Walton County Commissioners to Consider County-Wide Height Limits, May 26 2009

[Smiling JOe]

Walton County Commissioners to Consider County-Wide Height Limits at tonight's BCC Meeting in Defuniak Springs. I wonder why no one is talking about this.

[scooterbug44]

Probably because I've been wanting them to pass a county-wide height ordinance and most are still recovering from the long weekend.

[kkddbb]

Im all for it! Im in the construction industry and want to see the work, but I also dont want some bully developer building a highrise next to a residential neighborhood like on PCB. Besides, this will just force developers and the project designers to think outside the box. God forbid

[wrobert]

Walton County Commissioners to Consider County-Wide Height Limits at tonight's BCC Meeting in Defuniak Springs. I wonder why no one is talking about this.

I think the freedom fighters have all realized we lost.

[scooterbug44]

I think the freedom fighters have all realized we lost.

OR, the developers/officials they have bought are too busy w/ indictments and foreclosures to make a fuss about common sense legislation.

[NotDeadYet]

I wonder why no one is talking about this.

Haven't we already been there and done that? More than once? Who remembers what happened the last time??

[wrobert]

Haven't we already been there and done that? More than once? Who remembers what happened the last time??

Someone stood up from Choctaw Beach and threatened them with multiple Bert Harris claims and they backed down.

[SWGB]

Well there goes my plans for Paxton Towers and the Freeport Trade Center.

/sarcasm off/

[Everytime]

Has anyone heard updates from this meeting? I hope the plan isn't to increase the 30-A height limit to that in the Miramar Beach area.

[wrobert]

Has anyone heard updates from this meeting? I hope the plan isn't to increase the 30-A height limit to that in the Miramar Beach area.

The only talk has been to make the height limitation county wide, thus seizing the value of peoples property without compensation.

[scooterbug44]

The only talk has been to make the height limitation county wide, thus seizing the value of peoples property without compensation.

OR, to preserve and increase property values with smart growth and planning.

[passin thru]

OR, to preserve and increase property values with smart growth and planning.

Yes, what an example of perspective >> perception. Is it taking rights away, or the smartest thing we could do? The latter, I believe.

Let's not be just like everyone else, OK? Because, if we were, then we'd be just like everyone else, get it? What is the greatest single beneficial difference between 30a SoWal, and west SoWal & SoBay & SoOka? The height limit.

[wrobert]

Yes, what an example of perspective >> perception. Is it taking rights away, or the smartest thing we could do? The latter, I believe.

Let's not be just like everyone else, OK? Because, if we were, then we'd be just like everyone else, get it? What is the greatest single beneficial difference between 30a SoWal, and west SoWal & SoBay & SoOka? The height limit.

And how is it beneficial? I can no more see the gulf standing in the shadow of a fifty building than I can in the shadow of a 150 foot building.

[SWGB]

And how is it beneficial? I can no more see the gulf standing in the shadow of a fifty building than I can in the shadow of a 150 foot building.

What is a fifty building?

The point is that PCB, Destin, and FWB will all go through the Ft. Lauderdale/Miami syndrome very soon.

Back in the 50's and 60's those areas boomed and built condos and towers that were assumed to be there forever. Fast forward to the 80's and 90's and those buildings were torn down to build even higher buildings. Without a height limitation the buildings will continue to get higher and therefore dilute the property value.

The local areas listed above started out with buildings in the 10 story range and have during the boom capped out at around 30 stories. In 20-30 years the remaining 10 story buildings will come down and higher buildings will go in without a height limitation. Meanwhile the neighborhoods of South Walton (WaterColor, WaterSound, Alys, Rosemary, Seagrove, Dune Allen, BMB, etc.) will have the same number of homes with no way to dilute the property value by building up.

If you follow this scenario unrestricted height actually robs a property owner of their property value.

