Supplement To Yates Creek Discussion
I requested a copy of the letter written and read to County Commissioners regarding the Yates Creek property and boat ramp. Debbie Casey graciously honored the request and I thank her for that. She also wanted me to add a couple of points to the letter, so I will post her email to me first and then the letter. Thanks everyone for participating.
Email:
Dear Moderator:
Thank you for your request for my letter that I delivered to the County Commission the other night. I would really like for the true facts to reach as many people as possible so that they can see the road issue from a different perspective than what some people are submitting. I would like to add to this letter that, as I told the County Commission numerous times when I spoke to them in meetings prior to delivering this letter, I have spent the last 5 years of my life trying to find a grant so that the County could end up with not only the entire 220 acres that my family owns, but also an additional adjoining 80 acres as well, for a County park. I also told them that I would continue this pursuit during the coming years, because that is what my predecessors requested we do when they were alive. The entire Clark family would like nothing better than to see this property become a County park, but it is our inheritance, and we cannot afford to just give it away. Please also add that we were planning on leasing the Yates Creek boat ramp, property for $1 per year—we weren't planning on making any money on the lease, since we pay nearly $1,000 per year in property taxes on the parcel. Yes, the County has maintained the road from time-to-time, but we've paid property taxes on the parcel for over 60 years, and have always allowed the public free use of the property. I think that is a pretty fair exchange.
Sincerely,
Debbie Casey
Copy of letter:
Tuesday, June 16,2009
Dear Commissioners:
Before Mike Smith addresses the issue of the lease agreement for the Yates Creek property, I would like to present a summary of facts with regard to the ownership of the road and boat ramp that are on our Yates Creek property. I believe that, in a previous County Commission meeting, the Commission discussed the ownership of some of the Yates Creek property without any representation from the Clark family. Tonight, I am representing the Clark family, and therefore, in order to clarify a few misconceptions, I would like to take an equal opportunity to speak about the ownership of the Yates Creek property from my family's perspective. I apologize if some of you have heard some of these facts before, but I am attempting to give an uninterrupted summary of events.
First, back in the late 1940's, my grandfather, L. B. Clark, Sr., along with a friend of his, bought an undivided interest in the 220 acres that includes Yates Creek, the boat ramp and the surrounding property. Prior to this purchase, according to the research that I did about five years ago, the DeVane family had a sponging business, as well as a commercial fish house there at the boat ramp. Consequently, when my grandfather and his friend purchased the property, the road and boat ramp were both already in existence. At the time of purchase, however, there was no mention on the Deed of a County road, a County right-of-way or any type of easement on the property, thus making that portion of the road privately owned. There was also a house on the property that was located just inside the property line; at one time, this is where the DeVane family lived —as I said, this was private property. That means that the Clark family has been paying property taxes on the Yates Creek property, including the road and boat ramp, for around 60 years.
Yates Creek quickly became a favorite family place for fishing, as well as goose and duck hunting. Back during this time, however, fishing and duck hunting were not done just for sport; it was a way to feed your family. Now, my grandfather and his friend could have fenced the property off, not allowing anyone in to hunt or launch his boat at the ramp, but they did not. They could have put up a gate and given only a privileged few the key, but they did not. They also could have put up a gate and charged people for a key, but they did not do that, either. I'm sure, not wanting to come between a man and feeding his family, they simply said "This is my property, but I will share it with you." Hence, the tradition began of my family's sharing our Yates Creek property with the public. In honor of our predecessors' wishes, the family has carried on that tradition through the years. Of course, it was a different world back then: people didn't sue you for injuring themselves on your property and the government wasn't in the habit of seizing private property.
To continue my summary, however, in 1978, my father, Bishop Clark, Jr., at the request of the owner of the other half of the property, bought the other owner out, thus leaving the Clark family as the sole owner of the Yates Creek property. On that Deed, as well, there is no mention of a County road, a County right-of-way or any type of easement.
Moving on, I would like to clarify some other misinformation regarding the County's attempt to improve the boat ramp. Apparently, in 1987, the County took it on themselves to do some work on the boat ramp. Quite obviously, the work was done without my family's knowledge or consent, because the County did not apply for the proper permitting. You see, a permit request would have required the owner's signature on it. Consequently, when the Department of Environmental Protection discovered that there was no permit for the work the County had done on the boat ramp, they required the County to remove all of the materials they had illegally added to the ramp, thus leaving the boat ramp in its original state. The end result is that there were no improvements made to the boat ramp by the County.
