Redfish Village - changes to the development

SJ it looks to me like Richard Fowlkes might have made a couple hundred thousand dollars on two lots I could be wrong is that what you have found? You are right that alot of people made money around that time flipping lots.

My comment is that Richard has held himself to a higher standard. He has opposed developers and so it seems a good question to say why does Richard say "Based in part on those negotiations we did not oppose the development at the BCC hearings and the development sailed through the process gaining quick approval." in a situation when he has made a couple hundred thousand dollars from a situation where he would usually vigorously be fighting?

Could you even comprehend a situation where Richard is sitting in the sales office of a multi-acre development across the street from his house buying two lots from a developer and then not opposing that development on the same lake he so vigorously defends now? It is mind boggling from someone like him who can write letters like the one we see on page one of this thread. That is the interesting question I am asking.

Read his letter (which I believe to be inaccurate) on page one of this thread then think about him being silent on another very similar development on the same lake and consider that he would go into Redfish and say "can I buy a couple of condos" and then all of sudden he is quiet? I think you are right on the beach access because he was sheepishly attending the BOCC meeting with almost one point "please make sure the shuttle goes down 83" away from his house and my house. The only thing is that I admit that is what I wanted. Richard though puts himself out as the protector of all of us and I am not sure he is.

And SJ the point about the original developer is that Lakeside at Blue Mountain was the overall development. The people who developed that were the same people who developed the Preserve. That is where Richard Fowlkes acquired those flipped lots. The developers of Redfish Village (the ones I know) bought only a piece of that development (the front part where the new buildings are) and are a different group. Richard received his lots from the original developers who are not the developers of Redfish Village who Richard is so vocal about now. Silent about the first group where he made a few hundred thousand allowing the project to "sail through", silent about the beach access because the shuttle goes down 83 but very vocal now.

It just makes for an interesting conversation because of the picture Richard paints of himself.

First of all Kurt I have not leveled any accusations. I have posted facts and once again I will state that I have asked questions. If you want an example of an accusation which you should delete it would be something like Edroedrog #8 on this thread but for some reason you ignore his posts and only delete my mine.

I am hearing you say you don't allow personal attacks but you do. I would ask somebody independent like Smiling Joe or Johnr to comment on whether there were any personal attacks on the beach access thread.

There is a trust that we have here that you are neutral and treat everybody fairly. You might not like it but deleting my posts, telling me to "watch it" when you allow all the trash posted over the past couple months is not perceived as fair by me or I would suspect several other people here. You own this site and can do what you want but you know what they say about absolute power. Use yours carefully.

You keep bringing up the other thread. The only thing I remember is someone calling out the "developer" because the "developer" advertised a gulf front lot and didn't have approval to offer it. I don't consider that a personal attack. I will tell you one more time - give me specific posts you have a problem with for me to look at or let it drop.

As for this thread, the way I read it is you are accusing Fowlkes of taking bribes, even if you are dancing around by calling them questions. Ordinarily I might let it ride, especially since he is a public figure and as you point out puts himself out front on issues. But when someone is not on the board to defend themselves I will give you or anyone else less leeway.

As for edroe, I am with JR, most of his posts I can't make sense of. But it looks like he is unhappy with the "development" or the "developer", and does not mention any persons by name.

Kevin, I believe I understand your point. I think most people would tend to put their own interests before the interests of a group or community. It is unfortunate that so many of us do it. Having ideals is easy, while incorporating them into our life, can prove to be difficult. Too often, we look for our "leaders" in society to help carry us down the right path. Maybe we sometimes forget that they are people just like the rest of us, with similar flaws and problems. Perhaps we all need to take a deep look at ourselves and try to become better examples of leaders, and then, one day, we may have better leaders in our society.

You keep bringing up the other thread. The only thing I remember is someone calling out the "developer" because the "developer" advertised a gulf front lot and didn't have approval to offer it. I don't consider that a personal attack. I will tell you one more time - give me specific posts you have a problem with for me to look at or let it drop.

As for this thread, the way I read it is you are accusing Fowlkes of taking bribes, even if you are dancing around by calling them questions. Ordinarily I might let it ride, especially since he is a public figure and as you point out puts himself out front on issues. But when someone is not on the board to defend themselves I will give you or anyone else less leeway.

As for edroe, I am with JR, most of his posts I can't make sense of. But it looks like he is unhappy with the "development" or the "developer", and does not mention any persons by name.

Fine Kurt since you are acting like you did not read every post on the beach access thread I will give you an example.