[Everytime]

But, wrobert, don't property values tend to run higher in SoWal than in similar parts of Bay and Okaloosa Counties? I would think that the denisty factor created by the recent high rise revolution in the PCB area is probably dilluting the value of condo units (and possibly surrounding properties) in that area, while the "scarcity of real estate" factor has been a value enhancer for property owners in the 30-A area. And no, I haven't done detailed research on this, but it has been my observation of the respective markets.

And edited to add: I agree with SWGB.

[wrobert]

What is a fifty building?

The point is that PCB, Destin, and FWB will all go through the Ft. Lauderdale/Miami syndrome very soon.

Back in the 50's and 60's those areas boomed and built condos and towers that were assumed to be there forever. Fast forward to the 80's and 90's and those buildings were torn down to build even higher buildings. Without a height limitation the buildings will continue to get higher and therefore dilute the property value.

The local areas listed above started out with buildings in the 10 story range and have during the boom capped out at around 30 stories. In 20-30 years the remaining 10 story buildings will come down and higher buildings will go in without a height limitation. Meanwhile the neighborhoods of South Walton (WaterColor, WaterSound, Alys, Rosemary, Seagrove, Dune Allen, BMB, etc.) will have the same number of homes with no way to dilute the property value by building up.

If you follow this scenario unrestricted height actually robs a property owner of their property value.

I know. You are from the government and here to help. I am so happy that people who do not own property that is conducive to higher heights can decide for those that do what is best for them.

[wrobert]

But, wrobert, don't property values tend to run higher in SoWal than in similar parts of Bay and Okaloosa Counties? I would think that the denisty factor created by the recent high rise revolution in the PCB area is probably dilluting the value of condo units (and possibly surrounding properties) in that area, while the "scarcity of real estate" factor has been a value enhancer for property owners in the 30-A area. And no, I haven't done detailed research on this, but it has been my observation of the respective markets.

And edited to add: I agree with SWGB.

Scarcity does increase property value in dollars. But is it not the decision of the property owner rather or not they want a tall building?

[Smiling JOe]

The only talk has been to make the height limitation county wide, thus seizing the value of peoples property without compensation.

I disagree with your thought that it will seize the value of property. Watering down the soup may make more available for the masses, but it will also cause the flavor intensity to decrease, thereby eventually decreasing the demand, and thus decreasing value.

Density isn't decreasing, so one's right to maximize density per Land-Use Code is not changed. If density was being decreased, then I think you might have a more valid point of property value being decreased.

[Smiling JOe]

I can no more see the gulf standing in the shadow of a fifty building than I can in the shadow of a 150 foot building.

You are seeing it all from a person on the ground's perspective. When you are on the fourth floor of a four story house, the shadow of a fifty foot building may hit differently on the surrounding homes, than would the shadow of a 150ft tall building.

[Smiling JOe]

One last thing, we are talking about property north of the Bay in Walton County. If we cannot sell the 2000+ existing homesites, with many more already planned, how do unlimited building heights affect surrounding property of someone wanting to build a high rise condo, in a rural area? Do you really think that putting a height limitation decreases property? Do you think that owning real estate gives you unlimited access to the air? The Federal Gov't disagrees with you, if you do.

[SWGB]

I know. You are from the government and here to help. I am so happy that people who do not own property that is conducive to higher heights can decide for those that do what is best for them.

I'm as much a part of the government as you are, being a US citizen. Exactly how many people north of the bay are screaming for high rises? What if I come up to Defuniak, buy a house on the lake, tear it down, and build one of those nice 150 foot buildings you like so much?

[Lynnie]

Scenic Corridor is four storeys or fifty feet right? We aren't changing that, are we?

[Everytime]

Scarcity does increase property value in dollars. But is it not the decision of the property owner rather or not they want a tall building?

I see what you are saying as to it being the decision of the propperty owner whether they want a tall building on their parcel. It seems that you do not think that neighboring parcel owners should have any say in the development or usage of property around them. Would you be open to someone buying residential property next door to your primary residence to house a small outdoor hog farm?

