Redfish Village Beach Access

[Smiling JOe]

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.)

 

[whitesys]

Kevin,

>>>that the written advertisements on which you rely do not identify the
location of the private beach access

Just to make sure that this does not imply that there is no written documentation identifying the location of the beach lot, see the attached RFV plot plan.

They may be splitting hairs here if the only beach lot described does not state that it does not have private beach access.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Hmmmm..... Let's see here:

1. KT thinks the County should approve bathroom lot #2 because KT does not want the County to approve bathroom lot #1 nor does KT want people from RFV going past his house on their way to the beach.

2. KT says bathroom lot #1 is zoned reservation preservation / single family homes.

3. KT says bathroom lot #2 (and rightly so) is zoned infill. However a requirement for infill zoned projects is that it must be COMPATIBLE (remember it still is residential with density limitations). Yea, I know this is repetitive, but it's a fact, JACK!

4. In just about everyone's opinion EXCEPT for COUNTY PLANNING and EXCEPT for the DEVELOPER (and friends of), that this project is NOT COMPATIBLE. The Commissioners' positions are yet to be determined.

5. KT (and I'll add BMBCA via my opinion) refuses to join in the fight to oppose this project for (again) "selfish" reasons.

6. SOOOooo, if this project passes with such problematic interpretation of the land code and for total disregard for the quiet enjoyment of private property, then what makes KT think that the county won't allow RFV to go back and use bathroom lot#1 for another project?

Just simply build a single family home on lot #1 and a walkover and always have a constant open invitation for the guests and owners of RFV to pass through the property. There's your private gated access for Redfish Village "Phase II"... nothing I know of now would prevent this. Remember when someone asked RFV if they owned any other property during the "public meeting"? This was in regards to other properties using the same access. RFV replied "Why do you want to know?" Hmmm.

Seems to me that the "East End Boys" should have joined in this fight and squashed this whole thing all together and prevented any type of "resurgence" of this matter.

Oh well. I tried to do the right thing for our neighborhood. Let's see if the Commissioners will tomorrow.

Just a reminder...
Commissioners Meeting, Tuesday, January 23rd (today) at 4:00 in DeFuniak Springs

Thanks.

 

[fisher]

...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.)

Let's call a spade a spade. The developer was overhyping the facts in order to sell product. I call this lying. A white lie is the same as a big fat lie.

 

[Jdarg]

...
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.

I was wondering when the Girl Scouts were going to be dragged into this! I promise the Daisies will not make any promises about cookies that can't be delivered. I you want Thin Mints, then you will get Thin Mints.

I wish for you all that this RFV mess was as simple as selling GS cookies.

 

[Kevin Thompson]

Response in Red

Hmmmm..... Let's see here:

1. KT thinks the County should approve bathroom lot #2 because KT does not want the County to approve bathroom lot #1 nor does KT want people from RFV going past his house on their way to the beach.

Well put. And Vagrant does not want the County to approve Lot #2 because he does not want people near his condo on his beach and parking near his condo on the road.

2. KT says bathroom lot #1 is zoned reservation preservation / single family homes.

Well put.

3. KT says bathroom lot #2 (and rightly so) is zoned infill. However a requirement for infill zoned projects is that it must be COMPATIBLE (remember it still is residential with density limitations). Yea, I know this is repetitive, but it's a fact, JACK!

Well put. It must be compatible determined by Walton County technical staff, planning department and planning commission. And of course Vagrant and Walton Sun. I guess it is exceeding the residential density limitation of 4-5 condo units by building ZERO units right?

4. In just about everyone's opinion EXCEPT for COUNTY PLANNING and EXCEPT for the DEVELOPER (and friends of), that this project is NOT COMPATIBLE. The Commissioners' positions are yet to be determined.

Poorly put. This what you say Vagrant. Vagrant says this is not compatible and others say it is. All the "East End Boys and Girls" think it is. Vagrant, Edroedrog who do not live in Walton County believe it is not. You are really good at saying something and fooling yourself that your opinion is fact (especially when you read it in the paper). If you have a wife or husband they must have a terrible inferiority complex by now. You might be pathological though since now that you see that the letter from the County you have spoken about for months was ill-sent. Just like the letter discussed on the Seawall thread.

5. KT (and I'll add BMBCA via my opinion) refuses to join in the fight to oppose this project for (again) "selfish" reasons.

Well put. Of course, with the beach access most owners will not be walking in front of my house. Instead they either walk or bike to Lot 2 or take a shuttle to Lot 2 which is closer to the development for them than Lot 1. It will also keep people from cutting across 30A right across from their development and getting hit by a car.

