Two Significant Area Meetings Occurred Last Week-- Military Mission Resiliency and Attainable Housing were the Focus

Although there was no scheduled meeting of the Escambia Board of County Commissioners this past week--there were still lots of other significant meetings, gatherings, and galas in the region--three of which I had the opportunity to attend.  Two of which are of vital importance to our communities, county, and region.

On Wednesday, a regional meeting of panhandle business interests, military personnel, elected officials, and other interested community members met in Okaloosa County.  The discussion was pertinent and pointed:  

What are the most serious issues that could potentially impact the Panhandle's significant military footprint here?  

This is an important and pressing question to ask, as a HUGE part of our area's economy, more than 50%, is derived from military spending and the resultant spin off of jobs and economic activity that spending creates.  In all of Florida, according to data presented at the conference, military spending totals about $97 Billion per year producing 900,000 jobs.  The panhandle of Florida, with $22 Billion in DoD spending creating 200,000, jobs takes an oversized portion of that revenue (when population of the area compared to the rest of Florida is the benchmark).  So we need to be mindful of this and do everything we can to protect the bases from all threats to include environmental, encroachment, and downsizing/closure.

Speakers included Austin Mount, CEO of the Emerald Coast Regional Council, Capt. Paul Flores, CO, NAS Whiting Field, Jim Bagby, District Director for Congressman Matt Gaetz, and Keynote Speaker was Mr. Dale Marks-Vice Director of the 96th Test Wing of Eglin AFB

This is an important question to ask the answer is important to know for policy makers and business owners alike--as according to several who spoke at the meeting--there are other bases and states with powerful elected representatives that are working to move military missions from this area into their respective jurisdictions.  We can't let that happen without taking a HUGE economic hit.

There will be follow-on meetings of this ad-hoc group-and I look forward to attending in the future.

For those interested in learning more about this group and what they will be working on, check out their web page here.  Check out the informative, data rich agenda presentation here.   And you can watch the first half of the meeting (prior to the break out session and visioning exercises) here.

On Friday-Dave Robau, CEO and Founder of National Energy USA, hosted an all day Attainable Housing summit at the Bayview Community Center. This event was focused on finding solutions to housing shortages while simultaneously making existing homes more fortified against natural disasters and also finding ways to decrease the costs of owning a home utilizing new, innovative technologies to lower energy costs. 

Housing, as everyone in Pensacola knows, is a huge issue in our community as our population grows and the costs for housing increase.  So how do we tackle this issue?  That was the subject of discussion for the all day presentations and panels which included representatives from Escambia County's Neighborhood and Human Services Division, The City's housing and planning/zoning staff, multiple representatives from local construction firms and materials manufacturers, architects, contractors, and those that work in this space.

For me the intriguing take aways were the professional presentation on tiny homes and a discussion of supply and demand's impact on housing costs and availability locally. 

On tiny homes in particular,  the discussion and back and forth with architect and builder Mr. Jordan Yee--who gave a very informative presentation on his experiences building and designing tiny homes and accessory dwelling units (ADU's) in Pensacola--was enlightening.  I asked him, specifically, how tiny homes can help with the housing cost crunch and also the homeless situation Escambia County faces.  Interestingly, Mr. Yee did not say the tiny homes can assist with either issue.  He also told the panel that on a cost per square foot basis--building a tiny home is much more expensive than a traditional house, because "You are still having to build a kitchen and a bathroom with all the necessary appliances and those are the expensive components of a home.  And you don't get the savings on the less expensive walls and areas of a traditional home to balance the costs." he explained.

This was interesting as I have heard several folks in the community profess that Tiny Homes are going to be the solution to housing issues and homeless.  This professional's take, by contrast, is not in agreement.

Mr. Yee's greater concern was on having zoning and code changes that allow for more density and easier approvals of construction of tiny homes in existing neighborhoods which will allow for an answer to the "missing middle"- a term describing the lack of duplexes, triplexes and ADU's in traditional neighborhoods.  Although he did acknowledge that such a change of ordinances and codes will not be easy as many neighbors in traditional, mature communities will resist and fight against any additional density.\

That topic allowed for a segue into the contentious issue of building housing to meet the demand and to help lower the costs overall.  I provided my take on the issue, pointing out the fact that when we approve new housing and particularly more density--we are often lobbied by the most stridently opposed citizens imaginable.  To which everyone in the room seemed to understand.

So the question was nevertheless left unanswered:  How do we address the supply issue to lower the housing costs when existing citizens don't want any new growth and will openly tell commissioners we should not "allow" any new residents to move here.

It certainly is a conundrum.  But interesting just the same and an ongoing challenge we all face.

What Does the First Map Indicating Public Beach Access at Perdido Key Look Like?

This map is staff's first draft of what I have requested:  a map of the Perdido Key Beach areas of District 1 for which staff have researched and found deeded public beach access.  I suspect there will be follow-on revisions in the weeks to come as we research each parcel on the Gulf out here.

 

Although there is still a significant amount of research left to do on multiple parcels out on Perdido Key--a lot of this information is now known about which such parcels have easements for the public's access.  Therefore, I've asked staff to put together some renderings indicating the areas of Perdido Key where we have easements for public beach access.  I want to reiterate here--this rendering above is the first iteration of a creation of such a map.  No doubt it will require revisions and updates in the weeks to come as we still await the title work on multiple parcels out on Perdido Key.  

Staff was very responsive yesterday on my request of them and substantially acknowledged what I put out on this blog as my understanding of the situation thus far regarding public beach access points on Perdido Key.

The intriguing take away from what we do know, however, is that a significant portion of Perdido Key will be accessible for the public's use according to what is on the deeds we have now verified.  And this large swath of this accessible area surrounds two of our existing access points and parking areas.

This (the fact that these areas of the beaches will be publicly accessible) will be helpful in finding a way to get and fund lifeguards out there to help prevent the sorts of drowning tragedies we witnessed over the last several weeks.

Next Challenges:  More parking for day use beach visitors, and finding areas for food vendors, and identifying additional areas  for non-local resident parking for the use of the Perdido Key multi-use path.

Lots of work to do but lots of good things coming for all!

Perdido Gate part VI--What is the Status of What's Known as of Today?

County staff from the attorney's office have been busily working to research the deeds for the properties out at Perdido Key for the last three and a half weeks since the bombshell discovery was made that many of these properties had perpetual easments embedded within their deeds guaranteeing public access in perpetuity.

It's a big story that has simmered down a bit as we dig into the minutae of historic records and ancient "land patents"

A number of news outlets have asked where we are on this research, and I am asking staff for a thorough update this morning.

But as of right now--my understanding of the issue is that the following is what we know currently.

