Redfish Village Beach Access

missed? not the term i would have used. looking forward to some free entertainment though.

JohnR...seems like your always looking for something free.

SJ-If I had that map I would have posted it a month ago. We were just wondering why KT did not respond to it since he had he letter from Holland & Knight.

Anyway the docs are public you just have to pay someone to get them to you. Maybe that is what whitesys did not sure but at least we have them to compare them against KT's letter from Holland & Knight. I do not care about whitsys and his intentions.

So you didn't answer my questions. Did you, or anyone you know, recieve the map posted by whitesys in a sales package? Again, I did not receive it in mine. I am not suggesting that it wasn't included in some of the sales info packages. You have repeatedly stated that Redfish Village was promoting that the County had approved the lot #1 for access and yet all that is produced is a map from someone esle, without notes on where the map came from, and how it was acquired. In a court of law, the judge would shamelessly tell you to show the evidence. That is also what the County Commissioners would do. I cannot believe that simple evidence is not brought before the County Commissioners by the people providing testimony. The only people who do that seem to be the Engineering firms hired by the developers. Perhaps if people could see your supposed paper trail of "lies," things would be different. Oh, then you could also report the sales people whom you accuse of fraud, to the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC). I am trying to weed out the bad ones. ;-) Did you ever report them as I suggested in one of my earlier posts, several weeks ago? I didn't think so. FREC will also want to see this evidence which seems to be missing from your case of "lies" and fraud.

I have just been informed by a very reliable source that the map showing the beach lot, like the one presented by whitesys, was issued with the condo docs, so that answers my question regarding where the map came from and whether it was used in marketing.

EDIT: If the map was issued with the condo docs, and it is determined that by not having private beach access at this lot, there is a material change in the docs, allowing all buyers to get out of their contracts, what good would it do for the County Commissioners to approve this lot#2 for Private Access? The developer will be stuck with the 80 units and have to find some way to pay the bank. Any comments? Any thoughts from attorneys regarding whether this subsitution of lot # 2 is a valid material change?

I have just been informed by a very reliable source that the map showing the beach lot, like the one presented by whitesys, was issued with the condo docs, so that answers my question regarding where the map came from and whether it was used in marketing.

SJ-so, what does that mean? If the issue is credibility, who is correct here?

So you didn't answer my questions. Did you, or anyone you know, recieve the map posted by whitesys in a sales package? Again, I did not receive it in mine. I am not suggesting that it wasn't included in some of the sales info packages. You have repeatedly stated that Redfish Village was promoting that the County had approved the lot #1 for access and yet all that is produced is a map from someone esle, without notes on where the map came from, and how it was acquired. In a court of law, the judge would shamelessly tell you to show the evidence. That is also what the County Commissioners would do. I cannot believe that simple evidence is not brought before the County Commissioners by the people providing testimony. The only people who do that seem to be the Engineering firms hired by the developers. Perhaps if people could see your supposed paper trail of "lies," things would be different. Oh, then you could also report the sales people whom you accuse of fraud, to the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC). I am trying to weed out the bad ones. ;-) Did you ever report them as I suggested in one of my earlier posts, several weeks ago? I didn't think so. FREC will also want to see this evidence which seems to be missing from your case of "lies" and fraud.

#[ame="http://www.sowal.com/bb/showpost.php?p=198082&postcount=502"]502[/ame] Is the post with the file. He had it not me.

SJ-so, what does that mean? If the issue is credibility, who is correct here?

Not sure what it means other than I have yet to see evidence that Redfish Village was using this so-called County Approved Priv Bch Access to promote their sales. Credibility is still to be determined, but I am waiting to see that evidence.

Edit: looking back at the map in whitesys's post, I see that lot #1 is labeled only as "beach lot." In reality, all of those Gulf front lots are "beach lots." Perhaps there is more documentation that was attached to this map in the condo docs, but the words, "beach lot," are not enough to mean anything substantial in my opinion. Perhaps if it stated, "private beach access for Redfish Village," my opinion might differ.

