County sued for $3 Million+

[wrobert]

Many months ago (when it was first being proposed and we were discussing it on Sowal) I brought up the issue of this project and the height ordinance with one of the county commissioners. I was told that the project had so many problems and issues that it would never happen - it was such a mess that building height was the least of the developer's concerns.

I think this points out a popular misconception about County Commissioners. No single commissioner can say with certainty anything is going to or not going to happen in the future, since that single commissioner has no power on their own.

 

[wrobert]

Thanks, SJ. I will. Just interesting that news stories on any development usually fail to list the names associated with these LLCs. While some wise sages like you and others know who these folks usually are, many don't. The extra transparency might give a more complete picture to the general public.

Now my curiosity is aroused. Since the public's concern should be, imho, one of property rights, the taken of, and compatibility with the area, what in the world has the name of who is making the investment, taking all the risks, and standing to reap the rewards for driving the local economy got to do with it?

 

[wrobert]

It's double edged. Either you operate as an entity or you don't. Florida and Walton County mandate qualified business licenses for certain activities. When properly registered, the individual is not the applicant, the entity is. It has its own taxpayer ID and legal status.

Please specify what it is that Walton County mandates you have a qualified business license for that is not also mandated by the State. Since Walton County does not have an Occupational Tax (license) ordinance, I would be interested.

 

[wrobert]

Today, with the need for more complete and honest financial disclosure, someone will surely research and reveal possible problems lurking within these organizations. Again, most are certainly fine and upstanding individuals. It just might be good to know for future public spending and planning. With Florida's broad Open Meeting Laws, all this secrecy with LLCs seems less than optimum procedure since they are usually seeking public and governmental action. Some in our area have proven themselves quite adept at meeting a thin legal threshold, while breaking the public trust and occassional law.

You are painting a lot of fine organizations with a broad brush. Care to be more specific? It is the county that is allowing the letters of credit to expire, it is the county that is not forcing the LLCs to complete the projects, it is the county that is leaving future homeowners high and dry. Hard to fault a group for not following a law that the county is not enforcing.

 

[wrobert]

SmilingJoe posted the ultimate tool in transparency in Florida. It takes just a minute to check most any organizations ownership interests.

I can tell you from my persepctive that about 7 years ago a complaint was lodged against my construction firm for not having my corporation registered as a corporation. In order to satisfy the Order of the DBPR I had to qualify my corporation and permit in its name instead of my personal name. It took quite a while to perfect their Order.

An unnecessary law that resulted in the reduction in worker's comp insurance by an average of what? 50%? Those are the sort of laws I can live with.

 

[scooterbug44]

I think this points out a popular misconception about County Commissioners. No single commissioner can say with certainty anything is going to or not going to happen in the future, since that single commissioner has no power on their own.

They didn't say what they or the County Commissioners as a whole were going to do, or what was going to happen in the future, they told me the project was such a clusterf*** I shouldn't waste my time worrying about it - big difference!

Yes, if you build a tall building on that site you will have a view, but that doesn't make the site conducive or cost-effective for ACTUALLY building there. :roll:

 

[wrobert]

They didn't say what they or the County Commissioners as a whole were going to do, or what was going to happen in the future, they told me the project was such a clusterf*** I shouldn't waste my time worrying about it - big difference!

Yes, if you build a tall building on that site you will have a view, but that doesn't make the site conducive or cost-effective for ACTUALLY building there. :roll:

So the county should turn it down because, in their opinion, it is not cost effective? I watched the BCC turn down a land use change a month or so back because they stated they did not believe the property owner had the financing to convert to commercial. How they reached this conclusion without looking at the owner's financials is beyond me. What is scary is the guy does dress a bit poorly. I certainly would hate to think that his project was turned down due to the some misconception brought on by what he wears.

But again, a decision without evidence, another lawsuit for the taxpayers.

 

[scooterbug44]

Sorry, I was responding to 2 separate ideas - your CC comment and the argument in this thread about whether the project was feasible because there was a view/horizon discussion.

The developers are just wasting OUR tax dollars with this suit in an effort to profit. :angry:

 

[wrobert]

Sorry, I was responding to 2 separate ideas - your CC comment and the argument in this thread about whether the project was feasible because there was a view/horizon discussion.

The developers are just wasting OUR tax dollars with this suit in an effort to profit. :angry:

If it is a slam dunk, against the code, they are just grasping for straw suit, then when they lose they should have to pay the costs all the way around. That to me would help control some of this litigation.

But I am still not convinced. While at one time a was for height limitations, I have flip flopped the other way. The more I read about property rights the more I believe that height limits are nothing more than a way for other people to control what you do on your land without having to buy your land. That is a taking and someone should pay.

And compatibility in that area? There is nothing there, if that is going to be the issue then there will always be nothing there.

 

[scooterbug44]

Limiting building heights to 50' doesn't control what you do to your property and isn't an infringement of your rights!

We have building codes, zoning, and laws for a reason! Just because you want to do something doesn't mean it is a right, and just because someone with a broader view and some common sense wants to make rules (that apply to everyone BTW) doesn't mean they are trampling your liberties!