County sued for $3 Million+

[Matt J]

I understand that property rights are not absolute, however, there should be a clear and overwhelming reason to hamper a property owners right to use his property. Further, if government restricts the use of a piece of property, the government should compensate the owner for the loss of the use of his property. That is only fair.
We have too many people who want to get their slice of heaven just like they want it, then keep everyone else out. Example is the condo that sued the adjacent landowner to try and stop a development, then turns around and sues the county for preventing them from using their beach property like they want. You cannot have it both ways.

Shouldn't the property owner compensate me if he puts up a 25 story tower that leaves my home in shade 90% of day light hours?

 

[AAbsolute]

Shouldn't the property owner compensate me if he puts up a 25 story tower that leaves my home in shade 90% of day light hours?

You're funny. You have a point. Do you think it's to late to get everybody back to the table or have they set the height rule in permanent DeFuniak stone?

 

[idlewind]

Shouldn't the property owner compensate me if he puts up a 25 story tower that leaves my home in shade 90% of day light hours?

Nope, if you buy in a zone that allows high-rise development, then you have to deal with it. You cannot purchase property and then try and change the code to your liking.

If the zone does not allow for such development, then the owner of the proposed high rise would be required to ask for a change and you would have the right to oppose it.

 

[Smiling JOe]

They never called me and offered me a check. Plus since the whole BCC is supposedly made up of small government Republicans , I should not have had to go and speak out for something that they should have fundamentally been in support of. I swear if this keeps up I am switching to NPA.

So you think that the project should have been approved, regardless of what the owner wanted to do? It sure sounds that way. Forget the rules in the Code. Forget that the road to the property doesn't meet the definition of "arterial road." Forget that 50ft+ RVs, pulling 30ft Suburbans will have to come out of that road into heavy traffic. Forget that the proposed development is, according to the planners hired by the applicant, "urban," when the Land Use is designated as "rural."

I notice that you didn't attend any of the meetings, and therefore didn't listen to any testimony and evidence presented. How can you make a blanket statement that Property Rights are at the sole discretion of the name on the Deed?

 

[Matt J]

Nope, if you buy in a zone that allows high-rise development, then you have to deal with it. You cannot purchase property and then try and change the code to your liking.

If the zone does not allow for such development, then the owner of the proposed high rise would be required to ask for a change and you would have the right to oppose it.

It only "allows" high rise development because it is rural land and has no designation against it. If I purchase rural land I have a pretty good expectation that someone isn't going to build the Chrysler building next door.

 

[idlewind]

It only "allows" high rise development because it is rural land and has no designation against it. If I purchase rural land I have a pretty good expectation that someone isn't going to build the Chrysler building next door.

You know what happens when you "assume.":funn:If the code does not exclude it, then legally it is permissible. If you do not like how the designations are worded, then petition the commission to change the wording. Otherwise you are stuck with how it is.

 

[Andy A]

I notice that you didn't attend any of the meetings, and therefore didn't listen to any testimony and evidence presented. How can you make a blanket statement that Property Rights are at the sole discretion of the name on the Deed?
Probably because there is no interest in long range planning and development in mind. Only the greed of "its my property so I can do whatever I want with it regardless how it affects the rest of the citizen of the county".

 

[Dragnet]

All I see is VILLAGE, stoplight planned for three locations between the bay and hwy 20- 3280, LaGrange, and Jolly Bay. This project Passed TRC with flying colors, Planning board gave it a unanimous YES.

 

[AAbsolute]

Non-approved projects are not subject to any Code. They are simply in planning stage, prior to Final Approval, AND ONCE AGAIN, the project not being approved was not due to building height!!! What other part of the Code was changed during this project?

aabsolute, we've hashed this out many times before in the past on this board. Ownership does not entitle you to do anything you want on your property. You cannot legally make meth on your property, just because it is yours. You cannot legally dump toxic chemicals into the soil, simply because you own the property below the surface. How high or low above or below the surface, do you own anyway?

Again, why didn't any of you speak out at any of the meetings regarding this planned project? It seemed that the only people speaking in favor of it, were hired planners and attorneys, working for the property owners, plus the one neighbor who owns the adjacent property to the west, though he also spoke against it.

Smiling Joe, Your arguments are flimsy and meant to be a distraction to my questions. I have really only asked one question over and over and you won't answer it because the truth doesn't help your position. I know that the height issue is only one piece of the disagreement, but you know darn well that the County rushed the height limit ordinance through as an obstacle to this project. That's my only point and I have no other. This "ends justifies the means" bull has no place in Government. That would be to say that if you are in the in crowd that you can gain favor from Government. Walton County's back woods nonsense is going to lead to the bankruptcy of this County.

 

[wrobert]

It only "allows" high rise development because it is rural land and has no designation against it. If I purchase rural land I have a pretty good expectation that someone isn't going to build the Chrysler building next door.

No you could not expect that as density is still an issue and not one that they rushed to install to prevent someone from legally using their property.