Redfish Village Beach Access

[John R]

In an effort not to trample Mr. Wise's book thread any longer, here is a new thread specifically for discussion about Redfish Village and their beach access.

So, BMBV, how did it go last night? Anything get ironed out?

[Smiling JOe]

I stopped reading the book thread after the book signing. Are you telling me that there has been discussion regarding Redfish Village Beach Access on that thread? What meeting are you talking about? Did I miss something? . Off to the book thread.

[jmschill]

Did the meeting take place?
If so does anyone know the outcome?

[SoWalSteve]

I was there. it seemed very subdued until someone named Albert raised the ire of Mr Zeitlin with questions that seemed like Albert already knew the answers to, and Mr. Zeitlin knew were coming.

Parking on Blue Mountain Rd seems to be an issue, as well as containment of all owners on the property, which everyone except the developers, admits won't happen. There's more, but I'm sure those to be affected can give more detail.

[BMBWalker]

In an effort not to trample Mr. Wise's book thread any longer, here is a new thread specifically for discussion about Redfish Village and their beach access.

So, BMBV, how did it go last night? Anything get ironed out?

John R...why don't you tell all of us how it went. I heard you were there.

[BMBWalker]

In an effort not to trample Mr. Wise's book thread any longer, here is a new thread specifically for discussion about Redfish Village and their beach access.

So, BMBV, how did it go last night? Anything get ironed out?

John R...has Redfish Village violated the Florida Statues listed below?

1. 475.25(1)(c). False, deceptive, or misleading advertising. Administrative fine of $1,000 to a 1-year suspension.

2. 475.421. Publication of false or misleading information; promotion of sales, leases, and rentals. Administrative fine of $1,000 to a 1-year suspension.

I ask you this specifically because I heard you spoke positively about this developmentand and thought it was an appropriate development and that Redfish Village was being fair in their approach.

[Smiling JOe]

John R...has Redfish Village violated the Florida Statues listed below?

1. 475.25(1)(c). False, deceptive, or misleading advertising. Administrative fine of $1,000 to a 1-year suspension.

2. 475.421. Publication of false or misleading information; promotion of sales, leases, and rentals. Administrative fine of $1,000 to a 1-year suspension.

I ask you this specifically because I heard you spoke positively about this developmentand and thought it was an appropriate development and that Redfish Village was being fair in their approach.

BMBWALKER, I don't think your questions will be answered until a decision has been reached regarding the dedicated beach access.

[John R]

John R...has Redfish Village violated the Florida Statues listed below?

1. 475.25(1)(c). False, deceptive, or misleading advertising. Administrative fine of $1,000 to a 1-year suspension.

2. 475.421. Publication of false or misleading information; promotion of sales, leases, and rentals. Administrative fine of $1,000 to a 1-year suspension.

I ask you this specifically because I heard you spoke positively about this developmentand and thought it was an appropriate development and that Redfish Village was being fair in their approach.

ok, i'll bite. this may get long.

regarding the statutes, i won't waste my time reading them since you already must have, and for some reason don't care to cite pertainent data, and i could care less if they've broken them. i'm sure they relate to some arcane real estate rules, and i guess the suspension relates to the brokers license. ho hum... but, in the sprit of fun, baiting discussion, i'll play devil's advocate. their extemely annoyingly slow, flash based site indicates that they will provide: BEACHWALK. An owners-only, private gateway and vista to the white sand beaches of the Gulf of Mexico is just a short stroll away.

based only on what i heard, since i was in the same room as those you apparently have spoken to, they(redfish) can provide the above twice, since they own two pieces of property with direct beach access. they could, if they like, erect a fence, with a coded gate, build a single width boardwalk to the beach, and call it good. seems like the least impactful to me, but i'm sure some beachfront owner would find something wrong with that scenario. i actually like this idea.

what they plan to do, is erect a contination of the redfish "experience" (steve seems locked in on this word)on their property, and construct what some architect somewhere thinks is asthetically pleasing, and hopes to get himself published with. that includes, as you know, a bike parking area, a vehicular turnaround for their delivery vehicle(i think), seperate male and female bathroom/bathhouse, and what steve states will be a single width boardwalk to the sand. i believe he also indicated that they would install tall(hopefully native) vegetation along the property lines to lessen visual impact to the adjacent neighbors. physically, looked quite pleasing, appeared to be low impact on the property(taken by itself) and as mentioned above, a continuation of what the developer is delivering north of 30a.

