• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
  • Hello all! We will be performing a website & forum update soon. You may get logged out so now is the time to make sure your email address in your account is correct - go to your account to check it and update it now. Send us a message with your username and/or email address if you need help.

Driftwood on the BCC Agenda

New posts
Where is that shovel?

Hey SmilingJoe, can you lend that shovel to Robert, tell him there is plenty of room in that hole with InterestedGirl.:D
 
Hey SmilingJoe, can you lend that shovel to Robert, tell him there is plenty of room in that hole with InterestedGirl.:D

I'm proud of you Alan.......keep up the fight! I was there tonight and spoke with you at the SOE office before the meeting. :clap::clap::clap:
 
Well it seems that the Sun gets it wrong again. The suit issue is on the agenda two weeks from now. The Board voted to proceed and join in the suit after it is reviewed by their attorney abd he recommends the suit would be in the counties best interest.

Put the cork back in the bottle for afew weeks. Alot can happen in two weeks.:floor:

All they actually did tonight was send a legal fee bill.

Yep - Alan I was there.

Thanks for mentioning me tonight.
 
Last edited:
And I just sit here still wondering what Alan is talking about. Maybe we changed the form of government when I was not looking. Interested girl, I must now assume that what you are saying is correct as it is what a commissioner told me happened.
 
Read your own words

Well it seems that the Sun gets it wrong again. The suit issue is on the agenda two weeks from now. The Board voted to proceed and join in the suit after it is reviewed by their attorney abd he recommends the suit would be in the counties best interest.

Put the cork back in the bottle for afew weeks. Alot can happen in two weeks.:floor:

All they actually did tonight was send a legal fee bill.

Yep - Alan I was there.

Thanks for mentioning me tonight.

"The board voted to proceed and join in the suit" I was the one who offered to let them modify parts of the suit to be "In the county's best intrest"
As for the legal fee bill, that was enforcement of an agreement with the county that I presented 4 years ago and should have been enforced years ago. I think the sun got it right. Sorry you and robert don't get it. No big surprise there, you two don't have a understanding of the issue and I don't care if you do. Wake up people and enjoy the right thing happening.
 
"The board voted to proceed and join in the suit" I was the one who offered to let them modify parts of the suit to be "In the county's best intrest"
As for the legal fee bill, that was enforcement of an agreement with the county that I presented 4 years ago and should have been enforced years ago. I think the sun got it right. Sorry you and robert don't get it. No big surprise there, you two don't have a understanding of the issue and I don't care if you do. Wake up people and enjoy the right thing happening.

I agree, I do not understand the issue. My whole comment on this thing was how a republican form of government worked, not a thing to do with what was going on in Driftwood Estates. I do not believe I have ever stated that I understood the issue.
 
What is your definition of right? Some, including many of the sitting commissioners already feel that they are doing what is right. Since we live within a Republic form of government, and seeing the way that the recent election came about, I think you good make a very strong argument that the BCC is heading in the right direction.
wrobert, I believe what paradiseat30a meant by "the BCC doing what is right," is that they hold developers accountable to do the things required by Code. In this case, the developer didn't do what was required, and have still failed. Last night, the spokesman for the developer mentioned that the lender is involved and that was an issue. (I took that to mean that the developer may not have the cash to do what was required four years ago, and it is like pulling teeth to get the lender to fork over the cash to do the work.)

Back when Commissioner Commander made the motion which was approved roughly two months ago, the motion included that if the developer had not performed "substantial" work to complete the required infrastructure in 45 days, the County might proceed with a lawsuit against the developer. This was their polite and final warning for the developer to perform. The 45 day deadline came and went without substantial work being completed. Two days ago, one day prior to the BCC meeting, they suddenly had paperwork signed off, noting that they were working on it. No evidence of substantial work completed.

As I understand it, last night, the County Commissioners were in agreement to join the suit, and County Interim Attorney, Mike Burke, stated that he couldn't, in good council, agree for the County to join a suit which he had not reviewed, so he will review the suit, and advise the BCC accordingly at the next meeting in two weeks.

A long battle was won last night. The County agreed to adhere to State Law (surprise, surprise, surprise) and send the $300,000+ bill, and all future bills, to the developer.
 
As I understand it, last night, the County Commissioners were in agreement to join the suit, and County Interim Attorney, Mike Burke, stated that he couldn't, in good council, agree for the County to join a suit which he had not reviewed, so he will review the suit, and advise the BCC accordingly at the next meeting in two weeks.

A long battle was won last night. The County agreed to adhere to State Law (surprise, surprise, surprise) and send the $300,000+ bill, and all future bills, to the developer.

Thanks. What you are saying makes sense with what I was told. So does this mean that the county is going to hold everything to the development as approved and then bill the developer for additional work that needs to be done? Considering the financial condition of many of the developers today, where does that leave the county?
 
No, wrobert. The County, by state law, must hold the developer to correct the problems. As I understand it, the County cannot repair the deficient work then send the bill to the developer. The bill and future bills, being sent to the developer, are for the legal fees, as I understand it, not any work performed.

If the County takes on the work, which was not done by the developer as required, I think the bill would be well into the millions. The County should not be using tax moneys to pay for things that a developer was required to do. As noted, the developer is supposedly in the hole, financially, so getting them to pay up now, will be nearly impossible. I'm just wondering if the lender for the project will be held accountable if the developer cannot install the infrastructure which was required prior to the development being approved.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter












                               
Back
Top