Navarre Beach Access vs. Develoment

This forum is where you find information about the Navarre Beach Master Plan. You can discuss here the pros and cons of changing the Navarre Beach Master Plan.
Post Reply
User avatar
Pete
Power User
Power User
Posts: 1753
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:26 am
Location: Navarre - Hidden Creek Estates

Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:26 am

Not sure where this post fits best - several issues - but -
while reading a recent post on another forum about Salter and Cole - I was reminded about another concern I have about them/the BOCC.

Reading the latest Navarre Press, Oct 28, a page 1-B article by Ken Garner on the "Commissioners get beach title ball rolling" had an attribution that concerned me. For background, it had to do with starting to move forward towards a goal of Escambia and Santa Rosa counties getting out of the "leasehold" business (and resulting property tax controversies) - and working towards actual property titles for such properties (e.g., the whole "act of congress" thing, etc.).
For the record - I am in favor of such a move.

The article covered some of the discussions between the two BOCC's and the details of passing a joint resolution to that effect. - when when discussing such details one of the Escambia BOCC members was purported to say that the joint resolution should include that all public areas, including beaches, beach access, parking and conservations areas remain protected. I don't see anything wrong with that. Pubic beach access is a big issue in counties to the east of us.

Here is my concern - the article went on to say that (the article is quoted, but article did not use quotes marks on this attribution, so do not know what the exact quote of Salter and Cole was?), "Santa Rosa County commissioners Bob Cole and Don Salter suggested that Navarre Beach access, conservation and recreation areas shouldn't be encumbered by the joint resolution because it has more potential to be developed."

WTF? - "potential" to "develop" the public "access, conservation and recreation areas" of Navarre Beach!?!?!
They need to be stopped of even thinking that.
With that sort of thinking, I am very in favor of an additional layer of "protection" of "pubic access" in the joint resolution if we have commissioners that are even thing about private development of such - even if, "Santa Rosa County Commission Chairman Gordon Goodin of Navarre said the Navarre Beach Master Plan and a variety of other federal, state and local laws would protect against over development."
With the attribution to Salter and Cole - I'm not so sure.

If that is how the BOCC is approaching this - maybe I'll have to change my opinion about amendment 4? (no probably not - but we, of the "public", all have to get more involved in providing the local planning board and BOCC input.)
Besides it was Goodin and the BOCC that is "exploring" putting wind generation power turbines on the public beach areas! Do NOT need or want 200+ foot high propellers cluttering the beach views, not to mention the potential damage when they come down in a hurricane.

We all need to keep a close eye on all of this - and especially Cole and Salter, who are not "south" or "Navarre Beach" district commissioners, if they are just looking at Navarre Beach to "develop" to raise taxes to be used mostly at the other end of the county at the expense of access and preservation for all citizens.
Cheers, Pete
Go Vikings!
User avatar
Pete
Power User
Power User
Posts: 1753
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:26 am
Location: Navarre - Hidden Creek Estates

Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:11 am

In fairness - I have heard from another person who noted that he had listened to the actual referenced joint BOCC meeting and that Salter and Cole did not NOT bring up "greater potential for development" among their reasons for not further protecting public beach access/recreation areas with such wording in the body of the joint resolution.
It may of been "interpretation" by the reporter?
I hope to watch the video of the meeting to see what was actually said and talk to the BOCC members about what they did mean.
Cheers, Pete
Go Vikings!
User avatar
Pete
Power User
Power User
Posts: 1753
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:26 am
Location: Navarre - Hidden Creek Estates

Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:59 am

Folks may want to comment to BOCC at/before Monday's meeting:

The following is on the Monday Nov 8th BOCC agenda.
Administrative Committee
1. Discussion Joint Resolution with Escambia County Board of County Commissioners requesting Congressional action to release certain restrictions on conveyance for property on Santa Rosa Island.

Page 2 second paragraph on the Joint Resolution with Escambia County Board of County Commissioners requesting Congressional action is the following:
WHEREAS. the counties intend such legislation to require the counties to preserve those areas on Pensacola Beach dedicated to conservation preservation, public, recreation or access uses and preserve adequate conservation, preservation, public, recreation or access uses on Navarre Beach:

Define "adequate" - by whose definition? the public's or the BOCC's?, etc.
The word ADEQUATE needs to be deleted and add ALL AREAS CURRENTLY DEDICATED!!

If the wording is not changed the BOCC will be putting at risk the future of our Navarre Beach public parks and beach access that so much benefits the residents of Navarre and this County.
Cheers, Pete
Go Vikings!
Post Reply

Return to “Navarre Beach Master Plan”