[Beach Runner]

Hubby and I have spent years fighting to keep our part of SoWal just as it was when we first visited about 10 years ago. We love the low-rise nature of most neighborhoods south of 30A, and we used the compatibilty requirement of the Land Development Code to successfully block a proposed high-density, 50' high (incompatible with the 37' height restriction in the surrounding area) development.

That is, relative to the surrounding neighborhood with strongest consideration given to those subdivisions that are adjacent to the parcel, a proposed development should:
1. Maintain a similar density.
2. Complement the general building type.
3. Complement the general building style.
4. Maintain and complement the fundamental development pattern considering lot dimension and spacing.
5. Maintain a similar scale and mass.
6. Be consistent with the extent of parking.
7. Be consistent with open space.

We are interested in continuing to do what we can to keep the 30A area from becoming another Destin. If you know of meetings that we can attend to achieve that goal, please PM me.

[wrobert]

I see what you are saying as to it being the decision of the propperty owner whether they want a tall building on their parcel. It seems that you do not think that neighboring parcel owners should have any say in the development or usage of property around them. Would you be open to someone buying residential property next door to your primary residence to house a small outdoor hog farm?

Good point. My land is agriculture and yes, I would be concerned if a hog farm or a chicken house were to be built next door. What would upset me most is having to find some other place to live, or the time it would take from my nights as I worked to eliminate the offending problem. I did purchase a large enough tract of land though that it may not be as much of an issue as I initially think.

But is this not the problem that you have purchasing land that is not restricted in some way? I remember going to meetings where people would by land in unrestricted subdivisions and then come and complain when businesses would be built next to them. And watched a lady break down and cry one night because they were going to build a motel on Hwy 98 in Miramar.

So how far does one go with those sort of things?

[wrobert]

I disagree with your thought that it will seize the value of property. Watering down the soup may make more available for the masses, but it will also cause the flavor intensity to decrease, thereby eventually decreasing the demand, and thus decreasing value.

Density isn't decreasing, so one's right to maximize density per Land-Use Code is not changed. If density was being decreased, then I think you might have a more valid point of property value being decreased.

True. So if density stays restrictive then why do we need a height limitation? Just another rule that we must comply with?

I argued this point at length with the person in Choctaw Beach. She has a small lot on the Bay and threatened to sue the county if they restrict height for devaluing her property. But the density is still really low in that area, so I do not see how she would ever even want to build something over 50'.

[wrobert]

You are seeing it all from a person on the ground's perspective. When you are on the fourth floor of a four story house, the shadow of a fifty foot building may hit differently on the surrounding homes, than would the shadow of a 150ft tall building.

So I can not build my building high because you might build your building high?

[wrobert]

I'm as much a part of the government as you are, being a US citizen. Exactly how many people north of the bay are screaming for high rises? What if I come up to Defuniak, buy a house on the lake, tear it down, and build one of those nice 150 foot buildings you like so much?

Would you hire me to do the network wiring or are you one of those wireless guys?

Either way, knock yourself out. If you think that is what you want to do, then go for it. But what if I wanted to build a 100' tall motel in Mossy Head? Is that such a bad thing out by the Interstate?

[wrobert]

Scenic Corridor is four storeys or fifty feet right? We aren't changing that, are we?

No. The scenic corridor does need to extend to Old 98 though. That place looks worse than Destin.

[NotDeadYet]

The height limitation south of the bay is separate from the Scenic Corridor stuff. The height limitation went into effect in 1993 in the land development code. The reason we still have high rises going up in Miramar is because of grandfathering. There are still a few with vested rights that have not been built yet. But you cannot buy a piece of property in Miramar today and put up a high rise unless it is a site with vested rights. Edgewater sued to stop the one that went up to the east of it - the lawsuit was in the courts for years and the vested rights were finally affirmed. I believe that was the last parcel not within a DRI. The rest of the grandfathered high rises are within DRI's like Sandestin.