allow me to take a little side bar here. i have not been to the neighborhood of the property in question. i have driven by, but not taken notice of the adjacent properties, or gone down to the beach there(who knows, i could be accosted for just walking around). so, i can't comment on what things there look like. i don't know if the developers property is surrounded by garrishly colored stucco mcmansions behind metal gates with huge walls, or they're wood frame beach cottages surrounded by a picket fence. or something in between. i will make it a task to go there today, so i have a point of reference. BMBV, please don't throw heavy objects at me

ok, back. additionally, what was discussed, was the concerns of the homeowners that the entire population at 100% occupancy could be funneled through the property to the sand, and that the property could not contain all those people. as i mentioned above in another post, we all realize that will happen, and i believe i mentioned that in the meeting. the developer really never seemed to directly answer that issue. at some point mr. zeitlin mentioned that people could walk down all the south connecting streets toward the beach, and they were offering to mitigate that by running the shuttle(s). i never got the logisitics of how this will be performed, especially the return requests. there was a lady owner who lives across the street and a couple of houses down(west) who was concerned about people parking on the street. a legitimate concern that was never directly addressed either, imo.

the man albert made some statements regarding a stop work order on the 1st property, and what he felt were some dirty dealings, but i am unqualified to discuss that.

i stated that people will disperse all over the beach, and asked did the developer offer the county the money to be spent on their private lot, towards the public beach access for the inevitable increased use, and build new, or improve the existing bathhouse, access, etc. he stated that they had made that offer, and that all the county would accept was $50,000 toward improvements of the parking area. i believe it would cost less to have an employee with a radio at the public access, than maintan their proposed improved lot, but that is now moot.

there was some other discussion that i can't recall, and the developers lawyer and engineering firm(i think) were referenced for clarification a couple of times. some man made a big deal of receiving a copy of the minutes(that was a annoying exchange).

it appered that this meeting hosted by the developer, was just an open door for the neighbors to rehash what they've already discussed and throw barbs toward him, since no one really offered a working alternative.
i'm not sure how my question/suggestion to the developer was perceived as positive toward his development. and. i'm sure this post will be picked apart and taken out of context(as apparently were, my statements) thereby supplying more justification to label me as some developer friendly, pinko commie, johnny come lately, artsy fartsy, homo loving, nonbeachfront owning surfrider menber...

i can't believe i wasted so much time on this since i was in the same room as your (i think)friends, none of which have the balls to comment to date, when i was hoping to hear the neighbors state if they got any issues answered. i thought i had no stake in this issue, but another board member clarified it for me. he posed the scenario of an owls head type community buying up 4,5,6,7 lots and bringing down their population of 1200 homes and what would happen then. so, this is kind of a prescident(sp?) setting issue. either way, i can envision it turning into a bunch of little feifdoms with signs in the sand saying private, where one's neighbors are literally not in my backyard.

were you there? if not, in the future, please do not call me out on topics that you do not have first hand knowledge of. please run back to the clique and report, but report accurately thanks.

[Beachbummett]

I was there. it seemed very subdued until someone named Albert raised the ire of Mr Zeitlin with questions that seemed like Albert already knew the answers to, and Mr. Zeitlin knew were coming.

Parking on Blue Mountain Rd seems to be an issue, as well as containment of all owners on the property, which everyone except the developers, admits won't happen. There's more, but I'm sure those to be affected can give more detail.

Ok SoWalSteve...since you were there please give us more details. What were the questions asked of Mr. Zeitlin by the man named Albert? What were Mr. Zeitlin's answers? We need more details.

[Jim Tucker]

the scenario of an owls head type community buying up 4,5,6,7 lots and bringing down their population of 1200 homes and what would happen then. so, this is kind of a prescident(sp?) setting issue. either way, i can envision it turning into a bunch of little feifdoms with signs in the sand saying private, where one's neighbors are literally not in my backyard.

This idea is very worrisome and should concern everyone who is interested in the public/privtae beach issue, beach access, and property rights.

In addition to what they're proposing not being compatible with surrounding uses, it is a bad idea for a private access for 80 units, or 1200. Next thing you know, large inland developments will be buying gulf front lots with hundreds or thousands of private users. Even buying small old condos and knocking them down for their private access clubs if needed.

The gulf front lot in question is zoned infill which allows for 8 units. So lets say that is accepeted as an acceptable use. What the developer is proposing is a use with TEN TIMES the impact (80 units).

The county should see this easily and deny the request. It shouldn't have gotten this far and is a waste of everyone's time and money.

