Yates Creek Road And Boat Ramp
Topic emailed today:
Why don't you discuss why the Newspapers won't print about the attempts of the County Att. and some commissioner's attempts to close County owned Yates Creek Road and boat ramp.
TaylorCountyTalk.com
A site for you...the citizens of Taylor CountyWelcome to TaylorCountyTalk: Yates Creek Road And Boat Ramp
Search The Web
Custom Search
I do not know much about this issue. What is going on? Does Bishop Clark still own parts of the area? Isn't it very shallow, even at hightide? It does seem like a great place for kayaks!
Reply to this
My opinion is that the county should expand this boat ramp if possible. I think that the Keaton Beach boat ramp is getting too crowded. I don't know what the county still owes on that boat ramp, but I know it's GOT to be getting paid for what with all the trucks and boats I see down there almost every weekend. I would also like to see the Dark Island canal dredged out a little bit more. Anyone who's ever launched from there with a less than 2.0 MLLW tide knows that it can be very hard to get in and out of there unless you're in a jon-boat. But, from what I'm told there would be a lot of red tape with the DEP and the SWWMD to get the permits to do so, and also it may cost-effective. What do you all think about that idea? At the very lease I think someone could organize a task force of locals to remove some of the rocks from the canal. I've hit my prop on them many-a-time-- they're right in the middle of the canal. But, it's county right-of-way, so I don't think you can do it without authorization. I don't know. I'm getting off topic, but my main point is I think that we need more boat launches that larger boats (16+ feet) can EASILY access. The Taylor County boat launch at Keaton can no longer serve our needs. I would like get some input from the County accountants as to how far off we are from paying for the new boat launch at Keaton? Maybe we can do the same thing to Yates Creek that we did to Keaton in the near future.
Reply to this
It is my understanding that Bish Clark is no longer involved in the Yates Creek property and that other family members now control. Recently the commission voted to pursue a possible lease agreement with the family members whereas the public could continue to have access to the launch site. The commission voted 4 to 1 in favor of working out if possible this lease agreement. Commissioner Lonnie Louck who represents the coastal region cast the 1 ney vote without comment. I feel it is incumbant that this commissioner who is suppose to be concerned about the coastal region set forth his reasoning pubically for his ney vote. He was elected to do more than draw a paycheck and occupy a chair at the commission meetings or is he aware of that as of yet. Other issues involving the coastal region have been brought to his attention but he continues to remain mute apparently not concerned. I have spoken with many folks in the Keaton Beach and Stenhatchee area who to date are absolutely disappointed with this commissioner. Recall is still a reality whether he knows it or not and egoism shall not be tolerated by the electorate.
Reply to this
We have a long sad history of electing the inept and folks with agendas. Who knows what this Houck-louck is thinling. What his district needs is a lot of Louck (Luck)! I say bring back Ed Sadler/Frank Russell or some other person who will listen and get something done other than be an empty chair. An empty chair....now we have a lot of these in our county. I say recall and nominate George Stamos!!!!
Reply to this
I'll take an incompetent commissioner over a snake in the grass any day.
Reply to this
Karl Childers: Get him out of the nervous hospital and into the board of county commisioner's seat occupied by Houck! Potted Meat Rides Again!
Reply to this
No we do not need a snake in the grass but rather someone who has the fortitude to undertake that for which he was elected to do, represent the people to the best of his ability in his district and the county as a whole. Elected officials somehow acquire blinders once elected and ignore the best interests of their constitutes. They themselves readily see problems within their district that should be addressed but instead they wait for a citizen to filed a complaint or appear before the commission. Must we hold their hand to guide them in the right direction. When the Yates Creek issue again is considered before the commission Commissioner Houck must continue his ney vote without comment or in the alternative he must first set forth his reasoning for his prior ney vote and then tell his constitutes why he is changing his position. He should not play games with the electorate as we the people are not as dumb as he may think. Lets see just what he does as his actions will surely set forth his character.
Reply to this
If the county leases this road want they have to lease all the other roads that the county does not have a deed to?