6. SOOOooo, if this project passes with such problematic interpretation of the land code and for total disregard for the quiet enjoyment of private property, then what makes KT think that the county won't allow RFV to go back and use bathroom lot#1 for another project?

Confusingly put. Our private enjoyment on the east side is improved. Yours stays the same. The way I see it from standing on Lot 2 yesterday, you will never see these people until they get to the beach. We would have. From your posts,(and maybe the Walton Sun article?) you either have a condo in Blue Mtn Condos or Seabreeze which by the way part of is outside of the 300 ft from my measurements. Neither of these condos can even see Lot 2. You are just upset because people are coming to "your beach". And now you are saying that you think the County would approve Lot 1? I thought you were the one saying it was denied and Redfish lied about it being denied and advertised approval? I see you had no comment on the letter above. Nice pattern when you are proved wrong you either ignore it or start posting these goofy doctored pictures.

Just simply build a single family home on lot #1 and a walkover and always have a constant open invitation for the guests and owners of RFV to pass through the property. There's your private gated access for Redfish Village "Phase II"... nothing I know of now would prevent this. Remember when someone asked RFV if they owned any other property during the "public meeting"? This was in regards to other properties using the same access. RFV replied "Why do you want to know?" Hmmm.

Interestingly put. I would guess that if they could have done this they would have. Could it be that they went to Lot 2 because it was better for the community and their owners? That's what I think from talking to them. Why wouldn't they just sell the other lot? More of your fear tactics.

Seems to me that the "East End Boys" should have joined in this fight and squashed this whole thing all together and prevented any type of "resurgence" of this matter.

Hypocritically put. Why would I (or any other "East End Boy or Girl") fight it if I think it is the best solution for our community? The Planning Commission put it very well at the meeting. There is nothing about this that is not great for our neighborhood. Except of course that you don't want more people on the beach which of course is going to happen anyway whether they have a private or public beach access. Why can't I fight just as hard as you here FOR IT if it takes people off my road and improves my private enjoyment. You need to admit you are as selfish as I am.

Now to more of your hypocrisy. VAGRANT IF YOU ARE SERVING A HIGHER PURPOSE AND BLAMING ME, BMBCA, SWCC, ANITA PAGE, RICHARD FOWLKES, PAT BLACKSHEAR NOW AND IN YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS FOR NOT FIGHTING THIS, WHY HAVEN'T YOU POSTED AS VIGOROUSLY (OR AT ALL?) ON THE NATUREWALK BEACH CLUB THREAD? Because you have your personal opinion about what is right and wrong in your "own backyard" and that's all. You just happen to have a forum here and in the Walton Sun to push your point (which you have done very well). That doesn't mean you are right.

Oh well. I tried to do the right thing for our neighborhood. Let's see if the Commissioners will tomorrow.

Just a reminder...
Commissioners Meeting, Tuesday, January 23rd (today) at 4:00 in DeFuniak Springs

Thanks.

 

[Smiling JOe]

...

6. SOOOooo, if this project passes with such problematic interpretation of the land code and for total disregard for the quiet enjoyment of private property, then what makes KT think that the county won't allow RFV to go back and use bathroom lot#1 for another project?
...

very good point, Vagrant.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I was wondering when the Girl Scouts were going to be dragged into this! I promise the Daisies will not make any promises about cookies that can't be delivered. I you want Thin Mints, then you will get Thin Mints.

I wish for you all that this RFV mess was as simple as selling GS cookies.

What happens if the storage facility for all of the Thin Mints were to catch on fire and all of the Thin Mints were destroyed before delivery? The buyers of the Thin Mints could keep their money. It is fairly simple, people just make it complicated.

As for the access, in my opinion, lot #2 is not zoned properly for part of a development project for an 80 unit condo. Redfish Village developers could have more easily resolved this issue by buying lot #1 or #2, built public restrooms and public walkover, before donating it to the County, with all maintanance and repairs to be made and paid for by Redfish Village.

 

[Kevin Thompson]

The irony of that is fantastic. We have spent a month arguing about whether the County denied Lot 1. Am I hearing draw a conclusion that if an Infill project is found compatible then Redfish will get to build bathrooms on Lot 1?

 

[John R]

As for the access, in my opinion, lot #2 is not zoned properly for part of a development project for an 80 unit condo. Redfish Village developers could have more easily resolved this issue by buying lot #1 or #2, built public restrooms and public walkover, before donating it to the County, with all maintanance and repairs to be made and paid for by Redfish Village.

careful, pretty close to what i suggested, and I have been labeled a supporter of the project. Don't allow yourself to be thrown in with the likes of me. Someone in BMB would have a problem with that idea, and the barbs would be flying.