Redfish Village - changes to the development

[Kevin Thompson]

Living in Blue Mountain many of us know Richard Fowlkes very well. Using his BMBCA pulpit he has pushed many of us around maybe all of us. What I find very interesting is that in his recent letter he writes when talking about the original approval for Redfish Village including the lots behind the big buildings called Lakeside at Blue Mountain:

"Based in part on those negotiations we did not oppose the development at the BCC hearings and the development sailed through the process gaining quick approval." Richard Fowlkes

What we in Blue Mountain know is that he is talking about when he says "the development" he is talking about the previous developer who sold this property to the current developers of Redfish. And for some reason he backed off opposing The Preserve and Lakeside at Blue Mountain (the original name for Redfish Village when the previous developer had it) while it looks like he is not backing off the main Redfish project. For some other reason it looks to me (and many of us in Blue Mountain may know about this) like he made a pretty penny on some very hard to get lots direct from the original developer which he speaks about back when the market was good and flipped them (just check out the public records):

LOT 15 BLK 1 BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACH #1
LOT 107 PRESERVE AT GRAYTON BEACH
LOT 126 LAKESIDE AT BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACH

Wait, are you saying that while Richard was fighting the original developer he took ownership of some lots in the same development then for some reason didn't oppose the project in the BCC meeting and the development as he says it "sailed through"?

I wonder what "Based in part on those negotiations we did not oppose the development ..." means?

An interesting question (all questions) would be "does Richard serve his own interests and not the interests of his neighbors like me"? Is he quiet when he has something to gain? Can he be bought? Is it possible that the Redfish people wouldn't pay him off? Although I am part of Blue Mountain and had an interest in whether The Preserve and Lakeside "sailed through" for some reason I couldn't get any of those lots he got. Good job Richard. Not all your neighbors appreciate the way you operate. And not all of us believe everything you write in your self-serving letters.:nono1:

 

[Kurt]

KT - I deleted your previous post because it was not only confusing but seemed to contain some serious accusations. You posted parts of a letter from an individual. Was this a private letter or public? Maybe if you back up and fill us in we will see the relevance and I will understand what you were getting at.

 

[Kevin Thompson]

I can't believe you deleted that post. Why don't you delete the one from Sowal Sally which contains as you say some serious accusations? Where is the back up for that? The "part" of the letter is from the posting on page one of this board from the letter from Richard Fowlkes. He wrote it. And everything else said there is a fact. You ask about relevance? 90% of the twenty pages on the beach access thread and most of them here are a series of unproven serious accusations but for some reason you just choose to delete my posts. People have been questioning character and maligning people I know and you haven't stopped one of those posts. I am questioning the character of Richard Fowlkes with facts about his dealings with a developer. Is this supposed to be a fair forum? I am asking you to put my post back up.

And are you kidding me with deleting because it was confusing? Go look at some of Edroedrog's posts. Are you joking.

 

[Kurt]

I can't believe you deleted that post. Why don't you delete the one from Sowal Sally which contains as you say some serious accusations? Where is the back up for that? The "part" of the letter is from the posting on page one of this board from the letter from Richard Fowlkes. He wrote it. And everything else said there is a fact. You ask about relevance? 90% of the twenty pages on the beach access thread and most of them here are a series of unproven serious accusations but for some reason you just choose to delete my posts. People have been questioning character and maligning people I know and you haven't stopped one of those posts. I am questioning the character of Richard Fowlkes with facts about his dealings with a developer. Is this supposed to be a fair forum? I am asking you to put my post back up.

And are you kidding me with deleting because it was confusing? Go look at some of Edroedrog's posts. Are you joking.

Calm down. I did not see the name on the first post and you could have referred to it or quoted it to help us out. And you are leveling some serious accusations and I advise you to watch it. You are treading on thin ice. As I have said many times in the past we don't allow personal attacks, especially against people who are not here to defend themselves.

I've restored it but I still see it as confusing.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Kevin, those are powerful accusations. I double checked with County records and those three properties are interesting tidbits of info that is new to me. It does seem that Richard has been caught with his hands in the cookie jar. Doesn't mean much, as he could have purchased the properties on the up and up, like many other people did. It is interesting, though.

 

[beachbumguy]

Why did Cindy Meadows, who represents the area of South Walton, miss such a crucial vote on the private beach access?

 

[Smiling JOe]

Why did Cindy Meadows, who represents the area of South Walton, miss such a crucial vote on the private beach access?

I am sure that she could better answer that question. Have you asked her? Please report back to us with her answer.;-)

Comm. Cindy Meadows
90 Spires Lane, Unit 7-A
Santa Rosa Beach, FL. 32459
Phone: (850) 622-3059
Fax: (850) 622-3067
e-mail: meacindy@co.walton.fl.us

 

[Miss Kitty]

Why did Cindy Meadows, who represents the area of South Walton, miss such a crucial vote on the private beach access?

I remember reading something about a family illness or emergency.

 

[Kevin Thompson]

Calm down. I did not see the name on the first post and you could have referred to it or quoted it to help us out. And you are leveling some serious accusations and I advise you to watch it. You are treading on thin ice. As I have said many times in the past we don't allow personal attacks, especially against people who are not here to defend themselves.

I've restored it but I still see it as confusing.

First of all Kurt I have not leveled any accusations. I have posted facts and once again I will state that I have asked questions. If you want an example of an accusation which you should delete it would be something like Edroedrog #8 on this thread but for some reason you ignore his posts and only delete my mine.

I am hearing you say you don't allow personal attacks but you do. I would ask somebody independent like Smiling Joe or Johnr to comment on whether there were any personal attacks on the beach access thread.

There is a trust that we have here that you are neutral and treat everybody fairly. You might not like it but deleting my posts, telling me to "watch it" when you allow all the trash posted over the past couple months is not perceived as fair by me or I would suspect several other people here. You own this site and can do what you want but you know what they say about absolute power. Use yours carefully.

 

[Kevin Thompson]

Kevin, those are powerful accusations. I double checked with County records and those three properties are interesting tidbits of info that is new to me. It does seem that Richard has been caught with his hands in the cookie jar. Doesn't mean much, as he could have purchased the properties on the up and up, like many other people did. It is interesting, though.

I will say it again SJ that these are not accusations. These are questions. I know you know how to use the public records, can you tell how much money was made? Anybody can buy property and flip it nothing wrong with that but it is very interesting knowing how Richard acts about who he is and what he stands for. Does it make sense for him to sit back and let a development in his own front yard sail through? The FACTS are presented on the public records. That is all I am asserting. Draw your own conclusions on the rest of it.