Discussion in 'Real Estate' started by John R, Dec 8, 2006.
Reminder to all - personal attacks are not allowed. Stick to attacking the issues.
Here's a brief summary of events to date for those "just joining in":
1. 10/18/2004: Redfish Village purchased bathroom lot #1, east of the 83 access, for $2,600,000.
2. 2/14/2005: Almost 4 months later, they purchased the main property on 30A, for $21,587,500.
3. 8/31/2006: Redfish Village purchased bathroom lot #2, west of the 83 beach access, for $5,045,000.
RFV ran into stiff opposition from the neighbors, including BMBCA, regarding building bathrooms and walkover on bathroom lot #1. In an effort to appease the neighbors, RFV then proposed to only build bathrooms on the lot. The county still would not grant them a permit.
There are 4 public access in close proximity to bathroom lot #1 including the 83 public access. The 83 public access is scheduled to have bathrooms built in about a year, according to TDC. Access (or no lack of) to the beach is therefore not an issue for RFV.
At the public community meeting this past November, RFV (Brad Zeitlen) denied that they were turned down for approval on bathroom lot #1. When asked why RFV decided to spend over 5 million dollars for bathroom lot #2 if they were supposedly not turned down for lot #1, their attorney said, "Zoning."
RFV initially tried to slide the project through as a minor development order. This type of classification would then NOT involve the public or the county commissioners....only the planning commission.
But bathroom lot #2 is zoned "infill". The Walton County land use code clearly states that
1. any development on an infill zoned property, must be handled as a major development order which requires public notification and input as well as a vote from the County Commissioners (scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 23rd in Defuniak Springs).
2. that any development be COMPATIBLE with the existing neighborhood.
RFV pulled the (minor development order) agenda from a previous county commissioners' meeting because they knew they would be forced to follow the rules regarding infill zoning (public process). So now they are addressing item 1 above.
Item 2 is the one that is the main issue AND that has been completely ignored by the Walton County Planning Commission based on their approval, against their own rules. Allowing access for over 300 people (80 remotely located condos that are part of a commercial development) on a single residential lot is simply not compatible.
To me (and many others including the attorney for the neghborhood), it's very clear that per item 2, the County Commissioners should not approve this project because there is no compatibility, plain and simple. This is the core issue. Everything else is what it is ;-) .
Once again Vagrant defines the "core issue". For those people that Vagrant is educating, let it be known that many people disagree with Vagrant who LIVE in Blue Mountain and that he is not speaking for all of us. He does not live in Blue Mountain, doesn't even live in South Walton County but is the expert on everything related to this issue. We applaud the developer for moving to a lot with better "zoning" than the first lot. I am sure he will now write another entire page to respond.
BMBV -- Thanks for attempting to help clarify some things.
For the record I don't live in BMB, but appears Vagrant does. Sounds like the 'many people' is you. Not sure why you are so concerned on Vagrant's reasoning on being against this. If it is denied, it's not going back to your side of the street b/c it appears to be a fact, lot 1 was denied. What's strange is you're not fighting alongside Vagrant to get it pushed out of the entire area. Strange...
Vagrant has already said he doesn not live in Blue Mountain he doesn't even live in the County. Please have your facts straight before you post. There are enough people posting incorrect information as if it is fact. The reason I am am not fighting it because I am for it. If it does not happen then you will have all the people walking, biking and driving down the street in front of my house. I like this idea I have said it before.
What was strange is that when it was going to be on Lot 1 nobody on the west side including Vagrant ever said a word only the people on the east side. And you really need to check your facts on Lot 1 before you believe Vagrant or Edroe because I said it before there was never a denial for what they were going to do on Lot 1. I won't fight this battle again with Edroe and Vagrant but I will at least tell you that they are wrong.
Doesn't vagrant own property in BMB? If so, I think he has every right to have an opinion. On the lot 1 being denied, it is a fact.
Great another oracle of the truth. Thank you ATM.:clap_1:
Did you hear otherwise? I'm not hearing this, I've seen this. It is fact and in writing.
I don't live in BMB or own property there but I know the developers personally and consider them friends. So for that reason, I hope their request is approved. Surely friendship is as important a reason as not wanting someone walking by your property is for opposing it.
