Rood Lashes Out at Atterholt

10
318

(8/17/2020) Eddie Rood was not at town hall Monday when the council rejected his offer. After the meeting he told us that he’s instructed his attorneys to file the quite title search, which he says will eventually result in the homeowners taking ownership of the land in which the CWA now resides. He also sent us the following statement about his offer being rejected…

“The Mayor and Council Allers exercised good judgment and reason and they were attempting to stop the Towns exposure to massive litigation and the possible loss of millions of dollars to stop our walkover that helps a neighborhood. Jim Atterholt ran for council on the platform and stated at every public forum he was not willing to risk the loss of the CWA and would vote in favor of the walkover and now has changed his mind since he drank the Audubon’s Kool-Aid. He has turned out to be the typical politician that runs on positions and then after elected does not follow through. The people that supported him will be disappointed when this turns badly for the Tax payers.”

10 COMMENTS

  1. You got no case Eddie. Quit crying and blaming others. You LOST FOR A THIRD TIME! Give it up and go back to Texas.

  2. From the quotes from the Observer and the Sandpaper, he may have stopped just short of saying he would vote in favor as he did on Beach Talk Radio, but he sure sounds like he should have considered his own advise last Monday.

  3. After review, I will withdraw only a portion of my above statement “every public forum” as I did not attend them all. I will stand by the rest of my statement as it is true. Please review Beach Talk Radio episode #97 and Jim clearly states he would vote in favor of the walkover and a few sentences later reaffirms his commitment.

  4. The Observer Newspaper, March 4th, 2020, Town Candidate Question of the Week. Do you support the proposed 298-foot dune walkover adjacent to the Little Estero Island Critical Wildlife Area (CWA) that has been rejected by the Town Council? Would you oppose the litigation brought by the applicants? What kind of importance do you place on the Little Estero Island Critical Wildlife Area (CWA)? Atterholt response “I am blessed to live right on the CWA in the Bermuda Dunes Condos and I have a deep affection and appreciation for the preserve. I currently volunteer to serve the town as a member of the LPA. A few months back we voted 7-0 in favor of the applicants. I did not casually dismiss the environmental concerns that have been raised. I was concerned and continue to be concerned that the applicants have information that could lead to the dissolution of the CWA due to potential procedural errors in its formation. As this now heads to litigation, I am concerned that the Town has won the battle but lost the war when it comes to protecting the CWA.

    • From the Sandpaper Newspaper article, February 28, covering the FMB Council candidate debate at St. Raphael’s Episcopal Church—Question, “What is your opinion about the controversial private Dune Walkover near the Critical Wildlife area (CWA)”. Atterholt (response) “I was part of that 7-0 LPA vote. The property owners have top legal counsel and now claim the CWA may be illegal. My wife and I live near there and walk along the shore every day and want to preserve it, but with the CWA in question we need to proceed cautiously, with many questions still to answer.” The Observer Newspaper covering the same debate, “Atterholt said the applicants have spent a lot of money on legal counsel. Their threatened challenge to the formation of the CWA could cause a legal free for all as to what occurs next. I don’t know that’s going to happen but that’s a litigation risk we have to take seriously and make sure our legal position is solid before we proceed and we should proceed cautiously on this.”

  5. Just to be clear, I never said during the campaign that I would vote for the dune walkover. I said I would weigh the risks to the Town and to the Critical Wild Area. Many hours were spent studying this issue and listening to both sides. I have done so respectfully and voted no.

    Jim Atterholt, FMB Town Council

    • Only time will tell which decision was best on this topic, but it seems to me that the members who voted “Yes” had everything to gain and and very little to lose because it would have meant @$100k in revenue and the CWA would have remained in tact with the only loss being the walkover . We would have never known if the lawsuit could have been won so their risk was low.
      However the members who voted “No” seem have a little to gain (no walkover) but a lot to lose (unidentified legal fees to taxpayers and the total loss of the CWA) if they lose the lawsuit. It will certainly be an interesting Government decision to monitor over time to see who was right and wrong because the results will be clear and quantifiable.

  6. I also disagree with suggesting Councilman Atterholt is a typical politician. I am thankful that I am not in a position of having to place a vote as the issue is confusing, complicated, fiscally risky, extremely technical and very polarizing. The council members have access to much more information than the general public, lets hope they made the correct decision.

  7. I resent Jim Atterholdt being called a typical politician. He is a man of great integrity. While my vote would have gone with Dan and Ray, I have to respect Jim’s vote because of the man he is. (Sidenote: but then, this is not my property)

Comments are closed.