E-Mail Is Public Record
County Atty's Response to Ms. Willoughby’s email: RESPONSE: The rule is three minutes. It’s up to the discretion of the chair whether to grant additional time. No further response is necessary. RESPONSE: Staff has no discretion to reject an application that satisfies formal requirements. RESPONSE: Covenants and restrictions are private and contractual in nature. The County is not a party to them, and therefore has no standing to enforce them. If a building permit application is submitted that complies with all applicable county regulations, county staff is obligated to issue the permit, even if the staff is aware that the proposed construction violates private covenants and restrictions. An application for a land use change is regulatory in nature, and therefore is not limited or made “illegal” by the existence of incompatible covenants and restrictions. I don’t know what “highest and best use” has to do with a land use regulatory matter or with private covenants and restrictions. It’s a concept used by real property appraisers in determining value. RESPONSE: Although I have no personal knowledge regarding the ownership of the golf course property, I am assuming from the foregoing that (i) Jax Golf owned the property, subject to a mortgage held by Bank of America; (ii) the bank commenced a foreclosure action on the mortgage; (iii) the court entered a judgment of foreclosure that established the total amount owed to the bank for unpaid principal, interest, costs and attorney’s fees, and that scheduled a foreclosure sale; and (iv) Jax Golf commenced a bankruptcy proceeding before the sale date. On those assumptions, I will say simply that (a) the judgment of foreclosure would not operate to vest title to the property in the bank (it would only liquidate the amount owed and order a sale by auction to satisfy the debt); (b) even after the foreclosure sale Jax Golf would retain its title to the property for some period of time (by statute it’s ten days, I think) until the clerk issues a certificate of title, during which time Jax Golf could “redeem” the property by paying the judgment amount to the clerk; (c) once the bankruptcy was filed, the automatic stay provisions of federal law would apply to abate all pending lawsuits affecting Jax Golf’s property or its liabilities; (d) the bankruptcy trustee would take possession and control of all of Jax Golf’s assets, including the golf course, for the benefit and protection of Jax Golf’s creditors; (e) the trustee would have tremendous power and authority under federal bankruptcy law to liquidate the assets in order to obtain the highest value for distribution to those creditors filing claims (this would include selling the golf course property, and taking steps prior to the sale to enhance its value, such as seeking a favorable land use and/or zoning change); and (f) assuming that the bank’s mortgage was prior to all other liens on the property, and that the amount owed to the bank did not exceed the value of the property, the bank could apply to the bankruptcy court to have the property released from the automatic stay so that the bank could proceed with the foreclosure sale (perhaps that happened here, and the court decided to give the trustee one shot at selling the property for more than the bank is owed, failing which the stay would be lifted). I do not know whether real property sold at bankruptcy can be released from private covenants and restrictions, as I do not practice bankruptcy law. But I do know that bankruptcy courts have amazing powers to modify or void contract provisions under certain circumstances. Whether those circumstances are present here is unknown to me, but since covenants and restrictions are contractual in nature, therefore I wouldn’t be surprised if they could be altered or abrogated under bankruptcy law. RESPONSE: No response is necessary. RESPONSE: No response is necessary. RESPONSE: I don’t know about any moratorium applicable to The Ravines. No further response is necessary. RESPONSE: All such direction has already been provided by ordinance. RESPONSE: By ordinance the Board is obliged to consider a timely appeal from a “no study” decision by the Planning Commission. No further response is necessary. Related: Livin_In_Clay's blog | login or register to post comments | printer friendly version | Tags: The Ravines
Submitted by Marsha on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 9:35pm.
I don't intend to take the time to compare my email and the response of Commissioner Bradley to what Livin in Clay has posted, it appears fairly accurate at first glance. I would like to point out though that this is not a copy of anything, it is something Livin created combining an email and the response into one document so to speak. I could have copied and pasted both of them myself and put them in the blogs but I have a little more respect for all of you. I figured I should speak about it in my own words rather then do something I personally consider for myself to be lazy. What is in the blog isn't really a public record of any sort, it's a personal creation that belongs to Livin in Clay.
Submitted by OneMann on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 9:57pm.
Marsha, this puzzled me, too, as to the purpose of the original post. Especially since it covered a topic that had already been discussed. A little intro or something to explain why we should be reading it would have been nice. Michael S. Mann Submitted by Angela on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 10:10pm.