Another incorrect statement I've read on an Internet site is that we didn't try to claim our road until the County had repaired the road after the Storm of the Century. This is not true. For one thing, we didn't realize that we had to claim what we already owned. The way it came to our attention that the County (or someone) was trying to claim it, was that around 1991, my brother, Bish Clark, was camping in his little "bungalow"—for lack of a better word—at the old home site at Yates Creek. A man who said that he owned a lot in Leisure Retreats asked where he could park his RV. When Bish asked him what he meant, the man proceeded to tell him that the Realtor who sold him his lot had informed him that this area was public property. Bish politely told the man that that wasn't the case, even though he was welcome to use the ramp. It was then that Bish realized that he needed to take some action. Shortly after that, around '91 or '92, he went before the County Commission to ask them to cease and desist any maintenance they had, from time-to-time, been doing on the portion of the road that was on our property. Then, in 1993, the Storm of the Century hit. Immediately after the Storm of the Century, my brother took his own tractor down to Yates Creek and made the portion of the road on our property serviceable for our family's use. Nevertheless, once again, without my family's knowledge or permission, and after being asked not to do any further maintenance on the road, the County went on our property and proceeded to do work on the road. As soon as my brother found out what the County was doing, he rushed to Yates Creek to stop them; by the time he arrived, however, a lot of the work had already been done, but it was definitely not at my family's request and it was done in spite of being told to stay off our property with road equipment.
As another example of ownership, in 1994, Bish had 2 fully State- and County-approved and permitted septic tanks installed: one at the old home site and one at the boat ramp site. Even though he had to block the one at the boat ramp off with boulders, they are both still in place.
And the story continues—once again, around 1997, my brother appeared before the Commission, and once again told the County to keep their road equipment off our portion of the road. After that, in order to help stabilize it, he planted the whole road in grass seed. Yet again, the County disregarded his request to stay off the property, then went in and graded up all the grass that he had planted (at a cost of nearly $750). Finally, in 1998, realizing that the County would not honor his request to keep their equipment off our road, Bish installed 2 posts on either side of the road at our property line. They were wide enough for the local fishermen to pass through with their trucks and trailers, but not wide enough for the road graders to get through. He then re-planted the grass seed for stabilization purposes. Consequently, since 1998, the County has done NO road maintenance on the portion of the Yates Creek road that is on our property.
Since then, without the County's interference, and because of Bish's stabilization efforts, along with a load or two of lime-rock every now and then that he purchased from Melvin Bowden, the road has remained in fairly good shape, even though it has been through numerous hurricanes and storms. This leads me to believe that the road should be relatively inexpensive for the County to maintain.
This completes my summary of the ownership history of the Yates Creek road and boat ramp from my family's perspective. Despite all of this, so that the public can continue to use the boat ramp and surrounding property without liability to our family, the offer still stands for the County to lease the property from us for $1 per year. Mike Smith will now present the lease agreement, then you can vote whether or not to accept the lease. My family does, however, request a resolution to this matter tonight— we've all been working on this for 6 months, and that is long enough.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Casey
Great update by the Clark girl. I appreciate the update on account you cannot get a straight answer out of them potentates at the county building. It is enough to send me back to the nervous hospital! I think I make my way down to that Yates creek and take me some potted meat and crackers or get me some of those french fried potatoes from that hot dog stand-if they are open. Either way, I gotta long way to walk! I may take my sling blade and cut some grass while I am walking..to help the county out. Bill Cox says that the county needs all the help it can get!
Reply to this
If I see you Karl I will give you a ride. Do not get to hot out there Karl. God Bless You!
Reply to this
Mr. Clark,the father of the children trying to steal this public road and boat ramp area, never once in his lifetime told the county to "Stop tresspassing on my land/road". He knew that by the county maintaining the road it was "a county property/road/ramp". The kids have a sharp and well paid lawyer whom has given them good advice on how to legally take this high valued property from the public. Other ways to get the road, such as a public road closure would not work so I believe that by using a slow and methodical plan, the one they are now using, that the county and its good people would eventually "give up" and let them "steal" our public property. I have to give Lonnie Houck,the County Commissioner for this area, much credit for standing up to all the shots that the Clark kids and friends have aimed his way. He is doing what any Commissioner, just as I am sure, Mr. Clark would have done in his time, protect the public assets. It good to know that this county still has fine young men as Lonnie and women willing to stand up for what is "Right". And a great thanks to the other Commisioners willing to do the same!
Reply to this
I am not a Clark of have any ties to the Clark family but I think that it is unfair to classify "children trying to steal this public road and boat ramp area". There has obviously been some type of ownership by the Clark family. If someone gets injured, who is going to pay? As a tax-payer, I say the Clark family, and I bet the inept county potentates would say the same. If the county wants it they should show some backbone and use eminent domain laws on the books, if it would seal a coal-plant-type deal they would. If not, leave the Clark family, their land and yates creek alone!
