 |
| I'll be on the area's #1 most listened-to morning drive news program Monday morning, "Real News with Rick Outzen" |
I'll be the lead-off guest on WCOA's "Real News with Rick Outzen" This Monday at 7:00 AM.
We will be talking about the meeting this past Thursday and some take aways.
--Master plan for Beulah
--Discussion of a strategic plan for the county
--Discussion of modernizing the LDC for the impacts of Apartment/multifamily construction
--The impasse procedure with ECAT
--payment of legal fees for former employees
--countywide projects funded with grant money
plus other items of interest. Should be a great discussion, so tune in live at 7:00AM or catch the podcast here.
Can you please tack fees and costs for Jacqueline Rogers onto that list? Her latest land use loss was the last item on the five-mile long agenda, and along with most of the County Attorney's report got no discussion. So naturally she pulled a red herring by disinforming the readers on her hate club that it was only a special meeting on ECAT negotiations.
ReplyDeleteOn top of it, after the PNJ yanked Jim Little off the story of her serial harassment of property owners through DOAH and put Mollye Barrows on it, Ms. Barrows ran a piece that looked as if she didn't speak with any of the owners that have been put through this ringer, but quoted Jacqueline extensively. Then the PNJ put the story in the print edition the day before the meeting, but never posted it on the electronic version. Because they don't have any archives for 2023, the article is therefore available nowhere. Since so few saw it, I'll provide what the queen of the opt-out suits had to say:
"This is 100 acres and it's going into a neighborhood [my literal backyard]. Cramming in all these homes [there is no development yet planned, but I know how many homes there will be] without doing the analysis [that the judge says they did] to see if there's enough infrastructure to support it, like roads and sewer. That was my argument, you have to do the analysis [that has been my argument on every opt-out, and I have lost every attempt against an opt out], you have to provide that there is going to be a road network that's going to support this development [which is why the judge addressed road capacity directly in his recommended order]. We had the chairman of the Cottage Hill Waterworks [who admitted she was new and hadn't had time to familiarize herself with their workings] come to the hearing and she said,'We can't support that amount of upzoning [I love to pretend there is upzoning with an opt-out]. We were planning on what the Sector Plan had, but I don't think we can support that["] and the judge ignored that [but addressed it directly in his recommended order]. I didn't understand that [no kidding]."
Barrows reports, "Rogers said that she has done nothing wrong, and that she has been successful in some of her challenges. [She has never been successful on an opt-out complaint.] She said that if the County does come after her for legal fees, she will do the same, because she is legally entitled to challenge their decisions [unless she is ruled a vexatious litigant by DOAH]."
Barrows then returns to letting Jacqueline natter on: "There's nothing frivolous, these are different properties. Each property has a different set of facts [which I get wrong in every case, and then bring the same losing arguments on every one], has a different set of analysis [although I said earlier they don't do any analysis] and the County thinks they can just do it without the analysis [although no judge has agreed with my argument that the County hasn't done enough analysis for an opt-out]. I've done nothing wrong, each one is an individual hearing [where I bring the same losing arguments], and that's why the County has to have them [note: tautology]. Just because they're all sector plan opt-outs, they're not the same [and yet I keep bringing the same losing arguments to each one]." (con)
Jacqueline continued.
ReplyDelete"When they do an opt-out of the sector plan, they're also assigning a future land use, so besides [the underlying] zoning [which stays the same] every property has to have a future land use and that has to be reviewed by the state."
"According to how the statute reads, you have to do a certain amount of evaluation, and the county was not doing that evaluation [even though all of the judges have gone against that theory]."
"They're saying, "Well, the County says they're no development proposed, so we'll evaluate it when it comes up for the development review permit [and the judge was explicit in his recommended order that this is in keeping with the County's code, and legal], but that's not what the statute says [and I know the statutes better than a senior administrative judge]. The statute says you're supposed to look at the natural environment, you're supposed to look at the transportation network [and I will keep pretending staff did nothing so often I'll convince myself they did nothing]. You're supposed to look at the facilities, the public facilities, the sewer, the water, things like that [and apparently I don't know the state statute on people being able to opt out]. And so the County never does that for these sector plan opt-outs, but when I challenge them, they spend taxpayer money [that is *mine* to spend, not theirs!] and go hire this guy from a Tallahassee law firm and they have him hurry up and go do the analysis [when I much prefer dragging things out by asking the court for extensions]. And that's what happened here [and the judge clearly got fooled]."
Last sentence of the article?
"Rogers said she was considering appealing the judge's decision."
Why not? It's not an appeal but exceptions, and she inked 48 of them in her last opt-out loss even after the judge had put it right in the recommended order that she could be pursued for fees, costs, and sanctions. And look what happened because the County didn't pursue it.
This last round, the County asked the judge to rule on whether they could, but he didn't put anything about it in the recommended order. I doubt that means it can't be pursed. Vexatious litigant by DOAH count or no, the Westmarks requested the judge put in the order whether she could be pursued for BAD FAITH, and the judge said sure. If she could have been pursued for bad faith in the previous combined hearing, then certainly after losing those three she could be pursued for bad faith with her repeat nonsense performance for her own neighborhood.
If not, why would she stop bringing them? She clearly has zero shame, so let's stop assuming she's going to embarrass herself at some magic number of these. She's incapable of it, or she would have realized what people really think of her actions a looong time ago.
I would imagine she was behind getting the column published on PNJ about the bills introduced that would stop her.
ReplyDeleteYes I agree, about adding that on to the podcast.
Mel is ate up with jealousy.
ReplyDelete10:24, Jacqueline and I would agree about one thing: that bill is bad news (as is most of the high-profile legislation they've pushed through for DeSantis's donor pool this session). Just wanted to go on record that I'm firmly opposed to it, for whatever that's worth, which isn't much.
ReplyDeleteWhat Jacqueline will never understand is she's a poster child for their excuses on why they need that legislation (for their builder buddies).
The remedies have been in place all along: (1) fees, costs, and sanctions for bad faith; and (2) getting her declared a vexatious litigant.
The County for whatever reason has declined to pursue it, and has let her continue to maraud the taxpayer wallet, gouge private landowners, and torment staff. And so, here we are.
Well deserved revenge and vengeance more like it. Nanc 👍
ReplyDeleteYes, Commissioner Bergosh, have you pursued sanctions and taken steps to have her declared a vexatious lititigant or not.
ReplyDeleteYes Mel I can also see it would be very chilling for one to challenge just one comp plan ammendment or have a disagreement -- perhaps lose and be penalized.
Whether DeSantis is behind it or not, IDK.
But yes these serial challenges on the same thing..they are technically the same thing ...
has become flat our crazy.
Land owners can Opt out of the sector plan -- staff does the review.
Nellie has made a fool of herself..Again.
Her blind love for Dougie Poo was enough to ruin her credibility anyway. And huff and puff like his puppet for most anything else he told her too was really just sad.
Even so, the destructive agenda needs to end.