What is his point. Here are all the emails that were sent concerning questions about the Ravines and some discussions on the blogs. I see nothing here that hasn't been discussed on the blogs and/or at the meetings. So just what is his point. You know if you want to produce public records you should produce them all. From: SUNSHINEPUGS@aol.com [SUNSHINEPUGS@aol.com]Sent: Tue 1/22/2008 10:57 PMTo: Mark H. ScrubyCc: Fritz Behring; Harold Rutledge; sjlyda3627@comcast.net; slyda@rivergarden.org; TWReeseEsq@aol.com; northeastfwf@fwfonline.org; CommissionersSubject: SUSPECT: Re: regarding Ravines opinion letterMr. ScrubyIt's really too bad that I did not have this information a couple of hours ago before the BCC Planning meeting. Because, as I explained to Commissioner Bradley at the meeting tonight, I was requesting a copy of the letter which he says that you wrote in order to understand what had transpired prior to the Blog. That Blog in the Clay Times was giving little or no hope for the Ravines residents to try to persuade the County to not do the study based on, as the blogger says, an "opinion" from you. I had nothing else to go on. I did not know what had been asked, nor how you had responded. This response from you is what I needed and it seemed I could not get any information from anyone regarding this. We are not on a frequent communication basis with those in the Ravines. So you may have assumed that we knew what they did. However, this blog was the first that I had heard of any "opinion" rendered by you. I knew nothing of the questions nor how you had answered. I could only assume that the blog which the Clay Sun chose to print, was either an attempt to discourage the residents or was this persons correct or otherwise interpretation of your response. In an email to me though, Tom Reese does say: "I think the Trustee would have to apply for the plan amendment. Because comp plan amendments are legislative in nature, I think the bankruptcy court might not have jurisdiction (I think the bankruptcy court may not be able to exercise legislative comp. planning authority). Tom"If I did not say the above correctly, than I am sorry. However, it is now a mute point as the BCC voted to deny the appeal to study. In the future, I hope we can avoid these misunderstandings.Sincerely,Dawyn M BoyerIn a message dated 1/22/2008 9:50:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, Mark.Scruby@co.clay.fl.us writes: Ms. Boyer, let me start with your email to Comm. Rutledge at the beginning of this chain. You commence by saying, “We are seeking state legislative information from Tom Reese at the Wild Life Federation regarding the entity with the power to trump the legislative act which established the existing Ravines PUD.” Poor Tom! To the best of my knowledge the Legislature has never been involved with the Ravines PUD. The zoning regulations of a great many cities and counties include the PUD as a flexible category for innovative forms of development that won't fit into a more traditional zoning district. As such, the PUD is a creature of local ordinance, not state law. Clay County’s zoning regulations have included the PUD for as long as I have worked here (which is to say, a long time). The initial PUD for the Ravines property was approved by the County some years before I arrived, and has been modified a number of times. In Clay County, a party seeking to modify a PUD must submit an application to rezone the property or some portion of it from “PUD” to “Re-PUD”. The application is processed in the same way as any other application for rezoning. As for identifying “the entity with the power to trump the legislative act which established the existing Ravines PUD”, I'm not sure what you are looking for. I guess the “legislative act” would have to be the ordinances adopted by the Board of County Commissioners approving the initial PUD zoning and its subsequent modifications. But I can't figure out what you mean by “the power to trump the legislative act”. The Board has the final say on rezoning to PUD or Re-PUD. Nobody else can “trump” its decision in this regard, unless you want to consider a court’s power to review a zoning decision (upon proper and timely petition) and to “quash” the decision (that is, to set it aside and nullify its effect) for proper cause to be “trump” power. But that would be it, the courts and nobody else.
Next you say, “By Clay County making public comments which could implicate or imply that the County would ultimately succumb to the Bankruptcy Judges decision regarding this issue, they may in fact be making the County liable for mis/dis-information intended only to increase the upcoming sale price.” It’s true that I recently responded to a commissioner’s inquiry about the Ravines. If you are referring to that response, I’m at a loss to understand how anything I said there could be interpreted as remotely suggesting that “the County would ultimately succumb to the Bankruptcy Judges decision regarding this issue” (that is, the issue about “trumping” the Ravines PUD). Really, I don’t even know what you mean by “succumbing to the bankruptcy judge.” The only thing I can figure is that my musings to the commissioner about the extent of a bankruptcy court’s power to revise or set aside private covenants and restrictions were transformed in the retelling into a positive “legal opinion” that a bankruptcy court can somehow modify or set aside PUD conditions and requirements. I never said or implied anything of the sort. As for the County’s potential liability “for mis/dis-information intended only to increase the upcoming sale price”, I cannot imagine how that might arise. But I’m much more concerned about your suggestion that I or someone else with the County have made “public comments” of any kind that are “intended only to increase the upcoming sale price.” You’ve known me for a good while now. Frankly, it’s discouraging and disappointing to learn that your opinion of me is compatible with the notion that I would make any public comments with such intent. I don’t give a hoot about the trustee’s sale and I have absolutely no interest in somehow influencing its outcome. Nor have I made statements that could reasonably be so interpreted.
