Save Guana

Kayak fishing main forum.

Moderators: GASMAN, HoosierPaddler, islandspeed2001, Dreads0518

Post Reply
User avatar
El Cid
Posts: 241
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: Riverside

Save Guana

Post by El Cid » Mon Aug 15, 2016 7:39 am

Looks like a corporation wants to build 77 homes along guana on the "outpost" property. What do you guys think? I would oppose it please check their page to learn how to help keep it wild! http://www.saveguananow.org


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Last edited by El Cid on Mon Aug 15, 2016 8:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
STEVE / PRO ANGLER 12
How bad do you want it?
How bad do you need it?

User avatar
islandspeed2001
Posts: 13118
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:42 am
Location: Amelia Island / Fernandina Beach. FL

Re: Save Guana

Post by islandspeed2001 » Mon Aug 15, 2016 8:30 am

Don't think there is a so-called petition? Only sign to donate or to be put on their email list.
Solo Skiff Pro Staff
Polar Bear Coolers
Power Pole

User avatar
El Cid
Posts: 241
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: Riverside

Re: Save Guana

Post by El Cid » Mon Aug 15, 2016 8:33 am

Yep your right Jerry, looks like they give you board member emails so you can email them your thoughts
STEVE / PRO ANGLER 12
How bad do you want it?
How bad do you need it?

keastman
Posts: 3295
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:01 pm
Location: St. Augustine Beach

Re: Save Guana

Post by keastman » Mon Aug 15, 2016 7:52 pm

Sounds more like the folks that live there already have a case of "not in my backyard" and are getting the environmental groups behind them to try to block it.

Ophelia Rass
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 7:37 pm

Re: Save Guana

Post by Ophelia Rass » Tue Aug 16, 2016 3:19 pm

Proposed 77-home development Vista Tranquila sparks opposition from residents, conservation groups

“The coasts have been turning green and brown and black from pollution and algae blooms,” said Farrell. “More development right on the coast, right on these waterways with homeowners who would be fertilizing lawns and spraying pesticides right in the middle of this sensitive environment is definitely not going to help us solve these problems long term.”

“That 100 acres up there is the last piece that should belong to the wildlife management area of the Guana Preserve," said Coulliette.

http://jacksonville.com/news/2016-08-13 ... -residents

keastman
Posts: 3295
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:01 pm
Location: St. Augustine Beach

Re: Save Guana

Post by keastman » Tue Aug 16, 2016 7:15 pm

Don''t ya just love it when people try to get government to try to tell you own at you can and can't do with your own land. If the people opposing it don't want it developed, they should make an offer for it in excess of the developer.

User avatar
El Cid
Posts: 241
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: Riverside

Re: Save Guana

Post by El Cid » Tue Aug 16, 2016 8:06 pm

Funny how corporations can TRY to have land rezoned from conservation to residential to make that almighty $ :pukeright:
STEVE / PRO ANGLER 12
How bad do you want it?
How bad do you need it?

stacktester
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 2:05 pm
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Re: Save Guana

Post by stacktester » Wed Aug 17, 2016 1:19 am

One thing to certainly think about here is they're wanting to build these homes at the end of a road that's already flooded with traffic and I highly doubt that they're going to say hey, let us build some new roads with some of our own money before we do this. I grew up in Palm Valley and watched it grow from a small community to watching long time families finally sell out and give up their property. For a large profit I'm sure. Roscoe Blvd and Palm Valley Road have hardly been touched as far as widening or improved during the construction boom. There's 2 new subdivisions in progress right now on Palm Valley Road that will finally finish it off unless they get someone to sell out for more homes. It's unbelievable how developers get permits to build but no new infrastructure is built to support it. I'm sorry to say I'd be against further development without infrastructure first. Going to see my grandparents is tough going thru traffic on A1A which by the way is at peak all day not just morning and afternoon. One day the people who thought it was a great area to move will be like this sucks. Nocatee I hate because they tore every single tree down and its far from natural but at least they put all the roads in first and are ready to expand those roads to major roads. That's my take on it

User avatar
Pontiac
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:30 pm

Re: Save Guana

Post by Pontiac » Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:23 pm

The guana outpost property has been contentious for years.

It's owned by Peyton, the reason we have guana in the first place. So you have to consider that in balance with the fact that 8,000 acres was already set aside. The outpost is a nice piece of property, but no where near as valuable as what's already in conservation. So what you don't have here is a rich guy taking the cake and leaving the scraps.... its really the other way around.

I'm actually surprised that there isn't a single buyer, for a "one of a kind" ranch, kept contiguous and not parceled off. Under that scenario, you could probably get the land trust, etc... to pony up some money for conservation easements on say 70% and let someone actively manage 30acres as an estate home/game lodge. That'd be fantastic.

stacktester
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 2:05 pm
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Re: Save Guana

Post by stacktester » Thu Aug 18, 2016 7:18 pm

Pontiac wrote:The guana outpost property has been contentious for years.