[Everytime]

Good point. My land is agriculture and yes, I would be concerned if a hog farm or a chicken house were to be built next door. What would upset me most is having to find some other place to live, or the time it would take from my nights as I worked to eliminate the offending problem. I did purchase a large enough tract of land though that it may not be as much of an issue as I initially think.

But another issue could be the detriment the hog farm causes to your property value (and I was thinking more in terms of if you lived in a residentially zoned subdivision).

But is this not the problem that you have purchasing land that is not restricted in some way? I remember going to meetings where people would by land in unrestricted subdivisions and then come and complain when businesses would be built next to them. And watched a lady break down and cry one night because they were going to build a motel on Hwy 98 in Miramar.

So how far does one go with those sort of things?

But that's just it: the land along 30-A IS restricted - by statutory height restrictions. Owners, buyers, investors, etc. know that if they do their due diligence. Now as far as Okaloosa or Bay counties where such restrictions don't exist, I say knock yourself out; build them to the skies. But the restrictions don't allow it along the 30-A corridor; it's a different approach to planning that seems to be pretty successful.

I stayed at one of those Phoenix high rises in Orange Beach over part f Spring Break, and it was very nice; several pools, nice balcony view,etc., and I stayed at the Emerald Towers in Destin one weekend which was also nice. But the laid-back community feel and appearance of 30-A is something that those places can't match.

If the height restrictions were to be rescinded, and numerous high rises were built along 30-A, which already has traffic issues during peak weekends and season, what would need to be done about traffic management? It's a 2-lane plus multi-use path all the way through. It could create a need for wider roads in certain areas, but I certainly don't see you as the type to advocate eminent domain; talk about a private property rights issue that gets ugly...

[wrobert]

But another issue could be the detriment the hog farm causes to your property value (and I was thinking more in terms of if you lived in a residentially zoned subdivision).





But that's just it: the land along 30-A IS restricted - by statutory height restrictions. Owners, buyers, investors, etc. know that if they do their due diligence. Now as far as Okaloosa or Bay counties where such restrictions don't exist, I say knock yourself out; build them to the skies. But the restrictions don't allow it along the 30-A corridor; it's a different approach to planning that seems to be pretty successful.

I stayed at one of those Phoenix high rises in Orange Beach over part f Spring Break, and it was very nice; several pools, nice balcony view,etc., and I stayed at the Emerald Towers in Destin one weekend which was also nice. But the laid-back community feel and appearance of 30-A is something that those places can't match.

If the height restrictions were to be rescinded, and numerous high rises were built along 30-A, which already has traffic issues during peak weekends and season, what would need to be done about traffic management? It's a 2-lane plus multi-use path all the way through. It could create a need for wider roads in certain areas, but I certainly don't see you as the type to advocate eminent domain; talk about a private property rights issue that gets ugly...

Well they are not going to rescind the height limitation in sowal. Actually if something had a public purpose then I have no problem with eminent domain. I am against using it for economic development or to increase the tax base. I am very much against taking property rights away without compensating the owner.

But again, I doubt I ever live to see the day that the Walton County BCC uses eminent domain. They are just now going to start making people pay their taxes. Something that they have NEVER done in the past.

[NotDeadYet]

They are just now going to start making people pay their taxes. Something that they have NEVER done in the past. __________________

What is your basis for this statement??
Do you mean all these years I have been paying taxes and I really didn't have to??
The county has been selling tax certificates and issuing tax deeds for as long as I can remember. Or did you mean some other kind of tax??

[wrobert]

What is your basis for this statement??
Do you mean all these years I have been paying taxes and I really didn't have to??
The county has been selling tax certificates and issuing tax deeds for as long as I can remember. Or did you mean some other kind of tax??