Post 249 on beach access "I do not have a problem with that at all. I am sorry if LyingFish Trailer Park and Hard2Sell offends you but it is true. Tell me that they have not lied to the community tell me that they have not lied to their investors tell me that they have not. Please do because they have and they continue to ..." Edroedrog

Kurt that is what a "serious accusation" as you say is. In a declaratory form making a statement that somebody lied and committed an illegal offense. I was there to defend them but they were not and you did not do anything about it. Calling somebody a liar is also another violation of your rules because it is a personal attack.

The next point about my post on Richard Fowlkes is that stating that somebody owned and sold lots and also reciting a quote from a letter then asking in interrogatory form what it might mean is not accusing somebody of a bribe so don't draw your inferences and then tell me that I accused somebody of a bribe. If that is the case then the beach access thread which is also full of innuendo (as this thread started to as well with Edroedrog piling in) is really just a series of direct accusations to the developers of Redfish who are not here to defend themselves.

Now in post #42 on the beach access thread you (Kurt) say to gogators "If you're going to post something like this, please provide a link, a source, or something more substantial or it will be deleted." when he accuses the developer of a crime. He never provides back-up and you never delete the post.

I am asking you to be fair and consistent.

Ok, I tried to be quiet!! But Smiling Joe, I love the beating the dead horse icon. Where did you get that? I may need to use it later.

Ok, I tried to be quiet!! But Smiling Joe, I love the beating the dead horse icon. Where did you get that? I may need to use it later.

It was an Al Gore invention.😀

KT, Kurt has a life, with many other things on his plate. He has brought us this wonderful forum to enjoy, so don't hammer away at him if he uses the smite key. It's his choice, and I know, that, over time, he has proven himself to be very low key and accepting.

Fine Kurt since you are acting like you did not read every post on the beach access thread I will give you an example.

Post 249 on beach access "I do not have a problem with that at all. I am sorry if LyingFish Trailer Park and Hard2Sell offends you but it is true. Tell me that they have not lied to the community tell me that they have not lied to their investors tell me that they have not. Please do because they have and they continue to ..." Edroedrog

Kurt that is what a "serious accusation" as you say is. In a declaratory form making a statement that somebody lied and committed an illegal offense. I was there to defend them but they were not and you did not do anything about it. Calling somebody a liar is also another violation of your rules because it is a personal attack.

The next point about my post on Richard Fowlkes is that stating that somebody owned and sold lots and also reciting a quote from a letter then asking in interrogatory form what it might mean is not accusing somebody of a bribe so don't draw your inferences and then tell me that I accused somebody of a bribe. If that is the case then the beach access thread which is also full of innuendo (as this thread started to as well with Edroedrog piling in) is really just a series of direct accusations to the developers of Redfish who are not here to defend themselves.

Now in post #42 on the beach access thread you (Kurt) say to gogators "If you're going to post something like this, please provide a link, a source, or something more substantial or it will be deleted." when he accuses the developer of a crime. He never provides back-up and you never delete the post.

I am asking you to be fair and consistent.

You are equating a company with an individual, and there is a difference. If someone accuses a company, then yes, they should have information to back it up, even if it is a personal account of dealings with that company. If someone attacks a member of this board directly, or a person who is not here to defend himself, that will get a harsher response. That's the way this board is run. "No personal attacks" is a pretty simple rule.

And gogators post #41 was deleted at the time I warned him.

Bob - I appreciate it. I am very lenient and I've never had this much trouble with any one poster. "No personal attacks" is a pretty simple rule.

KT, Kurt has a life, with many other things on his plate. He has brought us this wonderful forum to enjoy, so don't hammer away at him if he uses the smite key. It's his choice, and I know, that, over time, he has proven himself to be very low key and accepting.

ya, just look at his post count :roll: pffffftttt.........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
😀

It was an Al Gore invention.😀

DARPA won't be amused. 😱

It is not my intention to debate the comments made on this thread but to clarify or add a different perspective to what has been written here. Some people will agree while others will disagree. That?s life. I will attempt to address misconceptions as I see them throughout the thread. I should mention I was not aware of this thread until Thursday, 2/22/07.

First I want to make it clear that I am not the Blue Mountain Beach Community Association (BMBCA). A board of directors consisting of nine individuals controls the organization. I am president and by default the face of the organization but the Board decides our positions. There are times I differ with the Board but nonetheless I present their view. The organization is a group of volunteers who care about the area in which we live. We are neither anti development nor pro development. We try to educate our members and see that developers and the County follow state and county rules and regulations. We are fairly active, but to truly do this job right it would require full time attention. As I said we are a group of volunteers who have lives outside this organization. We can only do so much. In this thread I will be speaking only for myself.