For the record, a constituent sent an email to Comm. Bradley with a number of questions and statements about the golf course property. He forwarded the email to me for comment. In due course I replied by email. Comm. Bradley subsequently responded to his constituent in an email which mentioned my involvement and quoted various parts of my email. I don’t know where it went from there, but I can see that it fueled much blogging. What I said about the pending bankruptcy was based upon four plainly stated assumptions that were not held out as “fact”. I don’t know anything about the bankruptcy and foreclosure proceedings involving the golf course other than their existence, and I was careful to point that out. The constituent’s email included the statement: “The Trustee who is in charge of the property while in Bankruptcy CANNOT supersede [the Ravines] Covenants and Restrictions . . . .” On this point I remarked as follows:
I do not know whether real property sold at bankruptcy can be released from private covenants and restrictions, as I do not practice bankruptcy law. But I do know that bankruptcy courts have amazing powers to modify or void contract provisions under certain circumstances. Whether those circumstances are present here is unknown to me, but since covenants and restrictions are contractual in nature, therefore I wouldn’t be surprised if they could be altered or abrogated under bankruptcy law.
That’s hardly a legal opinion. Rather, it’s a statement expressly disclaiming knowledge whether a bankruptcy court has power over covenants and restrictions. The only positive “opinion” stated there is that “covenants and restrictions are contractual in nature”, as indeed they are (in my opinion). Although I tend to doubt that a bankruptcy court would mess with covenants and restrictions in the ordinary course even if it possessed the power to do so, still, I wouldn’t be surprised should such power be available to it. But how one might regard my obvious speculations as a legal opinion about a bankruptcy court’s authority is beyond me. Yet bloggers will be bloggers.
Interpreting your inquiry to me as a public records request, attached is my reply email to Comm. Bradley mentioned above.
Mark H Scruby, County Attorney Clay County, Florida Post Office Box 1366 Green Cove Springs, FL 32043 (V) 904 269 6377 (F) 904 269 6346
Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice, the Clay County Attorney's Office hereby informs and notifies each addressee hereof, including any copied addressee, that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the addressee under the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder; or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed herein. To the extent that this communication may be deemed to contain any U.S. federal tax advice, then unless otherwise specifically stated herein, the addressee is expressly notified by the Clay County Attorney's Office that the addressee may not and cannot rely or base any decision, action or inaction upon the same, but should seek advice based on the addressee’s particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
From: SUNSHINEPUGS@aol.com [mailto:SUNSHINEPUGS@aol.com]
Dear Mr. Scruby,
In a recent blog in the Clay Sun, a blogger comments on a letter he says was written by you in which you have given a legal opinion regarding the proposed land use change for the Ravines Resort. As you know, this parcel is scheduled for sale/auction on January 31st of 2008. Did you write any such letter and/or give any opinion of the proposed land use change? If so, please email a copy to me. If you have not written an opinion letter or advised either Mr. Bradley or the Trustee/Debusk of your opinion regarding this proposed land use change, please advise me of that as well.
Thank you. Dawyn M Boyer 5634 Apache Court Middleburg, Fl 32068 904 291-0500 From: SUNSHINEPUGS
Were you able to open the attached blog that I sent which referenced an opinion rendered by Mark Scruby through Commissioner Bradley which the blogger had read? It was this opinion letter, which is cause for my concern. As the Commissioner for this district, I just thought that you might have knowledge of this letter and if not, would ask Mr. Scruby if in fact he has rendered such an opinion on this issue regarding the Ravines Resort and the now Trustee. Thank you. Dawyn M Boyer
In a message dated 1/18/2008 8:35:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, Harold.Rutledge@co.clay.fl.us writes: I do not know what you are refering to. ----- Original Message ----- Dear Mr. Rutledge, We are seeking state legislative infomation from Tom Reese at the Wild Life Federation regarding the entity with the power to trump the legislative act which established the existing Ravines PUD. By Clay County making public comments which could implicate or imply that the County would ultimately succumb to the Bankruptcy Judges decision regarding this issue, they may in fact may be makinig the County liable for mis/dis-information intended only to increase the upcoming sale price. Please see attached Blog. I am formally requesting a copy of the letter to which the blogger is referring. If you have no knowledge of such letter then you need to acknowledge that as well. Dawyn M Boyer ________________________________ Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape <http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489> in the new year. --------------------------------------------------------------------
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. "Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing." X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Response to Ms. Willoughby’s email:
1. STATEMENT: First of all so it cannot be overlooked and forgotten if an Appeal on the Land Use Change in the Ravines is scheduled my Husband Fred Catchpole wants to be put on the Agenda so he can speak for more then three minutes. He can provide expert information on more then one level and he is a resident of the Ravines. I would be more then happy to provide you with his credentials if that would help. I have been counseled that constitutionally you cannot refuse.