Tax certificates that failed to sell, and there were 4 million dollars worth a couple of years ago, are struck to the BCC who, as of yet, have ever foreclosed. After seven years they go away. So if you do not pay your taxes and no one buys the certificate, after seven years it is clear. So to answer your first question, public records and research that members of the WCTA are doing as part of our transparency in government project and the second question would be yes unless someone bought the certificate.

[NotDeadYet]

Really?

[wrobert]

Really?

I was amazed. Think about this though. By not collecting those taxes not only is the BCC being shorted but so is the mosquito control district, fire district, and school district. I believe that the mosquito control district has requested that the county pay them what they have been shorted since they are not collecting them. My understanding is the wheels are starting to turn and now they are looking into the collection of them. But to make up 4 million dollars, that equates to a 1/4 mill of your total tax bill in additional taxes you are paying since others are not. Not a whole lot of money, but it is a fairness issue, imho.

[scooterbug44]

Tax certificates that failed to sell, and there were 4 million dollars worth a couple of years ago, are struck to the BCC who, as of yet, have ever foreclosed. After seven years they go away. So if you do not pay your taxes and no one buys the certificate, after seven years it is clear. So to answer your first question, public records and research that members of the WCTA are doing as part of our transparency in government project and the second question would be yes unless someone bought the certificate.

WHAT!!!!
That certainly needs to change ASAP!

[Bob Wells]

So are you saying robert, that even though the owner/ mortgage holder have not paid we have never attempted to collect. In the case of a company holding a lien are they responsible for the taxes? How many of these properties are multi year tax dodgers?

[wrobert]

So are you saying robert, that even though the owner/ mortgage holder have not paid we have never attempted to collect. In the case of a company holding a lien are they responsible for the taxes? How many of these properties are multi year tax dodgers?

This tax thing is nothing if not the most confusing thing I have ever been involved in. I have had people from the tax collectors office as well as those that invest in tax certificates explain it to me and it still took quite a bit before I felt like I understood. Keep in mind that not everyone escrows their taxes. The actual management of this county tax structure has been seriously lacking in the past. For example, for years, a Democrat held the office of Tax Collector. While she was in office, we did not enforce several tax collection rules. When Republican Rhonda Skipper took over she immediately started working on putting fairness back into the system so that everyone would pay their share. But in the circumstances relating to these tax certificates, all that her office could do is notify the BCC, it is there duty to pursue. That was not being done. I understand that now that is in the process of being changed. Since the certificates do not expire for seven years, we have time to recoup the two year old 4 million dollars that is outstanding. Since property values in 2002 were just beginning to ramp up, and taxes were relatively lower, I doubt that the dollars we have lost in the past were significant. But fair is fair. If everyone pays then everyone suddenly becomes concerned about the level of spending.

[Bob Wells]

I realize that not everyone does but I would venture to guess a letter to the mortgage holder unless it is owned outright would get a swift response especiallt if a forclosure notice was attatched. As for the failure to pay, are any of the homes, if you know currently in foreclosure? Oh and as for whether a Republican or Democrat followed the rules, can we avoid the STONES because I would venture to guess that we could find errors/ oversights/ omissions in just about any politician. As for Rhonda Skipper, I voted for her and trust she is doing the job currently. Robert, I don't always agree with your post, but you do have an interesting way in presenting some info.

[Andy A]

I realize that not everyone does but I would venture to guess a letter to the mortgage holder unless it is owned outright would get a swift response especiallt if a forclosure notice was attatched. As for the failure to pay, are any of the homes, if you know currently in foreclosure? Oh and as for whether a Republican or Democrat followed the rules, can we avoid the STONES because I would venture to guess that we could find errors/ oversights/ omissions in just about any politician. As for Rhonda Skipper, I voted for her and trust she is doing the job currently. Robert, I don't always agree with your post, but you do have an interesting way in presenting some info.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with mentioning whether an elected public offical was doing their job or not. While it might not matter to you, FF2, what the party affiliation was, it is of interest to me. It is not a matter of "STONES" it is a matter of transparency in government, something sorely needed regardless of party affiliation.

