Other Articles in this Category
Most Viewed Stories
Most Commented Stories
Save & Share this Article
COLUMN: Walton's reckless actions put all taxpayers at risk
I am concerned that the bigger issues relating to the Jolly Bay story, which was online at waltonsun.com, are not being reported. Walton County’s reckless actions have deprived property owners of their property rights, stifled economic development in the area and put the taxpayers at substantial risk of having to pay large damage awards.
In these trying times, we need more from our County Commissioners other than making up rules that have not been adopted in order to appease special interests. Not only do these actions by our county expose taxpayers to large multi-million dollar damage awards that are not covered by the county’s insurance, but they also deprive the citizens of an opportunity for more jobs, an upscale project, and an increased tax base that benefits all (not just the people in power and their special interests).
The Jolly Bay project is a mixed-use project clustered on 17 acres of a 60-acre tract that includes an upscale recreational vehicle park, bed and breakfast, and 73 units, in a 12-story condominium, a 49-slip boat docking facility and commercial space for the neighboring community. The condominium was designed in a location that made it not visible from neighboring homes or drivers passing by on Jolly Bay Road.
There are also other results of the county’s actions — besides our lawsuit for violation of our constitutional rights that Judge Laporte recently allowed to move forward.
After being educated as to the real facts of how the county handled our Jolly Bay project, who in their right mind is going to invest money to TRY to get a project approved in Walton County — a county where the commission makes up rules at the eleventh hour to kill a project that has been in the works for many years and unanimously approved by the technical review committee and the Walton County planning commission?
We worked closely with the county planning department staff over a two year period prior to submitting a project that met all of the Walton County rules.
We were continually assured by county staff, as we kept spending substantial amounts of our hard-earned money, that the project that we submitted met all of the rules.
Some people may justify the county violating our property rights because they are opposed to our project, but the bigger issue is that the county will continue to violate the property rights of its citizens at their will, until Walton County’s citizens require the county to follow the rules.
Our case is not the first time that the county made up rules to deny a project. The county was previously told by the circuit court in 2001 that it could not base denial of projects on its own made-up, un-adopted rules since property owners have rights and must have notice of the rules they must comply with to improve their property.
As the economy comes back, there will be a lot of competition for limited development monies. It is not too late for the county to do the right thing and reverse course so as to attract investment in Walton County.
It is not too late for the taxpayers and property owners to demand that the interests of all be represented and that property rights that make this country so great be respected by our own elected officials.
Carl Post has lived in Walton County for 17 years. Carl is the owner of Jolly Bay LLC, which is in litigation with the county.
See archived 'Local News' stories »
| I would also like to note that the county's focus should remain on what the long term cost will be, if the its doesn't adopt stronger development policies, like those in Hilton Head South Carolina, in order to protect property values of its land owners. Incompatible developments are a significant risk for the county's landowners because they will weaken the aesthetic values, which have historically added value to the area. Both Seaside and Watercolor have contributed economically to the county and have done so without seventeen story condos being included in their development. Owl's Head is another example of a development that has worked with meeting the community's expectations of maintaining a more cohesive plan with the rest of the county. This is the only development that does not follow the same trajectory of growth in the county. |
|
| n/a - Nov 03, 2009 02:57:28 PM | Remove Comment |
| | |
| I believe that is one interpretation of the situation that has taken place between the two parties. I also see documentation where Jolly Bay LLC did not meet county requests for a compatibility study to determine the suitability of the high rise in the surrounding area, which proves to be a central reason as to why this project was not approved. On the contrary a line of sight study was submitted. That is one example of Jolly Bay LLC not complying with the county, when it argues otherwise. Suffice to say, this case does appear to be complex and will need to be heard at the higher levels of the judicial system in order to make sure that all parties have their day in court, which is why this case is proceeding from Walton County to the First District Court of Appeal. That should not suggest that the county was wrong in its decision. Rather, it should illuminate the fact that our judicial system hears all cases, regardless in many cases of their merit. It is entirely too early for the suit to be thrown out--no matter on which side of the fence one sits on. But, it must be reiterated that one cannot revert to saying that this episode was like a cheap date or anything that simplistic. There are real merits to both sides of the case. Not to mention that this case is far from being at the point when the awarding of damages is seriously considered by the court. This case is far from being over and articles, like the one above, are interesting tactics at influencing the county's stance on this incompatible development. |
|
| n/a - Nov 03, 2009 02:22:08 PM | Remove Comment |
| | |
| Seems to me that if the county had not lead these people on like a bad date, there wouldn't be a lawsuit. So, why didn't the county stop it early in the process rather than lead them on until the very end, especially if all the rules were followed. Doesn't seem fair to go through the entire process, spend the money, only for the county to rip the rug out from under these people. If they followed the rules, why shouldn't the commissioners do the same? |
|
| srowe - Nov 03, 2009 01:27:36 PM | Remove Comment |
| | |
| While I can understand your position, I believe that the county's best interests lie in preserving the area and approving projects that fit in with the environment. A 12 story condominium does not fit in and should be evaluated in light of other condos in the county. Like it or not, the county owes it to its citizens to preserve and protect the very reasons that attract folks to our area. We aren't like Destin or Panama City and we should focus on reinforcing this distinction. |
|
| n/a - Nov 02, 2009 06:15:08 PM | Remove Comment |