There appears to be more evidence that the County owns this road than most of the others in the County. Houck is the only Commissioner that has attempted to find our the facts. Why is the County Att. representing the Clarks? Who does he work for?
There appears to be more evidence that the County owns this road than many others.
Reply to this
Houck is over his head on this issue and doesn't have a clear understanding of the facts. He needs to study and learn! He does have a rather large learning curve!
Reply to this
If we need boat ramps so bad, Why is the County trying to give one away, give away a road illegally and not follow their own policy? If the Clarks want a road closed why don't they pay for advertising like every body else???
Reply to this
TO ANONYMOUS: The county attorney represents soley the commission and has given the commission legal advise as to present ownership of the Yates Creek road whereas it is my understanding that the Clark family is represented by private counsel. If Commissioner Louck had evidence or legal precedent contrary to the county attorney's advice why then did he not speak up when given the opportunity to do so when the issue was before the commission. Check your facts on ownership and that to which has transpired before speaking or why not yourself attend the next commission meeting and raise your point. To now defend Commissioner Louck on this subject when he stood pubically mute on the matter previously raises more questions. A ney vote was cast without comment and the electorate deserves an answer as to why.
Reply to this
The county has maintained the Yates Creek road for over 50 years after the Storm of the Century the tax payers paid large sums to have the road rebuilt. The Clarks attempted to close the road shortly after it was repaired. With a 4 to 1 vote the commission voted to keep it open. Harvey Strickland the brother-in- law to Bishop Clark was the only one voting to close the road.
The Yates Creek road is on the approved list of County Roads that were approved after public hearing because for some reason all the records at the Road department were distorted.
Recently after attempts to close the road by burning the bridge the tax payers of Taylor County paid to have the bridge rebuilt.
All can be verified by checking the minutes of the Commission on the Taylor County web sites.
Commissioner Houck has presented all this to the Commissioners, the County administrator and the County Att. Who wouldn’t look it up his self as well as discrediting the request to ask for a opinion from the States Att. office who has replied to Counties to resolve issues like this for years.
Reply to this
TO ANONYMOUS: The county archive web site gives little support to your comments. Furthermore to imply that the records at the road department were distorted leaves one to assume that a diliberate act was committed. To alledge that the bridge at Yates Creek was burned to close the road is merely a presumption on your part. I do not believe that the Clark family would burn the only access to their property by such an act. If you remember the pier at Keaton Beach was also burned, was this an attempt to stop people from enjoying the view and from fishing or was this a mischivious act by younsters. And last, if Commissioner Houck had all this information in his possession why then did he not bring this forth pubically in the commission meeting. Reasoning for decisions as well as documentation for such are part and parcel of government in the sunshine.
Reply to this
Maybe someone left a crack-pipe or some other cocaine smoking device "burning" near the bridge. I hear that this type of activity goes on in a lot of areas in the county and at Yates Creek.
Reply to this
I seems to me that the county is between a rock and a hard place. If the county agrees to lease the land and thereby relieves the Clark family of liability exposure, then the county is admitting that the road is not county property. This then exposes the county to litigation by the citizens that know that the road, road maintenance and property improvemnets were made by the taxpayers of the county.
Reply to this
Would someone please provide evidence that shows that the county built this road as it is my understanding that this road served a fish house dating back prior to WW II. Put up or shut up.
Reply to this
Is every body that pays taxes on prescriptive easement roads in Taylor County at risk of a lawsuit? Shouldn't the County remove all the roads they maintain from private owner's deed records so they would not have to pay taxes on land the public uses and be at risk for personal injury?