[Smiling JOe]

This idea is very worrisome and should concern everyone who is interested in the public/privtae beach issue, beach access, and property rights.

In addition to what they're proposing not being compatible with surrounding uses, it is a bad idea for a private access for 80 units, or 1200. Next thing you know, large inland developments will be buying gulf front lots with hundreds or thousands of private users. Even buying small old condos and knocking them down for their private access clubs if needed.

The gulf front lot in question is zoned infill which allows for 8 units. So lets say that is accepeted as an acceptable use. What the developer is proposing is a use with TEN TIMES the impact (80 units).

The county should see this easily and deny the request. It shouldn't have gotten this far and is a waste of everyone's time and money.

The subject lot is zoned NPA Infill, according to the developers (I have not verified), but that allows for 8 units per acre. This property is listed having an area of .76 acres, according to the Walton PA's records, which would allow for a maximum of only 6 units on this lot. Of course, the units would have to be within the setbacks, so that number might dwindle even further. Also, keep in mind that the County will not always allow for maximum density. Anyway, I understand your point, and just wanted to slightly correct/clarify your statement.

It is my opinion that the Developers prematurely spoke regarding this private beach access issue, and it could cause an escape for every person who has a reservation. That will be exciting for some people, but will be devastating for the lenders and the developers.

IMO, their the opponents of this beach access/restrooms need not focus further than NPA-Infill requiring compatability, and this private access for 80 condo units will not be compatable to the surrounding properties, which are single family residences.

As for your last paragraph, it isn't so simple because money seems to get in the way of following the law, and the spirit of the law, in this County.

[Camp Creek Kid]

This is the same issue that may come up regarding Nature Walk and its purchase of the Seagrove Villas for a beach access. Granted, the zoning may be different and the number of units at Seagrove Villas already using the beach at the location is obviously more than a vacant lot. However, considering the Owl's Head scenario, it does make for future problems.

The private beach access is strictly for prestigue (and marketing). As for issues like Owl's Head or other developments that do not have easy direct access, the county needs to utilize existing public accesses and come up with how to address parking, etc. Existing parking is not sufficient and it will become a bigger and bigger problem

[John R]

The gulf front lot in question is zoned infill which allows for 8 units. So lets say that is accepeted as an acceptable use. What the developer is proposing is a use with TEN TIMES the impact (80 units).

Jim45, thanks for bringing this point up. i completely forgot to mention it, and it is quite high on the list of why the neighbors claim the incompatibility.

i went down to BMB yesterday, and after i showed my papers, was granted beach access, for 10 minutes. i keed, i keed... i did get some pictures though. i think i have the property in question figured out.

this must be the property in question:
sorry in not in focus


bordered by:
this


and this



BMB sure is nice



seemed kind of quiet though

[BMBWalker]

John R...as I said in our earlier communication this morning, I am surprised to learn that you did not know where the property is or what it looks like since you apparently spoke up positively for the Redfish Village proposal in the community meeting last week

[Smiling JOe]

John R...as I said in our earlier communication this morning, I am surprised to learn that you did not know where the property is or what it looks like since you apparently spoke up positively for the Redfish Village proposal in the community meeting last week

So John R is for putting creating access for 80 units in an area of single family homes and small condo units? Wow! John R, you should be ashamed. Who wouold have ever guessed? I wish I could have heard John R's statements at that meeting. Maybe I can get a copy of the transcript.

[John R]

John R...as I said in our earlier communication this morning, I am surprised to learn that you did not know where the property is or what it looks like since you apparently spoke up positively for the Redfish Village proposal in the community meeting last week

c'mon, you're killing me here. did you not read my extensive post, written pretty much for your benefit, at your request? honestly, were you there? or are you basing this comment from discussions you've had with your BMB friends who actually were in the room? does my description of what i said differ from what they are telling you i said? and, if so, help me out.

i will state my position here for you and all the BMB folk who still haven't commented on this forum. where, oh where, are the people/person, on this board, who was the vocal champion for the BMB SS?

i believe anyone can do with their property what hey want, as long as it's legal and within confines of covenants, etc. and doesn't risk bodily harm.

obviously, this will eventually work it's way up the judicial ladder and the courts will give the final answer, and you could realize the coveted suspension of whatever in the bargain.

i agree(d) that there could potentially be 100's of people on the beach from redfish, and one piece of property will not contain them. what will happen then? will BMBV come out and chase them away with a stick? will the guy who owns the salmon fortress walk all the way around through the public access and tell them to leave the beach he can't even get to from his property? not too neighborly. will the BMB SS ever frequent the shops at RF? will tires be flattened? will signs be put up? etc, etc...