I admire Smiling Joe who seems to put in endless hours working to educate himself and the community. But on SJ?s first post in this thread, #2, when he says he finds it is hard to believe such an active group just found out about the proposed dock on Redfish Lake it was the truth. Generally we rely on members and friends to alert us to what is going on in the community. We got our first email about this issue on 1/30/07. Even the South Walton Community Council (SWCC) was unaware of what was being done until BMBCA alerted them.

To address some of SJ?s other points, BMBCA did not all of a sudden become so active with regard to Redfish Village. The organization was very active in opposing the Redfish Village developers attempt to obtain beach access within the old Blue Mountain Beach subdivision on single-family lot with a Walton County land use of ?Residential Preservation? for a long time. By County rules and regulations to use this lot for anything other than a single-family lot was inappropriate. We opposed it vigorously. The fact that I live closer to this lot than the 260 Blue Mountain Road lot is not the issue. The BMBCA Board felt it would be inappropriate for a commercial developer to drive trolleys through interior neighborhood streets. Did I want to see throngs of people travel down my street to this beach access? No. But that was not the primary reason why BMBCA opposed the use of this lot for a commercial beach access point. And just because you did not see posts on this site does not mean we have been sitting quietly. Generally BMBCA communicates what is happening in the community only to its members but sometimes sends alerts to friends when it feels issues potentially impact areas outside the Blue Mountain area. From time to time others post BMBCA messages to this site. Those few postings are no indication of all the work the organization is doing.

In response to the proposed Redfish Village private beach access at 260 Blue Mountain Road issue. The BMBCA Board debated what stance to take. This parcel has a Walton County land use of ?Infill?, a designation that allows up to 8 units per acre. On this lot that would mean the developers could build up to three homes or condos. The proposal by Redfish Village would lower density as they were requesting two small bathrooms. Arguments were made that greater density increased problems with storm water management, parking, traffic, loss of vegetation, extended hurricane evacuation times and the potential of increased insurance costs. And arguments were made that commercial beach access at this site would be in appropriate. The Board decided not to support or oppose what Redfish was doing with the lot. Was the project compatible? That obviously could still be debated. In the area are single-family homes, condos, a regional beach access, and commercial property. The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) felt it was compatible.

It should also be pointed out BMBCA has engaged the Redfish Village developers over a number of issues including the vegetation destruction at their development north of 30-A for over a year. We dealt with the developers directly, with the Walton County planning department and members of the BCC both via message, phone and personal visits. Nonetheless the vegetation in areas designated preservation along 30-A and especially highway 83 continued to be destroyed. Unbeknownst to the BMBCA Board this destruction was also taking place on the east side of the development just west of Big Redfish Lake in an area not readily visible from 30-A.

With regard to posts #16 and #24, County officials twice told me that the developers proposed amendment to their development order (DO) had been denied. But the last time I talked to the County on 2/8/07 they said they were going to allow the developers to make one more proposal. There is nothing illegal about the developer?s request but BMBCA believes major changes to a DO like this should go before the BCC. At this point it is not clear whether or not the County will allow the changes that are already being advertised on the Redfish Village website and in mailings.

Kevin Thompson?s post #41 says I?ve pushed many Blue Mountain residents around from the BMBCA pulpit and hints that he knows me very well. I?m not sure if we have ever met and if we did it was for only a moment at a county meeting in August of 2004. He certainly does not know me very well nor has he even attended any of our meetings. The BMBCA does not pretend to represent every member of the community and we have made that clear to developers again and again.

It is impossible to defend against the vague blanket accusations KT has made but I will address the specific ones he noted. He is right, any longtime BMBCA member would know from reading our Board Reports that developer Mike McCormick owned this entire parcel, which originally included all of the property that now contains the Redfish Village (commercial part) and Lakeside At Blue Mountain Beach (the single-family development). He sold off the commercial part to Mosaic, which became the New Orchard Group. Nonetheless the conditions of approval or the development order go with the property. It is completely legal for the Redfish Village developers to ask for changes or amendments to the original DO but since these are significant changes it would seem more appropriate to have the BCC review the request. This might give local residents a greater chance to provide input to the County. Before the original approval was given by the BCC for this development, McCormick met with the Board at least three times. In addition myself and another BMBCA board member negotiated with McCormick and his attorney over what needed to be preserved. After those negotiations the Board chose not to oppose the Lakeside At Blue Mountain Beach/Redfish Village development. We wrote in our recent alert (post #1 of this thread), ?Based in part on those negotiations we did not oppose the development at the BCC hearings and the development sailed through the process gaining quick approval? because we felt it was inappropriate for us to take complete credit but we do know at least part of the reason it was approved so easily was because we did not oppose it. By Code destruction of this vegetation, which was required to be preserved, is not allowed. Does anyone who cares about these rare coastal dune lakes feel these developments were a good idea? Probably not. But that does not mean you can stop them. Sometimes you try to get whatever concessions you can. Sometimes that?s the best you can do.