RESPONSE: The rule is three minutes. It’s up to the discretion of the chair whether to grant additional time. No further response is necessary.
2. STATEMENT: I am so very dissapointed that this application was even accepted by the PC Staff.
RESPONSE: Staff has no discretion to reject an application that satisfies formal requirements.
3. STATEMENT: Covenants & Restrictions written for the Ravines protects that Golf Course unless the majority of residents themselves are in favor of changing it and you all know that is not the case here. In order to change "Highest and Best use" there is legal criteria that must be met. The deciding factor in this application is that you cannot change it if it is not legal. The Covenants & Restrictions of the Community made this an illegal request. Something that basic that is contained in Public Records should have been known by the Staff of and/or the Planning Commission. For you to even entertain this appeal is wrong, and the whole process has been a waste of the Taxpayers money.
RESPONSE: Covenants and restrictions are private and contractual in nature. The County is not a party to them, and therefore has no standing to enforce them. If a building permit application is submitted that complies with all applicable county regulations, county staff is obligated to issue the permit, even if the staff is aware that the proposed construction violates private covenants and restrictions. An application for a land use change is regulatory in nature, and therefore is not limited or made “illegal” by the existence of incompatible covenants and restrictions. I don’t know what “highest and best use” has to do with a land use regulatory matter or with private covenants and restrictions. It’s a concept used by real property appraisers in determining value.
4. STATEMENT: There is also the issue of ownership, although the property is in Bankruptcy it does not change the fact that Bank of America owns the property and no where on that application did they appear, and they won't appear because they know to ask for a Land Use Change on that Golf Course violates the Covenants & Restrictions that they are obligated to comply with. Jacksonville Golf defaulted on their loan, Judge Buttner ordered the property be given to the Bank, and the Bank set an Auction Date of Aug 6th/07. Bankruptcy was filed AFTER that order was issued. Therefore the owner of the property is not Jacksonville Golf, but Bank of America. The Bankruptcy merely stayed the Auction and subsequently the Bank has moved to lift the stay and is scheduled to reclaim the property on Feb 2, 2008 when it does not sell at Auction on 31 Jan. I know it won't sell because the Trustee has already stood up in front of a few hundred residents a couple of months ago and told them he would not accept less then 5 million dollars which it is not worth in mint condition unless of course your intent is to develop it. The Trustee who is in charge of the property while in Bankruptcy CANNOT supercede those Covenants and Restrictions, he is NOT above the Law and it is my opinion that this Trustee is not living up to his ethical obligations in this case but that is another discussion.
