County sued for $3 Million+

[Smiling JOe]

Bobby,
Lucky? Jolly Bay probably doesn't feel very Lucky. They would maybe agree with you they were Lucky if they would have been told the TRUTH from the county just ONE time in all the meetings they had with the county before the August 1 Technical Review Meeting. From 2004 till the day they were put on the TRC agenda for the August 1 meeting, the county told the taxpayers(applicants) there were no issues with the Jolly Bay project.
Jolly Bay met with county engineers and planners many times and were told in those meeting there was no height problem with the Jolly Bay site. George Newman, Greg Graham, Melissa Ward, Tim Brown and twice in two meetings With LaSeur. LaSeur told the applicant no problem with planning or zoning!

So you really have no personal interest in this? I call BS.

You insinuate that Planning Dept never had anything negative to say about this proposed project. However, testimony was given by LaSeur that she told the applicants that the original proposed height would likely be a hindrance for approval. The applicants reduced the height of the planned structure, after their meetings. That was testimony given by the applicant's representatives. The developers reduced the building height because the height WAS in fact a potential issue brought forth by Planning.

 

[idlewind]

Don't you mean "her" statement.

How in the world did I miss that? I am getting old.

 

[wrobert]

If you truly believe this, why have you attended County Commissioner meetings at all? Your words speak differently than your actions.

Sometimes that is the only place I have been able to find individuals I need to speak too. Even I admit some commissioners are not the best at returning phone calls.

 

[Smiling JOe]

In that case, are you saying that you trust government and politicians?
I don't know anyone who does that, completely.

 

[Andy A]

In that case, are you saying that you trust government and politicians?
I don't know anyone who does that, completely.

Whoa, good thing you said "copletely". Our local Commissioners are pretty decent and I think they have the overall good of the citizens at heart. I understand and agree with what you are saying, particularly at the national level but I don't think that necessarily relates to local politicians.

 

[Matt J]

Whoa, good thing you said "copletely". Our local Commissioners are pretty decent and I think they have the overall good of the citizens at heart. I understand and agree with what you are saying, particularly at the national level but I don't think that necessarily relates to local politicians.

In my experience a politician with 100% public trust is most likely the corrupt one. Questioning authority isn't always a bad thing. If our founding fathers hadn't questioned authority there would be a member of royalty on your cash.

 

[Andy A]

In my experience a politician with 100% public trust is most likely the corrupt one. Questioning authority isn't always a bad thing. If our founding fathers hadn't questioned authority there would be a member of royalty on your cash.

Question, yes. To indicate corruptness without any proof, no. Just because our nation was created by a revolution does not mean we should have another one every time someone's whims are not met.

 

[Jim Tucker]

The disgruntled developer has the same story as thousands of others. Remember "the buck stops here"? The buck doesn't stop at the planning department. The planning department is a blender.

 

[Matt J]

Question, yes. To indicate corruptness without any proof, no. Just because our nation was created by a revolution does not mean we should have another one every time someone's whims are not met.

I never said (in this thread) that we should have a revolution. I just said it's never bad to question authority. Questioning authority isn't the same as a revolution or anarchy, it's actually a good thing to do from time to time.

 

[Dragnet]

So you really have no personal interest in this? I call BS.

You insinuate that Planning Dept never had anything negative to say about this proposed project. However, testimony was given by LaSeur that she told the applicants that the original proposed height would likely be a hindrance for approval. The applicants reduced the height of the planned structure, after their meetings. That was testimony given by the applicant's representatives. The developers reduced the building height because the height WAS in fact a potential issue brought forth by Planning.

WRONG!!!!!! Staff report given to the Technical Review Board Aug. 2007 after two years of meeting with the planning department states in writing, no compatibility study needed, no height restriction for this project, no neighborhood meeting required, I'm sure the applicants would have been required to do these things before they were allowed to move forward to TRC if planning had put it in their report. I'm sure it takes a lot of time and money to prepare a project to the county's liking before they will let it move forward to TRC. Look up Rural VILLAGE, the rules are all there. If planning had a problem don't you think it would they would have made SOME mention of it.