as i stated, their plan(for the property) is one plan. i offered another less impactful one above. do i like their plan? who cares? NO ONE in that meeting, or on these pages has offered an alternative. that's what i don't understand. BMB will be getting a bunch of new neighbors soon, and they need to deal with it. proactive has always seemed a better way than reactive. sadly, i can anticipate hearling about some BMB gulffront owner chasing away some family from their precious beach cause they're sitting above the mean high water mark. try explaining that to a six year old. there's a lot of sand there for a few owners.

if the above brands me as "feels positively" about redfish village's beach access, then that is my burden. one that i will be toiling over for about 6 seconds, or the next time you hit the enter button.

what earlier communication this morning?

[Smiling JOe]

Since I first found out about the four new developments in BMB on Big Redfish Lake, I have been against all four. The impact will be tremendous. For years, I have stated that Walton County needs more public parking for the beach accesses. On any given day in the season, the 83 access is full. Now, you are going to have two developments sending more people to that location. Parking has also been critical at Grayton Beach. The only place with decent parking is the public access between Seaside and WaterColor. Not everyone in SoWal lives within quick walking distance to the beach. The impact the four developments already has, and will have in the future, on Big Redfish Lake is bad, bad, bad. There was a time not too long ago, pre-armour plating of the beach, when I enjoyed the serenity of BMB. Today, I have to climb into my bubble, and put on my dreamy colored glasses in order to enjoy the serenity of that area. When the new developments are built out, forget about it. As someone else pointed out, Walton County is in critical need for parking at public beach accesses. I don't know that it matters whether the developments are close by or in Freeport, some smart and future minded decisions need to be made so that people can enjoy the beach and homeonwers in neighborhoods in close proximity to the beach can enjoy their right to privacy (people not peeing and parking in their yards).

[buster]

John R... you apparently spoke up positively for the Redfish Village proposal in the community meeting last week

Nope - he was neither positive or negative. JR Seemed to be trying to make a suggestion to help out both sides but both sides are not gonna get any closer together on this one.

[BPickelTDC]

c'mon, you're killing me here. did you not read my extensive post, written pretty much for your benefit, at your request? honestly, were you there? or are you basing this comment from discussions you've had with your BMB friends who actually were in the room? does my description of what i said differ from what they are telling you i said? and, if so, help me out.

i will state my position here for you and all the BMB folk who still haven't commented on this forum. where, oh where, are the people/person, on this board, who was the vocal champion for the BMB SS?

i believe anyone can do with their property what hey want, as long as it's legal and within confines of covenants, etc. and doesn't risk bodily harm.

obviously, this will eventually work it's way up the judicial ladder and the courts will give the final answer, and you could realize the coveted suspension of whatever in the bargain.

i agree(d) that there could potentially be 100's of people on the beach from redfish, and one piece of property will not contain them. what will happen then? will BMBV come out and chase them away with a stick? will the guy who owns the salmon fortress walk all the way around through the public access and tell them to leave the beach he can't even get to from his property? not too neighborly. will the BMB SS ever frequent the shops at RF? will tires be flattened? will signs be put up? etc, etc...

as i stated, their plan(for the property) is one plan. i offered another less impactful one above. do i like their plan? who cares? NO ONE in that meeting, or on these pages has offered an alternative. that's what i don't understand. BMB will be getting a bunch of new neighbors soon, and they need to deal with it. proactive has always seemed a better way than reactive. sadly, i can anticipate hearling about some BMB gulffront owner chasing away some family from their precious beach cause they're sitting above the mean high water mark. try explaining that to a six year old. there's a lot of sand there for a few owners.

if the above brands me as "feels positively" about redfish village's beach access, then that is my burden. one that i will be toiling over for about 6 seconds, or the next time you hit the enter button.

what earlier communication this morning?

I do not plan on getting into this hornet's nest except to let everyone know that it is my understanding that NO properties located between Big Redfish Lake and the CR83 access own to the water's edge. There is a platted public beach in front of all of them. To the west of CR83 is another issue entirely as most of those deeds read to the water's edge. I don't know if this matters, I just thought it may help in the highlighted section above.

[Smiling JOe]

I believe a small stretch of the beach, adjacent to, and west of Grande Beach, is also platted as public beach.

[BPickelTDC]

I believe a small stretch of the beach, adjacent to, and west of Grande Beach, is also platted as public beach.

Yep, it appears to be. Good catch SJ.