Reply to this
Duh....Karl, This is just another ploy cooked up by "them" to make you run for the hills. The county and its good people will not fall for anything...I think theres a song about that....Just words of wisdom from the Dumb and Dumber society!
Reply to this
Quote by Daisy: Bish Clark went before the board prior to the Storm of 1993 and asked that they cease any maintenance of the road. Thanks little Bish for admitting to the public that "the county" has always maintained this road ,thus making it a public property. Just.....Mark my words!
Reply to this
Why would the county maintain Yates Creek road, bridge and boat ramp....for half a century? I think that says it all. A public road...county maitained! Duh?????? Just wisdom from the Dumb and Dumber society.....
Reply to this
Because the folks that work at the county road department don't know any better. They get an order to grade a road and they grade the WHOLE road.
Reply to this
Did Commissioner Mark Wiggins go to school with Bishop Jr? I must question why he is willing to let the Clarks take public property. Friendships are personal but public rights are not forfeited for them. Mark, Do you think for one minute the County put money and time in keeping this road to the coast open for more than you have been around for nothing? The end justifies means...We only maintain county roads for PUBLIC use......not for friends or private interest.
Reply to this
Mark Wiggins is too young to have traveled in the same bunch (school) with "Bishop Jr". I know That Jim Bassett has traveled in the social circles with "Bishop Jr" and he (bassett) has been at the helm of TCDA for too long. I am sure that Don and Martha Wiggins (fine upstanding folks) are happy that their son (Mark) has not traveled in the same social circles as "Bishop Jr". This county has been taking and maintaining private roads for years, just ask Bob Sheffield and his prior employer Florida Woodlands. I recall years ago the county being given many many miles of roads in land "developed" by Florida Woodlands. The Clark issue appears to me to be somewhat unique as compared to the typical good ole boy deal that passes for good business ethics in this part of Florida. You have to give the Clarks some credit, it appears that at a time when there was NO public access to the Gulf of Mexico, they were allowing folks to use what they were, at the least, maintaining. Mark Wiggins is young, but not stupid, I would think that he has researched the issue and has made a decision based on what he has learned, unlikely the case of other commissioners currently occupying a seat and many before!
Reply to this
Wiggins inexperience shown up for him on this issue. The county has maintained the road and ramp for more that seven years making this a public easement. It is the law of the land. It is a public road/ramp per law. It can only take a legal action to close it from the public. There are many witnesses still living to verify the work the County has performed on the road and ramp. As been noted by others on this board, Commissioner Lonnie Houck made a great decision to not allow this county asset to go away as the other commissioners that voted to keep it public. If the Clarks wanted to close the road there are legal eways to do this but even they know it takes only one person to stop a road closure. This effort is a poor attempt to gain valuable property from the county that took unusable land and maintained it and now that it is highly valuable due to what the county has done, they slip in to take the credit and claim "its mine". Shame on them!
Reply to this
Don't know about that but he along with Clark, Bassett, and the news paper man did try to stop Taylor County for having a Wal-Mart that has collected most of the sales tax that is collected for the County YOUR TCDA/BCC at work
Reply to this
Yes, the Taylor County Three Stooges, our own Curly, Lary and Moe! The problem for these folks is that they were not benefitting personally and directly from those taxes, although the same controls the disaster that is the TCDA!.
Reply to this
R.I.P. Michael Jackson: The Greatest of All Time
Reply to this
The reason my family has been able to use the boatramp at Yates Creek is because the county has worked to keep the road travelable and by placing limerock at the ramp area for many years. If it wasn't for the county provding this there would not have been anywhere to park by the ramp. It was all by county work, not the Clarks as the young lady claims. It has been kept up by the county and where the hump of dirt is down there is only possible cause the county made it that way so we could park our boat. The mound is on limerock that the county put there. Thie is true and anyone that has been there and can remember the house on stilts down there knows all this.
Reply to this
And I will testify for the county on my knowledge of my words I wrote in my comment. Thank You.
Reply to this
Since your article appeared in the paper you have woke up a sleeping giant.....aka.the public. Thanks for stirring up old memories of those involved with Yates Creek and how "they" maintained this road for many years back in the past. I think the words that they all seem to use is some kind of easement...
Reply to this
Quote by Debbie: "To continue my summary, however, in 1978, my father, Bishop Clark, Jr., at the request of the owner of the other half of the property, bought the other owner out, thus leaving the Clark family as the sole owner of the Yates Creek property. On that Deed, as well, there is no mention of a County road, a County right-of-way or any type of easement."
........The county had been doing work on this road and boat ramp since the 60's so it was already a prescriptive easement by he time the 70's rolled around. Also,precriptive easements do not show up on title reports.