RESPONSE: Although I have no personal knowledge regarding the ownership of the golf course property, I am assuming from the foregoing that (i) Jax Golf owned the property, subject to a mortgage held by Bank of America; (ii) the bank commenced a foreclosure action on the mortgage; (iii) the court entered a judgment of foreclosure that established the total amount owed to the bank for unpaid principal, interest, costs and attorney’s fees, and that scheduled a foreclosure sale; and (iv) Jax Golf commenced a bankruptcy proceeding before the sale date. On those assumptions, I will say simply that (a) the judgment of foreclosure would not operate to vest title to the property in the bank (it would only liquidate the amount owed and order a sale by auction to satisfy the debt); (b) even after the foreclosure sale Jax Golf would retain its title to the property for some period of time (by statute it’s ten days, I think) until the clerk issues a certificate of title, during which time Jax Golf could “redeem” the property by paying the judgment amount to the clerk; (c) once the bankruptcy was filed, the automatic stay provisions of federal law would apply to abate all pending lawsuits affecting Jax Golf’s property or its liabilities; (d) the bankruptcy trustee would take possession and control of all of Jax Golf’s assets, including the golf course, for the benefit and protection of Jax Golf’s creditors; (e) the trustee would have tremendous power and authority under federal bankruptcy law to liquidate the assets in order to obtain the highest value for distribution to those creditors filing claims (this would include selling the golf course property, and taking steps prior to the sale to enhance its value, such as seeking a favorable land use and/or zoning change); and (f) assuming that the bank’s mortgage was prior to all other liens on the property, and that the amount owed to the bank did not exceed the value of the property, the bank could apply to the bankruptcy court to have the property released from the automatic stay so that the bank could proceed with the foreclosure sale (perhaps that happened here, and the court decided to give the trustee one shot at selling the property for more than the bank is owed, failing which the stay would be lifted). I do not know whether real property sold at bankruptcy can be released from private covenants and restrictions, as I do not practice bankruptcy law. But I do know that bankruptcy courts have amazing powers to modify or void contract provisions under certain circumstances. Whether those circumstances are present here is unknown to me, but since covenants and restrictions are contractual in nature, therefore I wouldn’t be surprised if they could be altered or abrogated under bankruptcy law.
5. STATEMENT: The Residents of the Ravines should not have to continually battle the further expansion of a PUD that is built out. If you compromise the integrity of PUDs by allowing them to be expanded you are only going to to discourage potential buyers in Clay County from buying into such things. Residents of Eagle Harbor, Fleming Island etc are all watching what you all are doing.
RESPONSE: No response is necessary.
6. STATEMENT: The Collective lost of value to the residents in the Ravines has been estimated between 35 and 46 million dollars with the closure of that course and it will double if it was allowed to be torn up for development.
RESPONSE: No response is necessary.
7. STATEMENT: It is my sincere wish that you extend and ammend the moratorium. As a Real Estate Professional I can tell you if you don't slow down the residential construction you are going to have a negative impact on the value of existing homes for a couple of decades. There needs to be something in place that protects built out PUDs from having to protect themselves every six months or a year against developers. There needs to be an ordinance in place that protects a built out PUD for a specific amount of time, like 20yrs before any applications for Land Use Changes are even accepted for study.
RESPONSE: I don’t know about any moratorium applicable to The Ravines. No further response is necessary.
8. STATEMENT: Your Planning Commmission and Staff need some direction on just what they have an obligation to accept, and what they have an obligation to reject, this should never have come before the Planning Commission.
RESPONSE: All such direction has already been provided by ordinance.
9. STATEMENT: The needs and the rights of the many outweighs the needs and the rights of a few. I urge all of you to put a stop to the circus that Jacksonville Golf has caused this community and do what is right. The right thing in this case would be to refuse to hear the Appeal because the Application itself is illegal.
RESPONSE: By ordinance the Board is obliged to consider a timely appeal from a “no study” decision by the Planning Commission. No further response is necessary.
Mark H Scruby, County Attorney Clay County, Florida Post Office Box 1366 Green Cove Springs, FL 32043 (V) 904 269 6377 (F) 904 269 6346
Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice, the Clay County Attorney's Office hereby informs and notifies each addressee hereof, including any copied addressee, that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the addressee under the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder; or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed herein. To the extent that this communication may be deemed to contain any U.S. federal tax advice, then unless otherwise specifically stated herein, the addressee is expressly notified by the Clay County Attorney's Office that the addressee may not and cannot rely or base any decision, action or inaction upon the same, but should seek advice based on the addressee’s particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
From: Rob Bradley
Ms. Willoughby:
Thanks for your comments. You have raised several issues and I am forwarding your email to the County Manager and County Attorney so they can advise this Commissioner regarding the points that you have raised.
I am glad to see that you and your husband have taken the time to get involved. Feel free to email or call me anytime regarding County issues.
Very truly yours, Rob Bradley, Commissioner, District 1
From: ClsyChassy@aol.com [mailto:ClsyChassy@aol.com]
First of all so it cannot be overlooked and forgotten if an Appeal on the Land Use Change in the Ravines is scheduled my Husband Fred Catchpole wants to be put on the Agenda so he can speak for more then three minutes. He can provide expert information on more then one level and he is a resident of the Ravines. I would be more then happy to provide you with his credentials if that would help. I have been counseled that constitutionally you cannot refuse.