[BMBWalker]

c'mon, you're killing me here. did you not read my extensive post, written pretty much for your benefit, at your request? honestly, were you there? or are you basing this comment from discussions you've had with your BMB friends who actually were in the room? does my description of what i said differ from what they are telling you i said? and, if so, help me out.

i will state my position here for you and all the BMB folk who still haven't commented on this forum. where, oh where, are the people/person, on this board, who was the vocal champion for the BMB SS?

i believe anyone can do with their property what hey want, as long as it's legal and within confines of covenants, etc. and doesn't risk bodily harm.

obviously, this will eventually work it's way up the judicial ladder and the courts will give the final answer, and you could realize the coveted suspension of whatever in the bargain.

i agree(d) that there could potentially be 100's of people on the beach from redfish, and one piece of property will not contain them. what will happen then? will BMBV come out and chase them away with a stick? will the guy who owns the salmon fortress walk all the way around through the public access and tell them to leave the beach he can't even get to from his property? not too neighborly. will the BMB SS ever frequent the shops at RF? will tires be flattened? will signs be put up? etc, etc...

as i stated, their plan(for the property) is one plan. i offered another less impactful one above. do i like their plan? who cares? NO ONE in that meeting, or on these pages has offered an alternative. that's what i don't understand. BMB will be getting a bunch of new neighbors soon, and they need to deal with it. proactive has always seemed a better way than reactive. sadly, i can anticipate hearling about some BMB gulffront owner chasing away some family from their precious beach cause they're sitting above the mean high water mark. try explaining that to a six year old. there's a lot of sand there for a few owners.

if the above brands me as "feels positively" about redfish village's beach access, then that is my burden. one that i will be toiling over for about 6 seconds, or the next time you hit the enter button.

what earlier communication this morning?

Your private email and post to me this morning requesting permission to use my attempt at humor in telling you "the guard that checked your papers and gave you access to BMB last night was fired this morning" as your sig line. Do I need to send you a copy of your request and my response that it was fine with me?

Are you OK?

[BMBWalker]

c'mon, you're killing me here. did you not read my extensive post, written pretty much for your benefit, at your request? honestly, were you there? or are you basing this comment from discussions you've had with your BMB friends who actually were in the room? does my description of what i said differ from what they are telling you i said? and, if so, help me out.

i will state my position here for you and all the BMB folk who still haven't commented on this forum. where, oh where, are the people/person, on this board, who was the vocal champion for the BMB SS?

i believe anyone can do with their property what hey want, as long as it's legal and within confines of covenants, etc. and doesn't risk bodily harm.

obviously, this will eventually work it's way up the judicial ladder and the courts will give the final answer, and you could realize the coveted suspension of whatever in the bargain.

i agree(d) that there could potentially be 100's of people on the beach from redfish, and one piece of property will not contain them. what will happen then? will BMBV come out and chase them away with a stick? will the guy who owns the salmon fortress walk all the way around through the public access and tell them to leave the beach he can't even get to from his property? not too neighborly. will the BMB SS ever frequent the shops at RF? will tires be flattened? will signs be put up? etc, etc...

as i stated, their plan(for the property) is one plan. i offered another less impactful one above. do i like their plan? who cares? NO ONE in that meeting, or on these pages has offered an alternative. that's what i don't understand. BMB will be getting a bunch of new neighbors soon, and they need to deal with it. proactive has always seemed a better way than reactive. sadly, i can anticipate hearling about some BMB gulffront owner chasing away some family from their precious beach cause they're sitting above the mean high water mark. try explaining that to a six year old. there's a lot of sand there for a few owners.

if the above brands me as "feels positively" about redfish village's beach access, then that is my burden. one that i will be toiling over for about 6 seconds, or the next time you hit the enter button.

what earlier communication this morning?

My understanding of the meeting is that an alternative was offered: Redfish Village should make use of the 4 public beach access walkways that are in the neighborhood right in front of the Redfish Village Development. There are four roads that become six roads going directly to these walkways directly across C-30A from Redfish Village. Why can't these roads and walkways be used to spread out these folks and do less damage to the beach? The access is already there!

Also, why is it the neighborhood's responsibility to offer a solution to Redfish Village's dilemma. The neighborhood didn't create the Redfish Village access problem; Redfish Village did that by themselves.

[John R]

Your private email and post to me this morning requesting permission to use my attempt at humor in telling you "the guard that checked your papers and gave you access to BMB last night was fired this morning" as your sig line. Do I need to send you a copy of your request and my response that it was fine with me?