Not sure what it means other than I have yet to see evidence that Redfish Village was using this so-called County Approved Priv Bch Access to promote their sales. Credibility is still to be determined, but I am waiting to see that evidence.

SJ...if your not sure what your post means, why post it?

#502 Is the post with the file. He had it not me.

I realize that you didn't post the map, but you kept making reference to the notion that they were advertising blatent lies, such as this map noting the "county approved" beach access. I fail to see your evidence noting such. To me, it read like, Here is your map showing evidence that they were marketing it as such. Now that I find out it was not used in the advertising, but rather in the condo docs, you are still without evidence support your statement about the "lies."

SJ...if your not sure what your post means, why post it?

Are you suggesting that I shouldn't post something because you don't understand it? Why not instead, ask me another question to help me clarify my statement. What don't you understand about it?

I have just been informed by a very reliable source that the map showing the beach lot, like the one presented by whitesys, was issued with the condo docs, so that answers my question regarding where the map came from and whether it was used in marketing.

EDIT: If the map was issued with the condo docs, and it is determined that by not having private beach access at this lot, there is a material change in the docs, allowing all buyers to get out of their contracts, what good would it do for the County Commissioners to approve this lot#2 for Private Access? The developer will be stuck with the 80 units and have to find some way to pay the bank. Any comments? Any thoughts from attorneys regarding whether this subsitution of lot # 2 is a valid material change?

SJ,

The map is part of the condo documentation package and sales agreement.

Are you suggesting that I shouldn't post something because you don't understand it? Why not instead, ask me another question to help me clarify my statement. What don't you understand about it?

SJ...please, no need to be a supercilious twit. Stop you waffeling posting if you are not prepared to defend or explain them.

SJ,

The map is part of the condo documentation package and sales agreement.

whitesys, thanks for clarifying. Did you receive the map in any advertising materials for Redfish Village in addition to receiving it in the condo docs?

SJ...please, no need to be a supercilious twit. Stop you waffeling posting if you are not prepared to defend or explain them.

Those big four letter words are too big for me to compute. I need to borrow a dictionary.

I will gladly defend or explain anything I say. I repeat, in particular, what don't you understand? I must have missed the part about defending my statements. What statement of mine do you want me to defend?

whitesys, thanks for clarifying. Did you receive the map in any advertising materials for Redfish Village in addition to receiving it in the condo docs?

SJ,

No.

But as far I know there is not much legal difference between an advertisement and a sales agreement. They are both offers to sell, presented to the buyer. The sales agreement just formalizes the terms of the sale into a explicit written contract.

Once again to many armchair quarterbacks playing lawyer. My wife is a lawyer and for a change to cause somebody to have the ability to get out of a contract it has to be BOTH Material AND Adverse. Basic florida condo law. It takes a very knowledgeable attorney to understand all this certainly not some of the people posting. Since the developer spent the money and is trying to get it approved I can just guess that since the lot is closer and it is bigger and gives everything they thought they were getting how could somebody argue it is Adverse? Seems silly to me.

The other point my wife just made is that the people on here calling people liars and charging illegal action better be ready to defend themselves in court so they should be very sure of what they are saying.

SJ,

No.

But as far I know there is not much legal difference between an advertisement and a sales agreement. They are both offers to sell, presented to the buyer. The sales agreement just formalizes the terms of the sale into a explicit written contract.

I hear your point, but in particular, a few people on this thread have stated that the sellers of Redfish are liars due to them advertising this "county approved beach lot" in their sales info. They are also using your map to try and prove their point. My point is that I have not heard anyone state that Redfish Village has advertised this particular lot #1 in their sales brochures, and your statement above shows me no differently.

Too often, I see angry people who loosely throw around bad words. I was just asking them to back up what they are saying. They have not done so thus far.

I have just been informed by a very reliable source that the map showing the beach lot, like the one presented by whitesys, was issued with the condo docs, so that answers my question regarding where the map came from and whether it was used in marketing.