I am so very dissapointed that this application was even accepted by the PC Staff. Covenants & Restrictions written for the Ravines protects that Golf Course unless the majority of residents themselves are in favor of changing it and you all know that is not the case here. In order to change "Highest and Best use" there is legal criteria that must be met. The deciding factor in this application is that you cannot change it if it is not legal. The Covenants & Restrictions of the Community made this an illegal request. Something that basic that is contained in Public Records should have been known by the Staff of and/or the Planning Commission. For you to even entertain this appeal is wrong, and the whole process has been a waste of the Taxpayers money.
There is also the issue of ownership, although the property is in Bankruptcy it does not change the fact that Bank of America owns the property and no where on that application did they appear, and they won't appear because they know to ask for a Land Use Change on that Golf Course violates the Covenants & Restrictions that they are obligated to comply with. Jacksonville Golf defaulted on their loan, Judge Buttner ordered the property be given to the Bank, and the Bank set an Auction Date of Aug 6th/07. Bankruptcy was filed AFTER that order was issued. Therefore the owner of the property is not Jacksonville Golf, but Bank of America. The Bankruptcy merely stayed the Auction and subsequently the Bank has moved to lift the stay and is scheduled to reclaim the property on Feb 2, 2008 when it does not sell at Auction on 31 Jan. I know it won't sell because the Trustee has already stood up in front of a few hundred residents a couple of months ago and told them he would not accept less then 5 million dollars which it is not worth in mint condition unless of course your intent is to develop it. The Trustee who is in charge of the property while in Bankruptcy CANNOT supercede those Covenants and Restrictions, he is NOT above the Law and it is my opinion that this Trustee is not living up to his ethical obligations in this case but that is another discussion.
The Residents of the Ravines should not have to continually battle the further expansion of a PUD that is built out. If you compromise the integrity of PUDs by allowing them to be expanded you are only going to to discourage potential buyers in Clay County from buying into such things. Residents of Eagle Harbor, Fleming Island etc are all watching what you all are doing.
The Collective lost of value to the residents in the Ravines has been estimated between 35 and 46 million dollars with the closure of that course and it will double if it was allowed to be torn up for development.
It is my sincere wish that you extend and ammend the moratorium. As a Real Estate Professional I can tell you if you don't slow down the residential construction you are going to have a negative impact on the value of existing homes for a couple of decades. There needs to be something in place that protects built out PUDs from having to protect themselves every six months or a year against developers. There needs to be an ordinance in place that protects a built out PUD for a specific amount of time, like 20yrs before any applications for Land Use Changes are even accepted for study.
Your Planning Commmission and Staff need some direction on just what they have an obligation to accept, and what they have an obligation to reject, this should never have come before the Planning Commission.
The needs and the rights of the many outweighs the needs and the rights of a few. I urge all of you to put a stop to the circus that Jacksonville Golf has caused this community and do what is right. The right thing in this case would be to refuse to hear the Appeal because the Application itself is illegal.
Thank You
Marsha L. Willoughby 3812 Creek Hollow Ln Middleburg, FL 32068 291-3596
Submitted by Marsha on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 10:30am.
Thanks for adding all this, I'm still trying to digest it all but it's really interesting and gives a more complete picture of the events. Obviously Mr Scruby doesn't think much of us "bloggers" have we become a dirty word? Mr Scruby, Since you obviously read the blogs I have news for you Sugar. The bloggers are some of the people who pay your salary. It's not nice to bite the hand that feeds you! Submitted by Angela on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 10:49am.
Well I think its best if the bloggers and readers have a clear picture of the events as they unfolded. Not some response taken out of context and put on the blogs. I felt Scruby was the one backing up, or off, his statements when questioned. Although the point was moot at this juncture because the study has been denied by the Commissioners. I thought your email as written to the Commissioner and not as posted (out of context) by Livin in Clay would show you have been consistent with all your statements. As I've said before you never know who's reading the blogs. After all what's his point anyway. Submitted by Angela on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 12:18pm.
Let's not use Queen I wouldn't want to be associated with Fitzgerald and her title. Of course I sleep, eat , and breathe integrity. I am an equal opportunity blogger here to provide information and some opinions. It is of the sole discretion of the readers and bloggers to use any information that I have provided. People are talking about ...Here are the recent blog postings with the most comments. |
Who's online
There are currently 8 users and 216 guests online.
Recent comments |
Is this somehow supposed to embarrass me? You failed. All you have done is shown the readers that I did what I said I did. I have said nothing in that email that I haven't said in the blogs. I stand behind what I've said and my own personal beliefs, all you've done is support my cause and my character.
So what's your point?