Are you OK?

please do, as i either did not receive it, or inadvetantly deleted it while cleaning out my box.

we'll see.

[BMBWalker]

Since I first found out about the four new developments in BMB on Big Redfish Lake, I have been against all four. The impact will be tremendous. For years, I have stated that Walton County needs more public parking for the beach accesses. On any given day in the season, the 83 access is full. Now, you are going to have two developments sending more people to that location. Parking has also been critical at Grayton Beach. The only place with decent parking is the public access between Seaside and WaterColor. Not everyone in SoWal lives within quick walking distance to the beach. The impact the four developments already has, and will have in the future, on Big Redfish Lake is bad, bad, bad. There was a time not too long ago, pre-armour plating of the beach, when I enjoyed the serenity of BMB. Today, I have to climb into my bubble, and put on my dreamy colored glasses in order to enjoy the serenity of that area. When the new developments are built out, forget about it. As someone else pointed out, Walton County is in critical need for parking at public beach accesses. I don't know that it matters whether the developments are close by or in Freeport, some smart and future minded decisions need to be made so that people can enjoy the beach and homeonwers in neighborhoods in close proximity to the beach can enjoy their right to privacy (people not peeing and parking in their yards).

SJ...well said; what are the two developments you mention? I only know of Redfish Village that is trying to get private access for their owners, guest, renters and invitees.

[BMBWalker]

please do, as i either did not receive it, or inadvetantly deleted it while cleaning out my box.

we'll see.

Here you go:

Dear BMBWalker,

You have received a new private message at Beaches Of South Walton (SoWal) Message Board from John R, entitled "the guard".

This is the message that was sent:
***************
i hope you don't mind if i use that in my sig line for a while. lmao.

Glad to oblige.

[BMBWalker]

Nope - he was neither positive or negative. JR Seemed to be trying to make a suggestion to help out both sides but both sides are not gonna get any closer together on this one.

What was the suggestion?

[John R]

John R...as I said in our earlier communication this morning, I am surprised to learn that you did not know where the property is...

this is the part i'm confused about. i pm'd you requesting use and that's it. i got no response, and used it anyway. i have/had no communication back from you in the form of a PM.

[BMBWalker]

I do not plan on getting into this hornet's nest except to let everyone know that it is my understanding that NO properties located between Big Redfish Lake and the CR83 access own to the water's edge. There is a platted public beach in front of all of them. To the west of CR83 is another issue entirely as most of those deeds read to the water's edge. I don't know if this matters, I just thought it may help in the highlighted section above.

Brad...could you save me some time and energy by pointing me to the recorded platted public beach you reference; where in the Walton County records, for that sub-division, is that defined and recorded?

Good to hear from you!

[BMBWalker]

this is the part i'm confused about. i pm'd you requesting use and that's it. i got no response, and used it anyway. i have/had no communication back from you in the form of a PM.

I responded to your private post; if you didn't get my response to your private post, why did you go ahead and use the comment?

Also, why are you using a private post to discuss these issues with me? Please use the open forum in the future.

[John R]

My understanding of the meeting is that an alternative was offered: Redfish Village should make use of the 4 public beach access walkways that are in the neighborhood right in front of the Redfish Village Development. There are four roads that become six roads going directly to these walkways directly across C-30A from Redfish Village. Why can't these roads and walkways be used to spread out these folks and do less damage to the beach? The access is already there!

if i recall correctly, mr. zeitlin was the one who mentioned it, that his people could use any of them, but they preffered to offer the shuttle service

Also, why is it the neighborhood's responsibility to offer a solution to Redfish Village's dilemma. The neighborhood didn't create the Redfish Village access problem; Redfish Village did that by themselves.

it's not, but they seem to feel it's their job to fight against what RF want's to do with their property. who created the problem will eventually be decided by the court. or arbitration, or something. so, based on that, if RF gets their desired outcome, it will be percieved(sp?) the the BMB group created the problem, if indeed the outcome is in favor of thr BMB group, then it will appear the RF created the problem.

guess we'll have to wait and see.

[buster]

My understanding of the meeting is that an alternative was offered: Redfish Village should make use of the 4 public beach access walkways that are in the neighborhood right in front of the Redfish Village Development. There are four roads that become six roads going directly to these walkways directly across C-30A from Redfish Village. Why can't these roads and walkways be used to spread out these folks and do less damage to the beach? The access is already there!