-Thus far it appears that the 64 parcels from the state park to Perdido Skye have the 75’ for public beach language contained within the deeds.

 -A large swath of the parcels west of the state park were part of a 1926 land patent signed by Calvin Coolidge that did not/does not have any language contained within it that guarantees public access in perpetuity

 -Grand Caribbean does not have deeded access to sandy beach portions of the Sandy Key property directly to their south—although there is a public easement and a walkway from Grand Caribbean to this beach? 

 -The parcel that was to become Sandy Key had all public access extinguished by a late 1970’s court ruling. (but could that action have been void ab initio if the original grant from the Pensacola Chamber of Commerce earlier had expressly granted public access in perpetuity?)  

--The status of whether or not the county has obtained the original land transfer deeds made to the Pensacola Chamber of Commerce sometime in the late 1800s or early 1900s is not known—neither is it known whether or not these deeds contain language guaranteeing perpetual public beach access easements 

 --The status of public beach access easements contained on the deeds for the balance of the parcels between Perdido Key and Johnson’s Beach (less Sandy Key and Grand Caribbean) remains unknown

 -I do not know when we expect the abstracts for the balance of those parcels between Perdido Skye and Johnson’s Beach which hopefully we (county) have already requested.

 Finally—I have asked county staff to have this information on what is/isn't known about the public access of these parcels to be  graphically represented on one map of that strip of properties (i.e. with the parcels that have 75’ of access one color, our existing public access points identified with another color, parcels for which we’ve “ruled-out” the existence of public access language in red, and unknown parcels indicated with another color.)  

I'm waiting on staff's response to this status request and map request--and I'll publish their responses here when I get them...

 

I'll be on "Real News with Rick Outzen" Later this Morning Discussing OLF-8

I've been invited to appear on the area's most listened to, highest rated, most accurate and reliable morning drive news program, 1370 WCOA's "Real News with Rick Outzen" this morning at 7:00

I will be on "Real News with Rick Outzen" later this morning at 7:00 discussing my opinion piece on OLF-8 which is published in Rick's Blog.  The topic: OLF-8 and where we are currently with moving that project forward with a buyer who has offered us $42 Million for the parcel.

Should be a good discussion.  Tune in live at 7:00 or catch the podcast here after it is published.

OLF 8 Project in District 1 will be a WIN for Escambia County, the Taxpayers, and Beulah!

 

A recent guest editorial and letter to the editor about OLF 8 contained strident opinions presented as facts and half-truths conflated with misstatements.  A letter to the editor in today's PNJ contained the same flawed talking points.  Therefore, I feel obliged to add clarity to this important issue.

The OLF 8 acquisition, master planning, and marketing effort has been a 25-year evolution. 

We’ve recently accepted an all-cash offer for OLF-8, allowing for the construction of restaurants, retail, a town-center, high-wage job areas, and other amenities for all Escambia taxpayers.

The bidder I favored--based upon better initially expressed intentions (Breland)—didn’t show up to the selection meeting held on April 6^th.  They were aware of the meeting and didn’t attend.

DR Horton, by contrast, attended the meeting, presented their plan, and modified their language indicating substantial compliance with the Board’s Master Plan.  They’ll be teaming with Stirling properties for the commercial/light industrial portions of the field, and they upped their offer significantly—to $42 Million Dollars ($7 Million more than Breland’s highest offer).

Also-Horton/Stirling’s plan indicates a piece of the parcel for potential sale to the school board for a Beulah High School if that board wants that. Breland’s rendering had no school site.  Horton/Stirling’s plan also has a town center; the Breland “rendering”has no town center.

Breland’s plan indicates miniscule retail portions, a tiny portion for job creation (light industrial) and the entire balance of the land residential.  Importantly: Breland’s plan didn’t reflect the master plan conformity they assured the board in their initial purchase offer.  

The Horton/Stirling plan remains much more strongly aligned with the agreed upon master plan than does Breland’s—look at initial renderings, side by side, below. Judge for yourself.

DR Horton/Stirling Property OLF 8 Concept
plan (Residential in Green)

Breland OLF8 Concept plan
(Residential in Yellow)

From the beginning of this acquisition process- as the county worked on creating high-paying, high tech jobs on OLF-8-- I forcefully advocated against ANY residential on that field-- a position with which most citizens in Beulah with whom I’ve spoken agree.

Pressure applied on the BCC by some area residents and a few politically connected special interests, however, pushed aside the original plan as solely a regional jobs generator. 

That’s how we got here.

Over the next 60 days, we’ll hammer out an agreement that’ll result in between a $20-$27 million dollar “profit” for the taxpayers— proceeds that will be used county-wide to address legacy deficiencies in infrastructure and fund quality of life enhancements. 

OLF 8 will also generate significant new property tax revenue for the county and the school board; this added revenue allows us to ensure FIRST RESPONDERS are paid competitive wages-assisting us with staffing challenges without raising property tax (millage) rates. 

Therefore, I’d caution readers to always be wary in believing a few voices of discord who want you to believe they represent and speak for everyone.

Remember: these same voices have deftly transitioned and recalibrated their opposition as we’ve responsibly advanced this project. “They’ll never complete this land-swap!” naysayers first howled.  “These commissioners are reckless—they’ll NEVER recoup this investment!” came next.  Now it’s “Commissioners only care about the MONEY.”

It’s very rich how the goal posts move, the attacks change--- but the faces of opposition remain the same.

We’ll never successfully hit the Goldilocks zone for these folks—where the porridge is “just right,” but we’ve tried.  We engaged the community, compromised, and listened.

Now it’s time to act. 

I’m upbeat, positive, and optimistic about the impending OLF8 sale/development.  

With integrity and due consideration, we’ll close this deal to produce a huge win----for everyone!

What Did President Coolidge's Initial 1926 Grant Look Like?

 

As I pointed out in this blog post,  it appears as if several of the parcels west of the state park and East of the Alabama state line in Perdido Key in District 1 of Escambia County had an original title that did NOT preserve the public's right to access the beach upon this property's transfer from the Federal Government to a few private citizens in 1926..  This is a setback, but it is what it is.  

Thankfully we still know that 64 lots from the state park to the Perdido Skye complex DO CONTAIN LANGUAGE MANDATING A PERPETUAL 75 FOOT EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS.

So no matter what happens with any or all of the rest of the property deeds to the lots on Perdido Key--we have already locked down a fairly significant win for the public at large that has, for too many years, been barred from accessing beaches they were always entitled to utilize.

So it is a mixed bag thus far, but mostly positive.  

Citizen Michael McCormack took the information from the Calvin Coolidge signed public land patent we uncovered monday and put it in the drawing above.  Sadly--it appears as if there is no provision for public beach access in the parcels within this original grant depicted above.....

