract and you don't have to pay, and you are not penalized for not paying. If she delivers Thin Mints when you ordered Samoas, she didn't deliver as promised and you do not have to pay, ( however, I hear the Samoas are delicious ) You are able to keep your money unless she can produce those Thin Mints as contracted to do so.

Real Estate doesn't have to be so darn difficult. A five year old Daisy Scout knows the basic principle. ;-) (forgive my simple example, but it is that time of year, again.)