That was not offered as an alternative but it is an existing situation that was discussed. The neighbors also object to people walking and driving through their neighborhood and fear their peace will be disturbed and their roads and beaches trashed. (The attachment below was sent out quite awhile ago and is kind of funny in a way, but not really.) However there's nothing legally they can do about that.

John R made a comment about the developers using the public access at 83 as an alternative but he probably didn't realize that the developer is on the hook to provide a private access to the east of 83 at the end of Sand Dunes Road. The 2nd lot they're working on now to the west of 83 is a material change and contracts will probably be voided by many purchasers.

[John R]

I responded to your private post; if you didn't get my response to your private post, why did you go ahead and use the comment?

Also, why are you using a private post to discuss these issues with me? Please use the open forum in the future.

as i mentioned, i did not receive any correspondance from you.

this is the extent of my PM to you: i hope you don't mind if i use that in my sig line for a while. lmao.

i'm confused as how the above constitutes discussing the issues with you.

[John R]

What was the suggestion?

i suggest that since you are so close with the BMB group, you acquire a copy of the minutes from them, as your trolling is wearing thin.

[BMBWalker]

as i mentioned, i did not receive any correspondance from you.

this is the extent of my PM to you: i hope you don't mind if i use that in my sig line for a while. lmao.

i'm confused as how the above constitutes discussing the issues with you.

What was your "suggestion"?

[BMBWalker]

this is the part i'm confused about. i pm'd you requesting use and that's it. i got no response, and used it anyway. i have/had no communication back from you in the form of a PM.

#[ame="http://www.sowal.com/bb/showpost.php?p=183740&postcount=62"]62[/ame] [ame="http://www.sowal.com/bb/member.php?u=2383"]SoWal Beaches Forum[/ame] vbmenu_register("postmenu_183740", true);
needs to get out more
Beach Bum

[ame="http://www.sowal.com/bb/member.php?u=2383"][UR"]SoWal Beaches Forum[/ame][/URL]

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the Bay, as far away from the DSI as possible
Posts: 2,033


Re: Surfrider Member meeting
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMBWalker [ame="http://www.sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?p=183727#post183727"][/ame]
The guard that checked your papers last night and gave you access to BMB was fired this morning.


i spit my cereal out reading that one. good thing i turned my head, or my computer would have fried. i'm still laughing. confused as to the cross-post though. but i did get a response. hopefully you'll get to the bottom of this surfrider thing somehow. why not come to the next meeting?


Are you just coming off or going on your meds?

[Smiling JOe]

SJ...well said; what are the two developments you mention? I only know of Redfish Village that is trying to get private access for their owners, guest, renters and invitees.

I didn't say that the two developments were trying to get private access, even though Redfish Village is trying to do so. Rather, I state that they will be using the public access at hwy 83. In addition to Redfish Village owners and guests using that public access, the new subdivision located adjacent and north of Redfish Village will also be using that public access at 83. I forget the name of that s/d, but it is the 4th of the developments which I mention heavily impacting BMB. Those developers have already illegally built a bridge across the wetlands around the northern edge of Big Redfish Lake, which was totally unnecessisary.

[BPickelTDC]

Brad...could you save me some time and energy by pointing me to the recorded platted public beach you reference; where in the Walton County records, for that sub-division, is that defined and recorded?

Good to hear from you!

It's in the original plat for the Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision. The property appraisers office at the Annex could probably help you find it quite easily. Good luck finding what you need.

[gogators]

are these developers the sames ones affiliated with mosaic who built several houses in rosemary beach without a florida contractors license?

[Beachbummett]

are these developers the sames ones affiliated with mosaic who built several houses in rosemary beach without a florida contractors license?

yes, they are the same...did they get into trouble for that?

[gogators]

nm

[kurt]

nm

If you're going to post something like this, please provide a link, a source, or something more substantial or it will be deleted.

[flyforfun]

Looks like its a bunch of inexperienced developers with inadequate planing. Building anything in Walton County can be a difficult process unless you have a full understanding of all the laws and requirements. I will be shocked if the county cuts them any slack. In the end, I think they are going to learn a very hard lesson about building in Walton County without proper knowledge of development planing.

[Smiling JOe]

Out of curiosity, can anyone tell me which lender is financing Redfish Village?

[gogators]

according to walton county public records regions and first tennesse bank

[BMBWalker]

It's in the original plat for the Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision. The property appraisers office at the Annex could probably help you find it quite easily. Good luck finding what you need.

Thanks Brad...appreciate the help.

