Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceThe supervisors sent a message to potential Naples property investors this week, effectively telling them that any efforts toward developing the land will be met by extreme scrutiny. With a 3-2 vote, the supes told a group of potential new developers actively engaged in due diligence research on the bank-owned property that they had not provided sufficient financial evidence that they are actually able to deliver on various requirements. Though not great news for the group, comprised of the East Coast hedge fund CrossHarbor, BondRok Partners, and Preserve Communities, the vote doesn’t prevent the outfit from purchasing Naples from First Bank in the future.
Supes Show Heightened Scrutiny of Potential Naples Developers
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Previous Month
Comments
Since a "normal" elected body would of course do their duty to review and scrutinize potential development. Coming right out and saying it would be met with "extreme scrutiny" already shows a bias towards any project that may be proposed to come forward. Talk about closed minded simians.
BeachFan (anonymous profile)
May 17, 2012 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No, it's a bias AGAINST any project that may be proposed. Hey, no regard for private property rights in this Peoples' Republic.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
May 17, 2012 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good job Supes, way to be proactive!
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
May 17, 2012 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Beach Fan obviously not a beach fan. John Locke...you don't like this People's Republic, I will gladly show you and the likes of you the door.
yerbaguy (anonymous profile)
May 17, 2012 at 7:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Naples is special...
That is what was said and what should be said...
East coast HEDGE FUNDS...
Go ahead you capitalists pigs defend them!
contactjohn (anonymous profile)
May 17, 2012 at 11:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now, now, yerbaguy - ever heard the term "dog in the manger"? Or FYIGM? sounds like you to me
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
May 18, 2012 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Supervisor Carbajal said that the Gaviota Coast is like our Yosemite. It is a treasure we are not going to give away easily. He, Wolf and Farr did a great job of representing MANY of us who don't want to see the coast cemented over.
Thanks!!!!
gaviotapowerranger (anonymous profile)
May 18, 2012 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Now now JohnLocke, obviously your only connection to the place is finances. It sounds to me that it is you who is living the FYIGM scene. Personally, I would prefer to be known as NIMBY person with regards to the East Coast Hedge Fund people. Same goes for up at Bixby Ranch.
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
May 18, 2012 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's private property. If the County doesn't want to see it developed....buy it. Otherwise work with the owners to get something everyone can live with. It's only in the People's Republic that your property rights are none existent. Yerba, I've been in SB for over 50 years. Raised my kids here. surfed here will die here. You?
BeachFan (anonymous profile)
May 18, 2012 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yup. Well, you got me by 10 years. Dang it! Oh let me guess, you are a Hollister Ranch owner too? I don't have a huge amount of respect for "owning" the beach. Oregon and Costa Rica have a much better policy in my humble opinion. I doubt the Ocean side of the 101 will ever get developed. With all the lot debates etc...that place will be in court for the next 20 years. I think it would be fabulous idea to mandate no development all the way up to where the 101 turns away from the coast. Make it a national seashore! :)
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
May 18, 2012 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nope. I own a humble 3/2 in Goleta I raised my kids in. I doubt there will be much construction on the beachside of 101 as well, but you have the rest of Private Property that should be compromised on. National Seashore. Great. Who pays for the rangers to patrol, enforce laws, maintenance. As I said, want to keep it natural, buy it.
My knowledge of the constitution and bill or rights may be rusty, but I can't remember where owning property along the coast is illegal
BeachFan (anonymous profile)
May 20, 2012 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)