EDIT: If the map was issued with the condo docs, and it is determined that by not having private beach access at this lot, there is a material change in the docs, allowing all buyers to get out of their contracts, what good would it do for the County Commissioners to approve this lot#2 for Private Access? The developer will be stuck with the 80 units and have to find some way to pay the bank. Any comments? Any thoughts from attorneys regarding whether this subsitution of lot # 2 is a valid material change?

IMPORTANT

The answer is a big YES in my opinion to your question "...is a valid material change?". The main difference with the 2 lots is overwhelming.

Lot #1 = Provides access to a "common" beach on the east side of the 83 regional access. RFV owners of lot #1 would have free run of the beach on the east side of 83 as it is, once again, "common".

Whether this "common" beach is private or public does not matter; it is still COMMON. Again...still not an appropriate use of that lot BTW any way you look at it.

Lot #2 = Provides access to about 75 feet worth of beach surrounded by private beach on each side.


Summary:

Lot #1 = over 2500 feet of "legally" accessible beach by it's owner from 83 to Redfish Lake.

Lot #2 = only 75 feet of "legally" accessible beach by it's owner (outside of the regional 83 public access)....not a great "experience" in my opinion when shared with over 300 people from RFV.

SJ, you ask if there is a material change if RFV uses lot #2 instead of #1. My answer/opinion is definitely, yes. Any others?

...My wife is a lawyer and for a change to cause somebody to have the ability to get out of a contract it has to be BOTH Material AND Adverse. Basic florida condo law......

Is my post above BOTH Material AND Adverse enough for you?

My goodness you are inflammatory Vagrant. Either lot gives them access to MILES of beach. Your problem is that you make up these thoughts that are yours and type them in BIG FONT and declare them to be fact. Well you are wrong again. Do you own the wet sand? People can walk up and down the beach all they want.

Why don't you tell us why you are gunning for these people? Is it just in your nature? You don't live here. You can't even see the access from your condo. Do you not want other people on your beach that bad or are you just a hateful person?

...

Summary:

Lot #1 = over 2500 feet of "legally" accessible beach by it's owner from 83 to Redfish Lake.

Lot #2 = only 75 feet of "legally" accessible beach by it's owner (outside of the regional 83 public access)....not a great "experience" in my opinion when shared with over 300 people from RFV.

SJ, you ask if there is a material change if RFV uses lot #2 instead of #1. My answer/opinion is definitely, yes....

I think you present a good point here on the material differences between the two lots. Even though the distance from lot # 2 to Redfish Village is slightly closer than the distance to lot #1 from Redfish Village, having much less "common" beach available from that lot #2 access could be a major difference in value to the Redfish owners.

Oh darn I forgot to reference the picture you posted with those poles stopping people on the beach using VagrantLaw. I guess they are STUCK on their little part of the beach.

My goodness you are inflammatory Vagrant. Either lot gives them access to MILES of beach. Your problem is that you make up these thoughts that are yours and type them in BIG FONT and declare them to be fact. Well you are wrong again. Do you own the wet sand? People can walk up and down the beach all they want.

Why don't you tell us why you are gunning for these people? Is it just in your nature? You don't live here. You can't even see the access from your condo. Do you not want other people on your beach that bad or are you just a hateful person?

KT...oh, you're so pure and innocent!!!

More billable hours, huh?

KT...oh, you're so pure and innocent!!!

More billable hours, huh?

Never said I was pure and innocent. So add that to selfish, impure and guilty.

Never said I was pure and innocent. So add that to selfish, impure and guilty.

KT...you're not working for the BMB neighborhood, you are working against the BMB neighborhood.

KT...you're not working for the BMB neighborhood, you are working against the BMB neighborhood.

That's not very nice. I have told you from the start my position. I would prefer the access on Lot 2 instead of Lot 1. That is better for at a minimum the east side of the neighborhood. You have a different opinion but talk to some of my neighbors and ask them what they think.

Not until I saw all this nastiness of people attacking and being slanderous did I feel the urge to stick up for these people. Being retired I have the time to do that what I don't understand is what do the rest of you do that let's you spend all day doing this?