Disgusting Allegations Flying about Mistreatment of Corpses in Escambia County....

According to the letters written to the BCC
about issues with the treatment of bodies in our
morgue lately--one 
might assume "Art the Clown" was in charge of 
handling the corpses locally.....But there is no proof
of these allegations, however, and
professional opinions vary among the local
funeral homes....

I must warn readers in advance on this one.  Don't eat before you read this.  And you won't want to eat after you read this.  My apologies, in advance, but here goes......

Everyone knows we are having issues coming up with a plan on how to modernize and adequately staff and size the D1 Medical Examiner's office (serving the four county area of Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties).  It's a topic that is out there.  The current facility is inadequate and undersized.  It is creating issues.  And it needs to be fixed.

The ME herself has been raising the flag on this for a while now.  I visited, I saw the issues.

And even as we on the Escambia BCC are working toward solutions to this vexxing issue--- one local morning radio host, Andrew "Tallman" McKay, ignorant of all of the  inside issues swirling around this topic (among many others) and much of the logic surrounding our cautious approach to finding the right solution to this particular matter, second guesses us and our practical approach to fixing the problem.  With a particularly vituperative, angry, personal attack on those of us (and me in particular) that simply disagree with him and know he is wrong.   But second-rate, low ratings, small market and substandard entertainment DJ's like Tallman do this: swipe, snipe, jab, assign blame, and attack---between radio ads for sandwich shops, used car dealers, and the latest weather and traffic blurbs--of course.  Then they move along to the next market... 

Yes, drive-by Tallman's opinion on where the ME's office should be located is wrong.

But I digress.

Now comes multiple local funeral homes making shocking, written allegations about the current Medical Examiner--allegations via correspondence to the county the full content of which I will not link here.  Why not?--because I'm not sure if they are founded, that is why. 

Meanwhile, I read the letters the county attorney sent to me and applied logic and reason to each one; therefore I am not printing or linking these full letters here. 

I read each letter then mentally juxtaposed what I was reading with the person who I have met and spoken with on multiple occasions-- Dr. Oleske.  And in short--I'm not necessarily sure I agree with or believe some of these claims.  Here's why.  Even though I may disagree with her approach to getting a new facility, even though I disagree with some of the plans put forward for such a new space--I DO NOT believe she would allow these things to occur on her watch.  I believe she is a professional.

Nevertheless--these complaints  have been forwarded by multiple funeral homes via written correspondence to the county--so they can't be ignored.

What are these funeral directors alleging in these letters? One Pensacola funeral home writes:

"human beings are being released to funeral homes with used golves, biohazardous materials, and trash stuffed into their cavities.  The body bags are torn and leaking fluids.  Autopsied bodies are in dire condition whe they leave her care, causing embalming and fuenral services to be a demanding feat.  In cases of accidental overdoses, or other fatal mistakes, Dr. Oleske will list the cause of death as suicide.  This understandably causes irreparable emotional damage to families.  Can you imagine your child, sibling or your friend, being listed as a suicide whey they simply made a mistake?  This is an example of the mental suffering our families experience.  Here is a real life example:  XXXXXXX lost his son to an accidental overdose in June 2022.  Dr. Oleske listed his son's cause of death as suicide.  Sitting with him in our foyer, we saw the weight and agony of this set in.  We kept him here at our funeral home as he denied, cried, and mourned for his son whom he though had purposely ended his own life.  XXXXX [dad] passed away this March, after spending three of his last nine months living believeing his son had murdered himself...."

Said a different funeral home about the current ME and her office:

"...the autopsies performed in this office i would almost equate with mutilation.  Most of the time the arteries and veins are so butchered that they leak when trying to embalm.  Every previous medical examiner woud tie off the major arteries and veins, so that they were easily visible among the surrounding tissues...I believe a Winn Dixie Butcher takes more pride and care in their work.."  this particular company's letter writer went on to claim "I personally picked up a deceased from the medical examiner's office and when the deceased was brought out to me, the person releasing to my care accidentally dropped the deceased's head on the table and said, 'oops, she didn't feel it'"

Yet another area funeral home wrote this:

"They are extremely slow in approving cremation permits and families get upset at the funeral home because of the Meical Examiner's incompetence...The deceased are often times not clean leaving the Medical Examiner's Office.  They are covered in bodily fluids that can simply be taken care of by running water over the deceased.  They leave trash inside the bags with the deceased which is absolutely disrespectful...in conclusion our Medical Examiner's office is the worst I've ever seen"

#PERDIDO-GATE Part V: Did the Sitting President of the United States of America in 1926, Calvin Coolidge, Limit Public Beach Access?

Did the Nation's 30th President, Calvin Coolidge, have a hand in limiting the public's right to acces of Federally excessed public beach properties in Escambia County at Perdido Key?  Really??

Once we found out that 64 parcels of beachfront properties in Escambia County that were "excessed" by the Federal Government in 1957 all contained language expressly mandating ongoing public easement(s) for beaches for public access in perpetuity-------we all were natually optimistic that most, if not all, of the other parcels (all of which at some time or another came to private parties, local governments, state agencies, states, or the park services from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) would contain similar language memorializing and protecting the public's right to use this wonderful natural resource forever.

Sadly--we are now finding it is not the case.  Some parcels do not have this language.  Others had it and lost it.

And the parcels on Perdido Key--west of the State Park and East of the state line--apparently had a direct grant to initial non-government owners that not only did NOT speak to public access--but that were actually granted directly by the President of the United States (at that time) himself, personally!

Wow!

Obviously I am not happy to see this--but facts are facts and I cannot and will not refuse to accept the reality of this situation and the documents I am reading.  But it is both interesting and disappointing.

The sitting President of the United States personally granted a HUGE swath of Perdido Key, apparently, to a few members of one particular family.  

This family subsequently sold that property to one large developer--who in turn parceled out the properties in the 1958 timeframe without any language, whatsoever, mandating any public access at all to the beautiful  sandy beaches of Escambia County at Perdido Key.  Interesting, historic, borderline scandalous (given the prevaling language and disposition favoring public access at that time) and also disappointing....

All I can say is facts don't lie, and the documents are the documents.  But if Coolidge was around today this WOULD BE A SCANDAL OF EPIC PROPORTIONS!(because Coolidge was a Republican)........

PERDIDO GATE Part IV: Interesting Case from the Late 1970's Effectively Extinguished Public Beach Property Access on one Perdido Key Parcel

As I have written about in multiple posts to this blog over the last several weeks--there are areas of Perdido Key where, historically, the beach portions of properties deeded from the government included express provisions guaranteeing the public's access to the beaches of Perdido key.  In perpetuity.