BMBCA never opposed the Preserve At Grayton Beach development. There were never any grounds to oppose it. I did not buy property there while fighting the developer as KT suggests. As for the property I bought in that development, that transaction occurred well after the development had been approved. The fact that there was property available from the developer was brought to my attention by a real estate agent. I bought the lot through the agent from the developer. I did make a good profit and did nothing illegal or unethical. I did not give up my rights to buy or sell property because I am working for a volunteer organization. If KT thinks either BMBCA or I have gone light on McCormick because of any transactions I may have been involved in he is wrong. He does not know what he is talking about. BMBCA criticized McCormick publicly for the culvert he built over the tributary to Big Redfish Lake. He had promised the community a nice bridge. He did not deliver and a mess was made of the entire area. I even had photos on the front page of The Walton Sun newspaper showing the damage he was doing. BMBCA has also complained vigorously to the County about the vegetation that was destroyed along Big Redfish Lake on the south side of 30-A behind his Sanctuary At Redfish development. Again, what is posted on this web site reflects hardly a fraction of what the organization does. If KT really knew the organization, or me he?d know that.

One of the other lots KT lists is the site of my residence. The Lakeside lot was purchased after the sale of the Preserve lot. It was offered to me by McCormick and the purchase was made before there were problems with this development. There were no strings attached and it is a matter of public record. As noted above this purchase did not get in the way of any BMBCA business and the Board exposed the developer for what it saw as violations of promises or of county or state rules and regulations.

It is my intention to serve the community as best I can through this organization but I am not ?the protector? of anyone as Thompson says in his #52 post. Neither the BMBCA organization nor I have been quiet when we felt the best interest of the community was threatened. However everyone in the community does not hold the same values. I regret KT sees the BMBCA letters as self-serving. I?m not sure our 150 plus members agree.

Thompson says in his post #43 that what he wrote in post #41 was ?fact? but that is not true. In post #49 Thompson says he did not level any accusations. What he did was suggest he knew me well, saying I pushed people around and indicated that I might not be ethical. Clearly he does not endorse the work of BMBCA and it appears the point of his entire #41 and #52 posts was to discredit the organization and me. In post #52 Thompson says I hold myself to a higher standard. That is not true. I am part of a volunteer organization working to see the rules are followed and the community is educated. For some unknown reason Thompson has singled me out. Thompson also says incorrectly in post #52 that, ?the Preserve? is where Richard Fowlkes acquired those flipped lots.? There were no lots in the Preserve, just the one lot I mentioned above. As I noted above he is also wrong when he says I have been silent about the original developers. And he is wrong about why BMBCA was silent about the second beach access at 260 Blue Mountain Road. Thompson keeps saying he is just asking questions but I see lots of false statements.

I have never purchased or asked to purchase anything from the Redfish Village developers. Instead I, on behalf of the BMBCA organization, have communicated with them and the County almost endlessly over the past year on a variety of contentious issues. To hint that I am friends with them or that I might ask for a condo is to speak out of ignorance.

Richard Fowlkes

Richard, you should chime in more often. :welcome:

Mr. Fowlkes, Thanks for your comments! It is good to hear both sides of a story. Thanks for all you and your group are doing for our area! As a Blue Mountain Beach property owner, I hope to become more involved when I retire in May and can spend more time there. And for Mr. Thompson, he isn't singling you out; he reacts like this to many people. Like SJ said, welcome to Sowal and keep us informed!:welcome:

Can you please show me where in the Code, that this is stated. Now, again, to advertise any ammenity, in advance as a sure thing, could get any developer into big trouble, and I think we are beginning to see that happen here. Will buyers be able to back out of their contracts with Redfish Village? We will soon see.

I think one major factor here that no one has mentioned is that when these units were pre-sold, the market was booming and the developer probably wouldn't care if he couldn't get things approved and people backed out, because at the rate the market was going, he could have sold the units for even more money. Now that the market is tight, the situation is a bit different.