BTW, where is BMBCA when you need them? They're all over the place when you don't. I still haven't heard anyone state what their "new found" position is (and why). PLEASE, with around 200 members belonging to this activist organization, can't just one insider shed some light as to their NEW FOUND silence on a local issue as important as this?
How about SWCC?
Didn't you post on #311 the BMBCA comments about their position? Vagrant are you being coy or just trying to make some more friends? What possible reason could you have to post their position and then ask what it is?
And I have answered the question why it's not strange that I am not fighting along side you. It's the same reason you didn't fight alongside us when they were trying to do this in our residential preservation neighborhood next to our homes. I think everybody has said their position many times here not sure why you are still so confused. I am sure you will write me a nasty page long reason though.
You guys make me think of a Thomas Jefferson quote:
"If ouir house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it." Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Lewis, Jr, May 9, 1798.
And that's exactly what I and some others are trying do.
Some imply that since I was not aware of the "first fire", that I should simply ignore the "second fire". What a load!
Notice how nobody comments about BMBCA and SWCC? I know for certain that director(s) of BMBCA monitor this message board.
SJ, as an activist yourself, is there anything you know about their current position that you can share since they don't seem to have the backbone to speak up (when you want them to)?
BTW, find the warranty deed yet?;-)
I have not researched the BMBCA nor the SWCC for their lack of activity for lot #2. If what you said is correct about several of their leading members living in the area east of the 83 access (lot #1 area), I would think that they too, are being selfish and know what the result will be if no private access is approved -- more foot traffic on their streets. I do know that some of thier members were at the meeting for the NatureWalk Private Beach Club issue. I am not a member of either of those organizations so I don't know their reasons. Have you checked the SWCC's website to look for info.
Warranty Deed? I wasn't looking for one. You know where the Clerk of Court's website and office is located, so if you need to look something up, they can assist you. If you are referring to the Warranty Deed for the Beach in front of the subdivison between Big Redfish Lake and the 83 Access, I am still waiting on you to show me the documents that show who owns that beach, and unless you can show me who owns it, I will consider it as publicly owned. ;-) I think Kevin Thompson is correct about at least one thing. You seem to give us the answer, then ask the question and that is rather frustrating like you are not reading our comments. The information you are giving seems to be in a continuous loop. I feel like I waste my time trying to answer your questions because you ask the same question later after I reply. If you have something to share with us, please do so, but this isn't Jeopardy, so please don't give your answer in the form of a question. It gets rather confusing as to what you are trying to find out or tell us.
I just did look them up and went on http://www.southwaltoncc.org and found absolutely nothing. Not just nothing about RFV...nothing of any value, period. See for yourself. A search on Google for BMBCA or Blue Mountain Beach Community Association yields no website for BMBCA.
You're the one that claimed the county owned it. How about I say, I think it's not public, and you say you think it's not private. We'll settle this later :roll: . I just didn't want to see you walk away from post #394 where you assumed because the property lines stop at the dunes that the beach must then belong to the county by default...just trying to help prevent the dissimination of "possible" false info, that's all.
If you're talking private vs. public, point is again, one should not make assumptions (and present as fact) that one can not validate.
So for now, how about we both just agree to "opine" our positions regarding the private/public property issue. OK with you?
Are you sure about that? I am not looking back through 11 pages of posts to see what I said, but I challenge you to find a statement where I said that. It may exist, but I don't think so. If that statement by me exists, be sure to also post my quote regarding the part about it is not stated who owns that beach in a deed, but it definitely shows that the homeowner in that subdivision do not own south of the bluff line. ;-)
Many posts ago, I asked you to drop it until you find the deed that shows who owns the property. You, not me, is the person who continually brings it back up.
Repeat --> you are on the spin cycle. You seem to care more about who owns the beach in front of lot #1 rather than Redfish getting a private access. Get off the merry go round, PLEASE.
Sir, YES SIR!! Just got off, Sir! but it spins again in a month or so. Stay tuned.
Now back to BMBCA and SWCC. Is it just me who finds their complete and SUDDEN absence here puzzling? Surely someone who lives east of 83 must know why. It sure would be appreciated if they could share their insight besides those who support the access at 260 BMRd. I know this item is also a little repetitive, but it DEFINITELY relates to the RFV access issue and, I believe, warrants an answer.
Separate names with a comma.