Sadly we are now finding multiple instances where this is not the case.  I say sadly only because I know the vast majority of the folks I represent favor public beach access on our area's beaches, just as I do.  Because I grew up with that access---- a thing that these days is becoming more rare.

But with all that said, I remain a rule follower in my capacity as a county commissioner--despite my gut feelings, wants, wishes and personal preferences.  With all this in mind, I took no pleasure in finding out about this ruling from the late 1970s where the local circuit court removed language from a previous deed, quieted the title, and eliminated the public access requirments from a large parcel on Perdido Key.

It is the parcel immediately adjacent to our current Beach Access #1 so far as we can tell.  I don't have diagrams, drawings, parcel maps or survey drawings--just the judgement.  

The judgment, apparently done at that time in conjunction with what the county's wishes were--allowed for that deed to eliminate and effectively extinguish the public's previously established access to the sandy beach in exchange for an access totalling about 50 feet for the public on the west of the parcel, and a small 10 foot easement at the far east of the parcel for the public to access the beach.

The surfacing of this ruling was made known to me by Tim Day a county employee very familiar with the historical issues on Perdid Key.  From his email:

"This 1976 ruling appears to eliminate the public right to the beaches in the area of Access #1.  

 #4/#6 appears to remove all public interest in the parcel above the normal high tide mark (1976) in exchange for ½ of what we know today as Access #1 and a 10’ pedestrian access that currently exists at the E end of Sandy Key."

First, this action in the circuit court came and was concluded after the parcel was, apparently, abandoned for many years.

Interestingly, however, came the revelation that the "Pensacola Chamber of Commerce" had made the original transer of the deed and had insisted upon the public's access.

Which begs the following question(s) (which I have asked and will be asking):

Could the rest of the nearby parcels have been follow-ons from this original transfer from the Pensacola chamber of commerce at that time--in the early 1900's---like this particular parcel?  

-----And, if the answer to that question is "yes"---might it be the case that the other four nearby parcels have always had language in their deeds mandating some sort of public accessibility?

We should know the answer to this in about a week, according to last evening's email to me from County property attorney Stepen West:

"We have located a title company to prepare abstracts for the Sandy Key, Grand Caribbean, Beach Colony, LaPlaya, and Sundown condominiums.  They anticipated the turn-around time would be about a week.

Steve

 Stephen G. West, Senior Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney"

Stay tuned----MUCH more to come on this

ATU 1395 Union Votes Against Latest County Offer 23 in favor to 27 opposed

 Escambia County has successfully closed all of the books on all of our bargaining units with the one, sole exception of the ATU 1395 union representing ECAT.  This is a shame because staff and the commission have worked hard to bring this one in for a landing.  Although I was hopeful the last articles and the overall agreement would pass (which would allow for us to provide these employees the raises we have already approved and funded)--I was not optimistic, sadly. 

And Sunday this hunch of mine  was confirmed....

From Union President Michael Lowery:

"At  3:01 PM on April 16, 2023 with witnessses present throughout the entire vote (8:00AM to 3:00PM) the ballot box was opened and the number of ballots matched the number of verified voters who signed in.  There were 50 ballots cast out of the potential 63 total in the bargaining unit.

In favor of tentative CBA--23

Not in favor of tentative CBA--27"

On WCOA's "Real News with Rick Outzen Tomorrow Morning at 0700 Talking all things #PERDIDO-GATE

I'll be on the area's highest rated, highest quality, and most trusted source for morning drive news talk--"Real News with Rick Outzen" on 1370 WCOA tomorrow morning at 0700.  We will be talking public beach access---and the unlawful withholding of it from the people for years and years at Perdido Key....

Rick Outzen, Publisher of InWeekly and Rick's Blog and Host of the area's best, most influential, entertaining,  and trusted morning drive news program "Real News with Rick Outzen" on 1370 WCOA has invited me on his show as the lead off guest for the first 20 minutes tomorrow morning at 7:00AM.  We will be talking about the bombshell, earth-shattering, and growing story I'm calling #PerdidoGate:  How a group of private property owners and others systematically tried (and succeeded in many instances) to block the public's rightful and lawful access to the beaches in Perdido Key Florida in Escambia County's District 1.  The fascinating revelation was uncovered last week that dozens and dozens of the originally executed land deeds from the U.S. Government (which I posted to this blog last week) constituting miles of these formerly thought to be "private" beaches------ all had language dictating and mandating a perpetual easment of the southerly 75 feet of each such parcel for the express purpose of establishing a public beach for public access.

I've subsequently uncovered other documentation and shared it in multiple follow-on blog posts which have been smashed with hits from all over the country.

I am calling it Perdido-Gate because it is a scandal of epic proportion.  Unlike the infamous "Watergate" scandal however (which started with a few insiders knowing what happened and subsequently, over time expanding with more and more people learning of it as a whistleblower broke the story to journalists)--this land blocking/beach grabbing effort by most current owners of Gulf Front properties on Perdido Key apparently began with everyone having complete knowledge of the deeds' limiting condition and perpetual easement--with this knowledge fading over time, disappearing from transfer deeds, and fading away leading to most of these properties believing---inaccurately apparently---that they had complete and total ownership from the road all the way down to the wet sand of the Gulf's edge.

So we will talk all about that, and the following:

1.  What is the legal meaning of the "Southerly 75 feet of each parcel?"

2.  Who from PKA and the county knew of this recently?

3.  Why was the public access requiriment of 75' of beach never enforced as indicated on the 2000 Development Order from the County to Destination, Inc. (who eventually build the Windemere Condo) by the county officials who insisted on it as a condition of this complex's construction?

4.  Would the landlocked Grand Caribbean complex really undertake the expensive, time consuming, and year's long initiative to get an easement and build a walkway to a purportedly "private" beach south of their complex (owned by the Gulf-Front Sandy Key complex) on ONLY the strength of a "gentleman's" agreement that the HOA of Sandy Key would "let" visitors and owners of Grand Caribbean use their (Sandy Key's) purportedly "private" beachfront?

5.  What will take precedence under Florida's Marketable Record Title Act--the "information" from titles transferred within the last 30 years that have mysteriously omitted this "Southerly 75' perpetual public beach access easement" mandate from the initially executed transfer from the U.S Government--or if located---the original, primary deed(s) from the U.S. Government which we believe will specify this public easement?

It should be an interesting conversation on a fascinating topic that I know Rick is diving into for an article in his upcoming edition of InWeekly.

Because he knows what I know:  This story is HUGE and growing.  Glad he is joining every other local media in covering it.

Listen Live at 0700 or listen to the podcast, here.

PERDIDO-GATE Bombshell Part III: What Does the PKA Know about the Ubiquity of 75' Public Easement(s) on PK and the Infamous "Walkover to Nowhere?"