Posted on Thu, Mar. 22, 2007
Nervous condo buyers want out

BY MATTHEW HAGGMAN
In January, the developers of condo project 2 Midtown announced they would build 455 units instead of 459.
That's all it took for buyers Barry and Rachel Craemer to declare their contract void a week later and demand their $117,000 deposit back. The buyers for 47 units have sent such letters, and the builder is determined not to let any of them out.
In a cool housing market already overflowing with condos, what were once hot properties are now hot potatoes that many don't want in their hands. Buyers seeking to get out of contracts are pouncing on changes in developers' plans, including those related to higher insurance costs. Some are even combing through documents for blown deadlines, which developers blame on hurricane delays.
The tension is rising as closing day approaches for the roughly 25,000 new condos expected this year and next. And the spats between buyers and developers will help decide one of the biggest questions in the troubled housing market -- how many condo sales will actually close. If the spats continue, they would signal a rocky time to come, with unsold units and falling prices.
'This may be the beginning of the `interesting period,' '' said real-estate analyst Michael Cannon. ``We will see it evolve through 2008.''
So far, there have not been widespread defaults or much litigation, and by most accounts, buyers are going to the closing table, however reluctantly. Still, there is evidence of growing unease.
Attorney Gary Saul, who represents developers for 2 Midtown and other projects, said that six months ago he didn't receive any letters from buyers wanting out. Now they're coming from 10 percent of the buyers in buildings, sometimes as much as 20 percent.
Michael Schlesinger, a lawyer who has sued developers, said buyers started to call him in December, wanting out. He has signed 12 clients.
''Now I am getting three calls a week,'' he said.
And developer Gregg Covin, who plans to start closing next month for his 200-unit Ten Museum Park on Biscayne Boulevard, said 10 buyers in the past two months have approached him to get out. He has found vulture investors -- whom he allows to swoop in and buy at 2003 presale prices -- to purchase their contracts.
''The scary thing is, people who have flaked on me tell me they have like five other contracts in other buildings under construction,'' Covin said.
Florida's law allows condo contracts to be voided before closing if developers make ''material'' changes that are ''adverse'' to buyers. Buyers complain about changes they never signed up for, but developers accuse them of making excuses to flee because they no longer can flip the units for a fat profit. The estimates of how many buyers are speculators -- who bought so they could resell -- range from 30 percent to more than 70 percent.
`THESE ARE FLIPPERS'
''These are not people who have been wronged,'' Saul said. ``These are flippers who wouldn't be saying anything if the market was going well.''
To which Rachel Craemer replied: ``Who are they to decide? The person who makes the determination should be the buyer, not the seller.''
Both parties have plenty to lose. Condo buyers risk losing typical deposits of 20 percent, instead of 10 percent for new single-family homes, said real-estate analyst Lew Goodkin.
''That is prompting some folks to look at every possible technicality rather than walking away,'' he said.
Goodkin predicts that disputes will increase as closings approach for buildings sold in 2005 and 2006, because prices were higher and buyers have more at stake.
Developers in turn are worried that if they give one buyer a break, they will lose the building. With their support, legislation is pending in Tallahassee that would make it tougher for buyers to get out of condo contracts.
'If I am a developer and you come to me with your lawyer and I let you out, the first thing that lawyer does is tell everyone else in the building, `I can get you out, too,' '' said Miami attorney John Sumberg, who represents builders.
Insurance is a particularly sensitive area of dispute. Developers gave buyers projections for monthly maintenance costs when they signed contracts. But skyrocketing insurance premiums have pushed maintenance fees far beyond projections, prompting buyers to say their contracts are no longer valid and they shouldn't have to close.
CHANGES IN COST
Developers argue that they can't be held accountable for what is not in their control. State Sen. Mike Fasano, a New Port Richey Republican, has introduced an amendment saying that such changes in cost do not count as a breach of contract.
Back at 2 Midtown, buyer Susan Linnell of Burlington, Vt., is among those seeking to get out. She said the developer did not respond for months to her queries about when she could see her two-bedroom unit or the date to close.
''I couldn't get any information out of them,'' said Linnell, a real-estate agent. ``The whole thing started to have a really bad feeling.''
Calls to Midtown Group, the builder of 2 Midtown, were not immediately returned. The Craemers, who are from Florida but now live in Tucson, Ariz., said the four-unit reduction could raise their maintenance fees and assessments. ''We could easily close and use it as an investment,'' Rachel Craemer said. ``But I feel like I am being forced to close illegally, which is infuriating.''

Hello Washington (DC),
Thanks for the article, should be helpful to all contract holders who have received amendments that increase the montly costs to the owners. Interesting that this law may change and not be considered material and adverse. I'm sure any developer would love to have this changed immediately. It's a shame that our legal system takes so long, otherwise some developers would be in much better shape right now.