[Camp Creek Kid]

Looks like its a bunch of inexperienced developers with inadequate planing. Building anything in Walton County can be a difficult process unless you have a full understanding of all the laws and requirements. I will be shocked if the county cuts them any slack. In the end, I think they are going to learn a very hard lesson about building in Walton County without proper knowledge of development planing.

In the defense of the developers--they are NOT inexperienced and they and their families have been full-time residents of SoWal for at least 4+ years. They are not newcomers to the area and are experienced working through the county. They are not, as someone stated, fresh from Atlanta and trying to make a quick buck. They have been caught in a bad situation with the downturn of the market--just like every other developer and builder in the area. This is not the first project here that they have done. Before moving here, these guys also had experience in other markets.

Nobody could have planned for the downturn of this market. If only we had all listened to Shelly . . .

Fly for Fun, since you don't live or work here, you can't say that you have even a clue about what it takes to get anything done in Walton County. The fact of the matter is that Walton County is so inefficient that it literally takes years to get a project through to a development order. Turnover at the county offices is so high that you may have to work with a new county planner every 12 months. This project has probably been in the works for over 3 years and at that time the market was doing great. Obviously they would not have proceeded with the project if they could have forseen the market today. They are not stupid.

I remember when presales of this development opened up and someone on this board posted about the "great investment opportunity." Several members of SoWal.com were excited that they had a reservation. It was a good project and a good deal at the time.

I think its time for the gossip and speculation to end.

[BMBWalker]

I didn't say that the two developments were trying to get private access, even though Redfish Village is trying to do so. Rather, I state that they will be using the public access at hwy 83. In addition to Redfish Village owners and guests using that public access, the new subdivision located adjacent and north of Redfish Village will also be using that public access at 83. I forget the name of that s/d, but it is the 4th of the developments which I mention heavily impacting BMB. Those developers have already illegally built a bridge across the wetlands around the northern edge of Big Redfish Lake, which was totally unnecessisary.

SJ...from your post #17:

Since I first found out about the four new developments in BMB on Big Redfish Lake, I have been against all four. The impact will be tremendous. For years, I have stated that Walton County needs more public parking for the beach accesses. On any given day in the season, the 83 access is full. Now, you are going to have two developments sending more people to that location. Parking has also been critical at Grayton Beach.

Didn't mean to imply that you said two developments were trying to get private access. The question was meant to ask just who is the second development. Were you thinking of the development adjacent and north of Redfish Village? Isn't that called Lakefront? I could be wrong about the name.

If Redfish Village developers gets permission to use the lot at 260 Blue Mountain Rd. as a private access for it's owners, guests, renters and invitees, what is to stop the Redfish Village home owners association from selling a right to use the access to the Lakefront development and/or others? The current Redfish Village developers will have sold their condos and moved on to their next project; they don't care and the neighborhood has no protection from the continued and additional abuse of 75 feet of beach as a dumping ground.

[BMBWalker]

In the defense of the developers--they are NOT inexperienced and they and their families have been full-time residents of SoWal for at least 4+ years. They are not newcomers to the area and are experienced working through the county. They are not, as someone stated, fresh from Atlanta and trying to make a quick buck. They have been caught in a bad situation with the downturn of the market--just like every other developer and builder in the area. This is not the first project here that they have done. Before moving here, these guys also had experience in other markets.

Nobody could have planned for the downturn of this market. If only we had all listened to Shelly . . .

Fly for Fun, since you don't live or work here, you can't say that you have even a clue about what it takes to get anything done in Walton County. The fact of the matter is that Walton County is so inefficient that it literally takes years to get a project through to a development order. Turnover at the county offices is so high that you may have to work with a new county planner every 12 months. This project has probably been in the works for over 3 years and at that time the market was doing great. Obviously they would not have proceeded with the project if they could have forseen the market today. They are not stupid.

I remember when presales of this development opened up and someone on this board posted about the "great investment opportunity." Several members of SoWal.com were excited that they had a reservation. It was a good project and a good deal at the time.

I think its time for the gossip and speculation to end.

How do you defend attempting to sell something you don't own?

[Camp Creek Kid]

How do you defend attempting to sell something you don't own?

My comments were in response to Fly for Fun's comments insinuated that these guys are amateurs who don't have experience working in Walton County.

They did make a mistake in marketing a "private beach access" before they had approval for one. Obviously it is a sensitive issue for both sides, but I think everyone should stop acting like they're in high school and work together for a solution.

I don't have an opinion of the development one way or the other, but I don't like it when individuals are personally attacked and trashed on these boards.