In part I and II of this series we uncovered the fact that there are dozens of parcels, on the Gulf of Mexico, in Perdido Key, In District 1 of Escambia County Florida where public beach access in perpetuity was supposed to be guaranteed--- for the citizens--- in the original deeds of such properties granted to original owners from the Federal Government.  In perpetuity.  But that hasn't happened:  The opposite has occurred--with citizens being barred behind ominous "no-trespassing" "keep- out" and "private property" signs and armed security to boot in many instances.  We also located documentation indicating some county staffers in 2001 knew of this.  And we identified at least one property deed recorded as recently as 2005 with the clerk of the court prominently indicating this 75' of easement for public beach access in the transfer.  But many other subsequent titles scanned by the legal office apparently do not have this language (or at least we have not been able to locate the original deeds that indicate this language.)  These two original posts on these topics have blown up on this blog like gas poured over a fireworks depot and lit with a stick of dynamite;  thousands and thousand of hits, unique visits, downloads from all over the country and nearly one hundred comments thus far.  Add to this two front page headlines in the hard copy Saturday and Sunday PNJ, multiple stories on the area's media juggernaut WEAR, and every radio station in town reporting on this as well as studio 850 and other Facebook Sites.  It is big.  In fact, as I have now stated numerous times--this is the biggest government related story in the area in the last 16 years I have served as a public official:  Bigger than the school superintendent's DUI, bigger than the Newpoint school scandal where people went to jail.  This is bigger and it is growing.

As I continue my research into how this matter, this travesty of deliberate blocking of the public's deed-granted, perpetual access to the beach by some properties at Perdido Key over the years --complete with armed guards and ominous warning signs--was perpetrated on the public--some additional questions are coming up which offer tantalizing clues as to the existance of potentially  more institutional knowledge on public access easements on the key.

SO WHAT DOES THE PKA KNOW ABOUT BEACH ACCESS EASEMENTS TODAY?

First of all--the Perdido Key Association is the organization on Perdido Key that has the most  institutional knowledge of all things Perdido Key.  Their former president, Dick Domurat, knew of the existance of the 75' public beach access--- at least as it pertained at the time to the parcel where the eventual Windemere Condominium would be constructed.  Domurat argued strenuously, on behalf of the PKA IN 2000-2001, against the county's density grant for the number of units ultimately approved for that tower.  The basis of his challenge was that the presence of a 75' public beach access easement lowered the total lot size, which he felt thereby would necessitate that the county concommitantly reduce the number of dwellings allowed.  The PKA knew that then--so did they also know this easement appeared on other lots as we just recently found out?  I emailed the current head of PKA, Mr. Charles Krupnick to ask him.  Here is my email to him on this topic specifically:

"Good Morning Charles,

 I hope you are enjoying your weekend, and I wanted to run a couple of things by you.

 As I am digging into the issues of the public beach access use easement on dozens of properties on Perdido Key of which, apparently, nobody was aware I am told—I found when researching all the aforementioned deeds and litigation particularly as it related to the Windemere condominium’s initial construction---I found something interesting.  Apparently, at that time, the president of PKA and your predecessor, Dick Domurat, on behalf of the PKA fought against the county’s calculation of density allowance for this Windemere condominium on the basis of the lot size not being 3 acres total—but actually less than 2 total acres due to the existing 75’ perpetual easement for public beach access.  I found that argument to be interesting and eventually it was not persuasive to the county at that time.  The nugget of good information from that proceeding, in my view, is that all parties recognized the reality and the validity of that language; the decision on density did not turn on whether or not the easement was real, so far as I can tell, but rather that the lot size was over three acres including the easement and the presence of the easement did not diminish the factual, actual size of the lot. 

 But now, knowing all this happened in 2001—I was curious if you were aware of this 75’ easement?  Was anyone in the PKA aware?  And more importantly—are you aware of this sort of language on any of the other originally executed deeds from the Federal Government to private parties on PK from 1940 onward?

 I am tasking the legal office with finding every single one of the originally executed transfer deeds from the U.S. Government (Because the U.S. Government owned all of this land and eventually deeded it to states, counties, and private parties all over the Panhandle---and all the language in what transfers we have seen here, on Santa Rosa Island, and elsewhere all contains language protecting public ownership/accessibility of the beaches) to see if this language stipulating public access appears on every one or any others in Perdido Key specifically outside of the 64 deeds we have already found.  Thus far, it has apparently been incredibly difficult for our attorneys to locate even one (1) of these original deed transfers on ANY property outside of the original 64 we have encompassing the Gulf Beach subdivision.  However, this is a pressing concern of immense public importance and based upon what we have found thus far I do not believe we can stop researching this matter until we know with certainty whether or not these gulf front parcels all contain similar public beach access easements.  Your assistance in this search may make our task easier, thus my question to you.

 And once we know one way or another—this will drive strategy necessary to ensure appropriate public access where appropriate, the proper provision of public safety and renourishment, as well as marketing and other initiatives.  But public safety is top of mind right now for me—as three citizens visiting the area and staying in condos at PK died by drowning last week.  If these beaches have a public component as many believe we will find they do---then I will fight with everything I have to get

PERDIDO-GATE Bombshell Part II: The Windemere Case and What the County Knew in 1999-2001

 

Tuesday afternoon I wrote what would prove to be a bombshell post on this blog--- smashing the "myth" that most of Perdido Key Beaches were/are private--and totally off limits to the public.  And I posted the proof of it.  That post blew up like an exploding nuclear bomb detonation--with thousands and thosands of hits, tons of comments, and every major news outlet area-wide doing pieces on the news I broke.  News that is profound and game-changing.  I'm glad they all picked it up. 

As I said yesterday--this is probably the biggest story that has come up in my 15 years of public service.  Bigger than the School Superintendent getting a DUI,  and even bigger than the Newpoint Charter School Scandal where people went to jail and multiple  charter shcools statewide were closed.  This one is truly huge.

So now I am digging into the HOW all of this happened--because what a travesty it was that for years and years folks tried to sheild the public from the rightful and lawful use of their public beach easement--codified in the deeds of transfer from the Federal Government!  How could they get away with this?  

The first thing to remember is that these beaches were not littered with ugly no-trespassing and private property signs for decades and decades after the initial US Government sales of these lots in 1957--most likely because the owners then knew and were cognizant of the 75' of public beach easement from the water north.

Thats why in the 1960s and 1970s surfers, beachgoers, fishermen and families used these beaches with no hassels.

That's why in the 1980s I used these beaches and walked up and down them fishing with my dad----again, with no hassels.

But around the year 1999, things started to change.  Condo complexes were being planned and built, and a few years later after Hurricane Ivan in 2004--it all really started to change.