Reply to this
From what I have been told, when the property was purchased by the Clark family in the 1940's, clear title was given to the boat ramp and adjoining property. No County easements or right-of-ways were noted on the deed. A commercial sponging/fishing business with a fish house and residence was originally on site and those owners most probably constructed the existing roadway and boat launch. I do not believe that any of the so called "improvements" or "maintenance" of the road and/or boat ramp were ever done at the request of the Clark Family. In fact - the County was required to undo repairs (at County expense) they had made to the boat ramp in the late 1980's because the DEP determined that they were made without any permit. A permit must be obtained with the OWNERS signature and because the County had no ownership of the property - no permit could be obtained. Bish Clark went before the board prior to the Storm of 1993 and asked that they cease any maintenance of the road. After the 1993 storm, Bish Clark used his own equipment to repair the road for family use. The County took it upon themselves to make further repairs to the road without the permission of the Clark family and stopped only when Bish Clark appeared before the board and asked them to leave the road alone. Mr. Clark then erected poles and the County has not maintained the road for over 11 years. When the bridge burned, the Clark family made no contact with the County to request any help or ask that repair work be done. It was a County decision to perform this work. Finally, if the Clark family did not own the road and boat ramp, why have they been paying property taxes on this property since the 1940's?
Reply to this
Thanks for the information. The "history" really puts everything int perspective!
Reply to this
Property tax is paid by adjacent land owners on 90% of the roads in Taylor County mostly dirt but many paved. The majority of the roads the County have a deed to is the roads the State designated. Before “home rule” all County roads had to pass before the legislature. Width was never designated unless the road was paved. When the State recognized that Counties need more municipal powers “home rule” was passed that granted the County the power to establish roads, however there is a prevision that the County must hold a public hearing and notify adjacent, and absentee land to insure public facilities and other real-estate is is not “land locked”.
Reply to this
Ever wonder why the news paper is not covering this issue?
Reply to this
Don Lincoln has a history of not publishing items involving friends, in this case Bishop Clark, connections (Jim Bassett) or advertisers. Perry Newspapers has gone to some lengths of cesoring letters to the editor that were not complementary of the local potentates and charlatans. It is really a sad situation when you have such a biased media, like our own littel Fox (Faux) News outlet! LOL!!! Seriously, as long as I can remember people have talked about starting a new newspaper, it needs to happen. Given the popularity of the internet and economic failing of many large newspapers across the nation, a business plan for a local small time paper may not be feasible. Albeit there seems to be a niche for a local mullet wrapper written on an eighth grade level with handpicked biased stories. I remember when Lincoln was run out of Suwannee County! LOL!
Reply to this
For those folks that use Yates Creek for fishing and lauching their boat you can probably kiss that privelege goodby thanks primarily to Commissioner Lonnie Louch and 2 of his fellow commissioners. The Clark family appeared before the commission last night and gave a detailed history of the ownership of the Yates Creek road and boat ramp dating back to the early forties. I must say their presentation was straight forward and very persuasive. Commissioner Houck as usual stumbled around trying to make sense in his opposition to the county leasing this road wherein he implied that this road belonged to the county and therefore he could not agree to a proposed lease that was put together by the Clark family attorney and the County attorney. Its very obvious that this commissioner desired to speak without first doing a little research on the subject but 2 other commissioners somehow chose to agree with him. Welcome to Taylor County as the saying goes. The Clark family probably will now block access to the road and I feel they should. The county will then have to take the Clark family to court to determine ownership and should the court rule in favor of the Clark family, which I feel it will, you and I as taxpayers will be subject to paying all legal fees and costs incurred by the Clark family. We will see if Commissioner Houck has the fortiude to make the motion to pay this bill, I doubt it. Bottom line is call Commissioner Houck 24 hours a day to complain about the road closure. Nothing prevents several calls each day "at all hours" to one of your commissioners.
Reply to this
Houck is inept. Can he even read? I never thought I would think it would be better to have the traine wreck that is Clay Bethea back. Just how do we in trailer county elect such fools?
Reply to this
Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils.
Reply to this
Does anyone know if Bird Island Road is County maintained? Commissioner Houck is part of the family that owns this piece of property which has access to the Gulf....hmmmm maybe all of the people who cannot launch at Yates Creek can start using Bird Island Road.
Reply to this
I don't beleive his phone is listed under his name, and last time I checked he didn't list his number at the County website.
Reply to this