It's owned by Peyton, the reason we have guana in the first place. So you have to consider that in balance with the fact that 8,000 acres was already set aside. The outpost is a nice piece of property, but no where near as valuable as what's already in conservation. So what you don't have here is a rich guy taking the cake and leaving the scraps.... its really the other way around.

I'm actually surprised that there isn't a single buyer, for a "one of a kind" ranch, kept contiguous and not parceled off. Under that scenario, you could probably get the land trust, etc... to pony up some money for conservation easements on say 70% and let someone actively manage 30acres as an estate home/game lodge. That'd be fantastic.
A little history lesson. Guana came with the Ponte Vedra Club sale. Herb Peyton sold guana to the state for the same or more than he paid for the whole kit and caboodle. Therefore he essentially got the club for free. Great move on his part. Who wouldn't take that deal. It's unfortunate that every piece of land has to be developed. One day Florida will be just a bunch of houses and roads. The infrastructure is decades behind to keep pace with this development. It won't be as attractive when traffic is backed up all hours of the day because of over development.

User avatar
Chris
Posts: 322
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:41 pm

Re: Save Guana

Post by Chris » Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:54 pm

^That's real interesting...never heard the story although I've often wondered how Guana came to be.
Pontiac wrote: I'm actually surprised that there isn't a single buyer, for a "one of a kind" ranch, kept contiguous and not parceled off. Under that scenario, you could probably get the land trust, etc... to pony up some money for conservation easements on say 70% and let someone actively manage 30acres as an estate home/game lodge. That'd be fantastic.
Now I know what I'm doing when I win the lottery.

ChippMatt
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 12:49 pm
Location: Jax- St. Aug
Contact:

Re: Save Guana

Post by ChippMatt » Sat Aug 20, 2016 10:13 am

This is the second developer who has attempted to take up the project and subdivide the property. Some of the people helping with the effort are homeowners, but the "not in my backyard" defense is legitimate when your backyard is a nature preserve. I fish next to the that outpost and run ecotours past it on a daily basis. If there are 77 homes back there and that much clear cutting, concrete and runoff... it will no doubt drastically change the lake. The ecosystem is not large enough and rezoning the already preserved status of that area is absolutely backwards. Yes, there are documented endangered/threatened species in that area, BUT the longterm effect the development would have as far as water quality and health of the fishery could be disastrous. KEEP IN MIND, the runoff that already comes from Micklers and south ponte vedra lagoon system feeds into that north end of the lake right under A1A behind NGO. During trop storm Colin the heavy rains brought a massive amount of freshwater runoff, soon after we had an algae bloom at the north end of the lake and there were no fish at six mile other than gar, bowfin and low-oxygen tolerant species. We already have natural and unnatural algae blooms as well as fish kills that occur regularly around this time due to a number of factors including rainwater runoff. Adding 77 homes to that equation is only going to make those circumstance more severe. Look at the lagoon right now, see how bad it has become there? Entire schools of reds turning belly up in front of anglers, prized 30 inch trout bloated and stinking from rot. I don't think any of us want to see the lake come close to that.

I took this shot 2 weeks ago. It is a 29.5 inch trout. I have since seen three others floating that are in the high 20's and possible30's. They were either dead or dying and struggling to breathe. There have also been a large amount of dead menhaden as well. Whether these kills are completely attributed to the recent rains, runoff and subsequent algae blooms, I can't say. However, I can say adding more homes is certainly not going to make it better.
IMG_3656.JPG
IMG_3656.JPG (97.72 KiB) Viewed 3746 times
Chip's | Coastal | Charters
__ SKIFF - SUP - YAK - GUIDE__

Ophelia Rass
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 7:37 pm

Re: Save Guana

Post by Ophelia Rass » Sun Aug 21, 2016 7:25 pm

keastman wrote:Don''t ya just love it when people try to get government to try to tell you own at you can and can't do with your own land. If the people opposing it don't want it developed, they should make an offer for it in excess of the developer.
Huh? The above statement is more or less incoherent. Nonetheless...

...own land? Want to develop it? Don't want the "government" and/or the "not-in-my-backyard" element to influence what you can or can't do with your own land? Then provide assurances, guarantees, etc., including a willingness and legally-binding agreement to assume the responsibility for cost of restitution and/or mitigation, for any/all negative consequences impacting adjoining and/or nearby fauna, flora and properties.

One may argue for or in fact have rights to do with their property that which they desire. One doesn't necessarily have the rights to do with their property that which may ultimately prove detrimental to others' property.

Post Reply