Then the "keep out" signs started going up, and this phenomenon gained steam after 2010 such that by 2015--- nearly every condo complex out in Perdido had multiple signs all up and down the beach, some all the way down to the water! No-Trespassing, Private Property, Keep Out. Some were even connected by ropes and chains.  Keeping you out, these condos even hired off duty law enforcement to "protect" what they thought was their "private property."

It was never theirs to protect though. At least the southerly 75 feet of it wasn't.

WHAT DID COUNTY STAFF KNOW ABOUT THE PUBLIC BEACH EASEMENT(S) IN 2001?

In 1999 a plan was put through the county's Development Review  process for a condominium in Perdido Key that would ultimately be known as Windemere.  It was a complex plan, that required the developer to transfer dwelling unit capacity from a number of adjacent parcels in order to build a 19 story Gulf-Front condo with nearly 145 units and two levels of parking.  It went back and forth and it was challenged.  It went to the County attorney's office.  Back and forth, between the DRC, planning, County Attorney's office and ultimately and finally the Board of Adjustment--where the development was ultimately approved and constructed after a settlement was reached between the county and the developer.

Interestingly:  the fiercest objections to the Windemere in 2000 came from the then members and leaders of the Perdido Key Association and a fellow Perdido Key resident and owner named Dick Domurat.  And their argument was nuanced.  This group argued that the density calculation used by the DRC and County to approve the Windemere development along with the associated number of dwelling units was computed utilizing a property footprint that was "too big" ---because it included the "southerly 75' easement on the parcel that was for perpetual public beach access by the public."  According to the argument put forward by Dick Domurat -- the total number of units permitted should have been no more than 13 per acre, and the overall parcel size should have been 1.9 acres once the 75' easement was backed out.

Eventually, Mr. Domurat and the PKA lost that fight, as apparently the county acknowledged the existance of the 75' easement (after Mr. Domurat provided the original deed to the county as a part of his argument) but nevertherless calculated the eventual number of approved dwelling units based on the full size of the parcel anyway--likely rationalizing that the size of the total parcel was not diminished by the presence of the 75' southerly easement.  Which is interesting.

More interesting, though, is the fact that the county knew about the public easement piece, after the final appeal of the Windemere case in 2001.  They did not deny the existance of the 75' easement on this parcel. They were provided a copy of it in the challenge to the BOA.

So why did they (county staff) not look to see if the other parcels had this same language?  Wasn't anybody curious about that?

Why just three short years later-- after Hurrican Ivan wrecked the beaches out there-- did county employees scramble to get "easements" from what apparently they thought were private property owners at Perdido Key on the Gulf so that repairs to the berms could be conducted?  Had they already forgotten what they learned in the Windemere fight about the existing public easement of 75'? 

And a few years after that--why was  environmental staff made to work to get individual easements from more than a dozen individual parcel owners  for beach renourishing post Hurricane---if these parcels all contained the 75' public beach access easements?  Why did nobody say "Hey--there was this 75' easement on one of the original deeds from the federal government in the Gulf Beach Subdivision at Windemere--let's look and see if that was a one off or if all of these parcels had the same language when they were all transferred from the Federal Government in 1957?"

Heck, another one was filed with the Clerk of Courts in 2004 with the 75' Easement Language clearly indicated.

So the clerks office had this, and the BOA knew it as did, apparently, some in the county attorney's office.  The county attorney's office signed off on the eventual Windemere Settlement Agreement and Development Order--where the public beach access easement was noted within the document, prominently, on page two.

So why did everyone suddenly, collectively get selective amnesia when people started putting signs up, hiring bouncers, and kicking people off of the beach in the subsequent years that would follow?

This is an important question of many more I will be asking in the weeks and months ahead as we seek, acquire, and analyze reams of title documents in an attempt to unpack how this was perpetrated on you and me and the public, this withholding of our access to this public beach---and more importantly--how it was accelerated and perpetuated for so long.

Lots more documents requested, many more coming and many more to go through.

Stay tuned.

PERDIDO--GATE! Most of Perdido Key Beaches are PUBLIC BEACHES After All! Part I

 

The Southern-most 75 feet (from the Gulf of Mexico Northward) of every lot indicated above (all of which were declared surplus and subsequently sold by the Federal Government in 1957 to various purchasers) contain a perpetual easement for a beach for public use.   So why have we been kicked off of OUR public beaches?  I am going to find out, and I am going to liberate this beach for all of us to use!

.....And huge thanks go out to citizen Michael McCormack for sending over a clue earlier this morning alluding to just this and ultimately requesting the documents from me (which I in turn requested from staff) which tipped over the first domino in this cascade of a truth bomb that evolved over the course the afternoon...

His email and subsequent public records request of me led to the entire legal staff and multiple staffers from Environmental going on a title/deed search today.

All day long.  And we got the document he requested and a whole lot more.

What staff found and what I am now going to post on this blog shows what many of us have suspected and obviously some have known for a long time:  The first 75 feet of Perdido Key Beaches (from the water going north) are Public Beaches After all! (the southerly 75' of each Gulf-side parcel from the state park all the way to the Perdido Sky Condominium and potentially the rest of the lots east of Perdido Skye as well as all the western lots too--we are still checking).  [Correction 4-14-23 to indicate the the extent of the parcels indicated in the initial 64 deeds received Tuesday--which do not include lots East of Perdido Skye]

Yes, that's right.  Although the Federal Government surplused these lots and sold them off in 1957-----each of the original deeds (Each One!) contains the following ALL IMPORTANT stipulation directly after the plot's legal description:

"The Southerly 75 feet of above described lot "XX" being subject to a perpetual easement for a beach for public use generally"

Every one of deeds has this language.  From County Property Attorney Stephen West:

"Commissioner Bergosh:

 Attached is the first of several emails transmitting the original 1957 deeds to the properties along the Gulf of Mexico in Gulf Beach Subdivision.  The deeds are in order (Lots 1 through 64), and each has the same language that the southerly 75 feet is subject to a perpetual easement for beach and public use generally.

 Please let me know if you need anything further.

 Steve"

So I am not a lawyer but I can read, and what I see shows me that a HUGE part of Perdido Key beaches were always supposed to be accessible/usable by the public---just as they were in 1983-86 when my dad and I used to fish out there and walk up and down that beach every weekend and never once were told we were on "Private Property".  And folks I have spoken with that grew up here going out to those beaches in the 1960s ad 1970s were never kicked out either.  Nope--this is a recent phenomenon, one which I am going to make a special area of focus for the time I have remaining on this board.

I am going to work, within the law, to liberate all those miles of beaches that have been apparently illegally blocked from use by the very people the U.S. Government intended to always (perpetually) have access--you and me and the citizens.  We've been blocked for many, many years.

That is going to change.  Quickly.