[NotDeadYet]

I have to agree with FF. The way Robert has phrased this, it appears as if he is trying to imply that the previous tax collector failed to do the job because of party affiliation, while the current one is doing the job, because of a different party affiliation.
I think we all know that both political parties have produced incompetents and crooks. There is nothing wrong with being interested in party affiliation, but using it as the reason for all ills is shortsighted. It's just one factor, imho, especially at the local level, where you just about have to be a Republican to get elected these days, whereas that did not used to be the case in Walton County.

[wrobert]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with mentioning whether an elected public offical was doing their job or not. While it might not matter to you, FF2, what the party affiliation was, it is of interest to me. It is not a matter of "STONES" it is a matter of transparency in government, something sorely needed regardless of party affiliation.

Guys I am a realist. With the way things are going on today, anytime I can mention that a Republican is doing what they are suppose to be doing, I am going to do it. We need all the help we can get.

[Bob Wells]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with mentioning whether an elected public offical was doing their job or not. While it might not matter to you, FF2, what the party affiliation was, it is of interest to me. It is not a matter of "STONES" it is a matter of transparency in government, something sorely needed regardless of party affiliation.

What I was implying lets not throw "STONES" because there have been plenty to throw on both sides. As for transparency I can't disagree with you more, I just felt Robert was being a little partisan.

[Andy A]

What I was implying lets not throw "STONES" because there have been plenty to throw on both sides. As for transparency I can't disagree with you more, I just felt Robert was being a little partisan.

And you don't agree that whether a public official was doing their job or not important? I don't care what the party affiliation is, was or will be, I want to know if someone is slacking off on my tax dollar.

[shellak]

The only talk has been to make the height limitation county wide, thus seizing the value of peoples property without compensation.

whether you believe it or not, the value of your property will be higher if there are height limits and development is controlled. recently, a news show did a story on a town that had such restrictions, and their property values stayed high. supply and demand. if you have too many properties built and not enough buyers, guess what happens??? our area is a perfect example of development gone wild and sinking property values.

[wrobert]

whether you believe it or not, the value of your property will be higher if there are height limits and development is controlled. recently, a news show did a story on a town that had such restrictions, and their property values stayed high. supply and demand. if you have too many properties built and not enough buyers, guess what happens??? our area is a perfect example of development gone wild and sinking property values.

I do not believe it. If that were the case then why would developers even build high rises? Am I suppose to believe that they are not for maximizing their investment?

[wrobert]

And you don't agree that whether a public official was doing their job or not important? I don't care what the party affiliation is, was or will be, I want to know if someone is slacking off on my tax dollar.

Why is it when an elected official does something wrong it is a Republican elected official, but if not a Republican, then it is just an elected official.

Now here I am pointing out that a Democrat elected official was doing something wrong and I am the one being partisan. The more I think about it I am thinking I was just being fair. But that does give me an idea for another project. Thanks.

[North Lake]

I do not believe it. If that were the case then why would developers even build high rises? Am I suppose to believe that they are not for maximizing their investment?

That which is scarce generally has higher value -- Econ 101.

[Everytime]

Why is it when an elected official does something wrong it is a Republican elected official, but if not a Republican, then it is just an elected official.

Now here I am pointing out that a Democrat elected official was doing something wrong and I am the one being partisan. The more I think about it I am thinking I was just being fair. But that does give me an idea for another project. Thanks.

I agree with you in this observation. Here in Alabama, people from either party are always coming under some type of criminal or ethics investigation, particularly out of the state legislature or in the City of Birmingham/Jefferson County over the past few years. Some media outlets duly note that the "charged" official is a Republican, but you have to go to the election results or the congressman/senator/commissioner's website to confirm that he or she is a Democrat.

Regarding the property value argument, my argument is that your increase of density causes the dilution of per unit property values.