Reply to this
M's Casey in her letter states that on two occasions in 91/92 and 1997 her brother appeared before the county commission and requested that the county refrain from doing work on the yates creek road which he asserted was property belonging to the Clark family. The commission at both times had the opportunity to question ownership of this road but apparently failed to do so and thereafter honored Bish Clark's request to refrain from working on the road for the past 12 years. Well folks the ole term "silence is consent" MAY apply in this situation. For those concerned about the law it is referred to as "Estoppel in pais" "The doctrine by which a person may be precluded by his act or conduct, or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had"........Black's Law Dictionary, sixth edition. Person in this instance would be Taylor County.
Reply to this
The question was not on ownership. The county had maintained the road for more that 20 years at this time so the road and ramp is the county's by prescriptive easement. The only way to close the road .......is by advertising to legally close the road which the Clarks have failed for obvious reasons......one persons objection can stop it.
Reply to this
you should check the BCC minutes the only one voting then was his uncle
Reply to this
Based on what you are saying, if I maintain my neighbor's property for 20 years and he/she never objects, does that property then become mine by reason of upkeep and maintenance? Is the county not making enough money from the fees collected for the boat ramps? I recently went to Yates Creek to do some fishing and if the county has been maintaining this road and boat ramp for a number of years, they need to do a better job.
Reply to this
Yes if you maintain a road for 20 or more years it becomes a prescriptive easement. It is also not usually noted in titles or deed but the easement is legal. And it takes a legal action to "undo". By the way, this info is on the web so anyone can read it.
Reply to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement#Easement_by_prescription
Reply to this
It has been alleged that the county built this road and has maintained it since. Also usage rights have been asserted pursuant to a prescriptive easement. Irrespective of either the county failed to assert their ownership or easement rights when previously given the opportunity to do so and therefore estoppel in pais would appear to govern. The courts will have to decide and should the Clark family prevail the county can then be held liable for attorney fees and costs incurred by the Clark family. The county should have signed the lease which was prepared by the county attorney and the Clark family attorney preserving all future rights of the parties as such related to ownership and easement. During the term of the lease the county then could have made all efforts to purchase the entire parcel as previously considered. By the county not signing the lease the matter continues in limbo. If the commission was unsure as to just what to do legally they should have asked their attorney who was present at the meeting for legal advice, this they did not. One can only assume that the commission is more educated in law than their attorney.
Reply to this
Then let the courts decide. With the monies and labor spent since as far back as the sixties or longer using a court to rule on this will be more money well spent. Keep in mind the along the way smoke and mirrors are being used to confuse the issue but the judge will be able to see clearly.
Reply to this
Oh if only Royce Agner was still alive he'd be able to settle this right fast--and fairly to boot.
Reply to this
And if L.B. Clark was alive he'd be kicking the kids butts for what their trying to pull off!
Reply to this
I guess that depends on the judge who is presiding over the case. It would probably be in the best interest of the Clark family to have this case heard OUTSIDE of Taylor County. Then it might be a fair and impartial decision.
Reply to this
What has the Clark family done to deserve this comment? I may be against them on this issue but I don't think a judge here would rule on anything but on law not against a family.
Reply to this
I do not see this as an unfair comment about the Clark Family, to me it is more of a comment about the corrupt judiciary we have in this community. The problem is that everyone has a "buddy" in the courthouse. If you think that either judge in the courthouse "would rule" in accordance with the "law" you need to ask around at how things are done in our community. I would hope that this case would be heard in circuit court and with a judge who is awake, sober and able to listen to all of the facts and make a sound decision based in reality.
Reply to this
Neither judge in our county would see "clearly", one hampered by the fog of alcohol, the other by the fog of corrupt cronyism. I would differ though, the clark family may be able to influence the judge more than the county, although it would depend on what a judge owes and who he owes. It may be better to get a judge out of the county as previously stated.
Reply to this
AMEN to that
Reply to this
I would like to clarify the fact that my family is not trying to close the Yates Creek road and boat ramp, rather, we were trying to find a way to keep the road OPEN. We were simply trying to have the County lease the property for $1 per year (at the suggestion of people who work for the County) so that the County could cover it under their blanket insurance policy. Since the public was using the property, our family had been unable to find an insurance company to underwrite the policy for us. The County lease EXCLUDED any ownership claims on the road. The lease was simply a way of leaving the road OPEN, but covered by insurance. It's too bad our intentions were misconstrued by some of the Commissioners, so that this somehow became an ownership issue. Also, some of you may want to note that there are now 18 family heirs (all left Yates Creek by their parents' wills)who own this property, not just the local Clark family. Additionally, you might want to know that, shortly before his death, my father, I and some other
family members had already begun research to find State funds so that we could keep the whole 220 acres open as a State or County park. We are continuing to pursue this goal. We are NOT trying to close the road or ramp.
Reply to this
Well stated, God Bless You!
Reply to this