Read the original 1957 deeds for yourself, all of them,  Here  Here and Here

82nd Coffee with the Commissioner LIVE from the Beach Tomorrow Morning!

We will have our 82nd Coffee with the Commissioner event live tomorrow morning from Perdido Key Beach in District 1.  The event will take place live at 7:00 AM from the Perdido Key Chamber of Commerce's visitor center at 15500 Perdido Key Drive.

We will have county administrator Wes Moreno there to bring an update on county issues, Public Safety Director Eric Gilmore will be present to bring an update on public safety issues throughout the county and in Perdido Key, and our special guest for the day will be Perdido Key Area Chamber of Commerce President Tammy Thurrow.  We will discuss issues that are challenging out in Perdido--to include: traffic, growth, the Habitat Conservation Plan, Building Cap,  public beach access, beach signage, development, the coming tourist season, the roundabout, potential incorporation of Perdido Key, lifeguards, the Chamber's challenges being a state-line chamber and many other issues of concern from the assembled audience in the visitor's center conference room.

Watch online live and submit your questions in real time on my Facebook page at   www.facebook.com/CommissionerBergosh/. 

On WCOA's Real News with Rick Outzen tomorrow Morning

I've been invited to appear this Monday morning on the areas best, highest rated, most engaging morning drive news talk program--"Real News with Rick Outzen"

 

I've been invited to appear as the lead off guest tomorrow monring on WCOA's Real News with Rick Outzen at 7:00AM.

We will likely be discussing the OLF-8 agreement that was reached on Thursday, as well as the latest updates on the near drownings that happened Thursday out at Perdido Key.

We will also preview this week's Coffee with the Commissioner which will happen live from Perdido Key on Wednesday from 7:00AM to 8:00 AM.

Listen live at 7:00 AM tomorrow--or catch the podcast here.

Rip Currents, Water Rescues, and Perdido Key

Late last week we had a number of incidents out at Johnson's Beach/Perdido Key, where swimmers got caught in rip currents and needed to be rescued.  Ultimately, 4 helicopters landed out there and multiple persons, including two underage children, had to be transported to area hospitals.  As of this morning, I have not been able to ascertain their respective conditions and I am praying they all make full recoveries. I am told many bystanders stepped up to assist and were instrumental in making lifesaving, heroic actions to assist those stuck in the rip currents.  God Bless them and all the first responders that jumped into action that day!

I have subsequently spoken to public safety to get a SITREP and what I learned was that all of these victims were from out of town, here visiting, likely staying at privately owned condominiums at the beach utilizing the private beaches of these condominiums and/or our access points.  I was initially told that Yellow Flags were flying--warning swimmers to use caution as conditions may be dangerous.  But several eye witnesses report that Red Flags were flying--signaling that dangerous conditions are present and swimming is not permitted.

So several take aways will hopefully come from this tragic event:  More awareness is necessary.  And swimmers must know that no lifeguards are present at the privately owned and managed condominiums and private beaches at Perdido Key--so far as I have seen and been told.  Interesting that most of these same condo complexes hire security and off duty deputies to ensure nobody trespasses on their private beaches---------- yet they have no lifeguards to patrol the beaches to keep their guests and residents safe?  Interesting.  I'll be asking the Perdido Key association about this to make sure I am not wrong--but thus far I have been told most--if not all--of the condos do not station lifeguards at their private beaches to protect their guests.  

But I digress.

We have never provided lifeguards at our very small footprint access points on Perdido Key--although we do have signage warning of dangerous rip currents.  With miles and miles of Federal, State, and privately owned beaches out there--we have a total of  a little over 500 feet of publicly accessible, county owned beaches for use.  So our (county) footprint is miniscule out there juxtaposed with the miles and miles of shorline controlled by others.  Nevertheless-- We will be adding signage explaining that no lifeguards are present and swimmers must "Swim at their own risk" at our access points in the weeks ahead.  We will also add additional flagpoles at each access point and will have our fire station's crew add the appropriate flag daily at our access points for visitor awareness.

These are tangible steps we will be taking going forward at our four small access points to improve safety--because ensuring public safety is our County's paramount duty.

The county already has an agreement with Johnson's Beach and the Federal Government whereby they pay for and we provide lifeguards after Memorial Day each year--but those personnel stay on the Federal Beaches and do not patrol other areas of Perdido Key--although they will respond to distress calls out there when necessary.

So this situation provides multiple opportunities for improved safety.  Perhaps it allows for us to work together with the privately owned condos to make the beach safer?  Perhaps?  Could it ever happen that we could fund lifeguards for everyone's safety in exchange for the public's seasonal use of some of the private  beaches where such lifeguards patrol?  Or-- could we station a lifeguard somewhere at one of our existing access points?

I'll be looking at multiple approaches, as well as how to fund such moves, in the weeks ahead.  Stay tuned.

Meanwhile--always remember to use caution when swimming in the Gulf.  Whether here in Perdido Key---or anywhere along the Gulf Coast.  When one chooses to enter the water--this is a decision and

Dystopian, Fearful, Defeatist, Pessimistic Emails---and My Enthusiastic, Positive, and Realistic Response!

Dystopian, Fearful, Defeatist, Pessimistic, and emotionally-charged emails to me regarding OLF-8's pending development will, in return, receive factual, rational, educated, enthusiastic, and emotionally neutral (Think "Spock-like") responses!  

I've lived the OLF 8 issue since I bought my house right across from the field nearly 20 years ago.  At that time, it was people complaining about the noise of the choppers.  Little did I know then that a nearly decade-long effort was already well underway for the county to acquire that property for jobs from the Navy.....but it was.

Fast forward 11 years to 2015 and I became well aware of the history of the project---and I campaigned in support of a world class, high-tech, clean tech commerce park on OLF-8 to create and provide high-tech, clean-tech, high-paying jobs for the entire region--along with amenities along the 9-Mile Road frontage for nearby residents----as I successfully ran for and won the D1 seat on the BCC.  

Yes--I've lived this issue for a long time now.

Although some will now attempt to re-write history, the facts are the facts:  I supported jobs, and I vehemently DID NOT support any, not one, residential dwelling on that field. NONE.

But then came the upswelling of anger and frustration from neighbors, politically connected companies, and stong special interests----and the original plan went out the window faster than lightning in favor of a watered down footprint for jobs--favoring a much larger mixed use development and some amenities. And yes, some residential on the field was incorporated into this "new direction"--even though very few in Beulah wanted any more residential built there on OLF 8.  Even my most ardent, staunchest political enemies in the area agreed with my assessment that we should NOT be competing with the private sector by sourcing land for homebuilders on OLF 8 because there was too much residential being built in Beulah already and the infrastructure couldn't support more on OLF 8.  

But I was outvoted.  

And then I went through the master planning, swallowed hard, held my nose, gagged and in the spirit of compromise went along with the rest of the board in supporting the master plan as the blueprint going forward for this parcel. It was a hard-fought compromise that left a little something for everyone, a lot of stuff a lot of people didn't want, and very little of what a few people wanted.  Nobody was 100% happy-it was the epitome of a compromise.

That's the fact, Jack.  That's how this happened, and that is how we came to be where we are today, period, end of story.

And now that we have chosen a group with which to partner-----as only one group came to the drop dead meeting yesterday-----I am receiving some emails that are negative.  I am also receiving some that are positive.  The negatives outweigh the positives roughly 2-1.  Here, below, is an example "negative" email and my upbeat, positive, rational, and factual response:

"Jeff,

Please [do] not [use]DR Horton (sic), he is a cheap builder and will add nothing to our area and OLF-8. It would be nice to have decent restaurants. Would be great to have a Post Office,  but as you told me the USPS is closing offices, although there are 2 close together on 29. I go back to MLK and Fairfield by the School District Warehouse to purchase stamps and do mailing. Very inconvenient.

But we say no to DRA Horton(sic), not that it matters. Sounds like a done deal. And traffic will be horrific with more homes and apartments. Oh well, the end of paradise.

Thanks,"

My response:

"Thanks for the email.  I believe we did the best we could-- given the fact that the stronger bidder (Breland) didn’t show up to the selection meeting and given the fact that DR Horton is now teaming with Stirling and upped their offer significantly.  Additionally, to their credit, DR Horton acquiesced to our insistence that they accept a deed restriction limiting their ability to build residential on the light industrial/commercial areas of the parcel.  And they did set aside a 20 acre piece of the parcel for potential sale to the school board for a school if the school board decides they want to pursue that.  And their plan has a town center, Class A medical and office buildings, retail, restaurants, and other amenities for the Beulah community. The half-hearted Breland “rendering” sent to us the night before the meeting that they did not attend indicated a small, miniscule retail parcel on the nine mile frontage, a tiny, miniscule parcel for job creation (commercial, light industrial) on the northeast corner----and the entire balance of the land residential.  It was DOA the minute I saw it, so it was wise they ghosted us and did a no show.

 Remember XXXXX—from the get go I powerfully advocated against ANY residential on that field.  I wanted amenities, retail, restaurants on the frontage and the balance of the land for the creation of high-tech, clean tech jobs (like NFCU in aesthetically pleasing buildings).  But due to the pressure put on my counterparts by local residents, and powerful and politically connected special interests,—that original plan (you know, the reason we spent $18.5 million and 25 years working on this project in the first place—as a regional jobs generator) was thrown out the window.  Over my objections.  That is the true history, well documented, of how we got where we are today. So we did the master plan which I ultimately endorsed and voted to support, in the spirit of compromise.

 With that as the backdrop, we are where we are now with one interested party.  And while the plan is not perfect, I do think this team will work with us.  And over the next 6 months or so we will hammer out an agreement that will result in between a $20-$27 Million dollar “profit” for the taxpayers—which proceeds can be used throughout Beulah, District 1, and the county to address deficiencies in stormwater and traffic infrastructure as well as other quality of life needs.  And remember this, as well:  We have a $155 Million Dollar interchange coming in Beulah which will divert half of the current 9-mile road traffic which all utilizes exit five.  Additionally, Beulah Road—now a state road—will be widened in that plan.  The state is currently constructing significant upgrades on Mobile Hwy from Blue Angel all the way to 9 Mile road through Beulah.  And the Governor’s newly-announced Florida Forward initiative earmarks $162 Million for an ambitious 6-year plan to 6-lane 1-10 through Beulah from the weigh station to Pine Forest road along with a significant re-work of the entire interchange at exit 7.  So infrastructure upgrades and modernization projects are in the works right now and have been in planning since I first took office 6 years ago.

 And the built up field will create jobs and generate significant new ad valorem tax revenue for the county and the school board—which is the real, long horizon plus of this deal.  This added revenue allows us to maintain what we have done this past year:  ensuring our sheriff’s deputies, EMTs, paramedics, firemen, and corrections guards are the highest paid in the region.  All of this without raising the year over year millage (property tax) rates.  Growing the economy allows us to do these great things while keeping the tax burden low.

 So thanks for your email of concern, and please know I am going to do my level best to shepherd this deal toward a finale that produces a huge win for Beulah (where I have lived for 20 years right across from OLF 8), the county, and the region.

 Happy Easter, and have a great weekend."

 

What was Breland's Plan, Anyway?

Breland's conceptual drawing, above, did not/does not jibe with what their written offer committed to doing.......

Like a lot of folks in Beulah in very close proximity to OLF 8---I was extremely excited and optimistic about the proposal put forward by Breland to develop this 536 acre parcel right across the street from my house in my district.   In fact, even though their initial offer was $3 Million less than the first offer from their competitor, DR Horton--I still favored the Breland language, concept, and vision over Horton's--because it most closely mirrored the master plan compromise we all accepted for this property's future development.

But then came last Wednesday, before the all important April 6th deadline the board had set for all interested offerors to bring a plan for OLF 8 to the board.  It was in the press, on tv and all over the radio.  Everyone knew April 6th was Deadline Day.  So I must say I was taken aback when I received a call from the Breland CEO late on the 5th where he essentially told me nobody from his team would be coming to the decision meeting the next day--he was out of the area and nobody would be coming because according to him "nobody told him the Arpil 6th meeting was decision day."

Later that evening we received an email from Breland expressing their continued interest and also double-downing on the idea they didn't have time to show up the next day because they were unaware of the board's meeting and that the 6th was going to be decision day.  Along with that email, a rendering of their concept for OLF 8 was also included.  And it was NOT in line with what their (Breland's) initial offer stated.  NOT in line with the master plan, NOT in line with what the board requested with respect to acreage for high-tech job creation, NOT in line with what the community wanted with respect to retail and restaurant options in the 9-Mile road frontage of the property, LACKING a town center, and NOT at all what folks like me that SUPPORTED the Breland deal over the Horton plan expected.  It was astonishing the degree to which it missed the mark.  It missed the mark spectacularly.  And in all honesty--had Breland's team even showed up to the meeting with this badly deficient plan---for my vote it would have been a non-starter from the word go.  Dead upon arrival.  

Maybe that is the real reason they pulled a no show?  We may not know for sure ever but that is my hunch.  Meanwhile---to those like me that initially supported the Breland concept as verbalized in their offer letter---take a look at what they wanted to do, above.  look at it side by side with their initial letter of intent and analyze the disparities.  And then let's talk.  If you still want to.  I'll be here.