Commission Approves Changes in GB Agreements...

But Commissioner Golden (along with Commissioner Jennings) voted "no" on making the changes. She thought that if the "citizens" hadn't sued, we wouldn't have made the changes. Well, there are more productive ways to spend money than to spend it on attorneys - citizens and the city alike. And there are other ways to encourage changes and edits to legal documents.

Here was the perfect chance to protect the city's interests by eliminating the cause of a lawsuit. This commissioner wanted the lawsuit and the attorney fees to continue stopping progress on beach improvements. Is that showing fiduciary responsibility?

I guess the puppeteers are taking turns at the reins:

Reciting Facts:

These are my responses to a series of questions and mis-statements of fact as it relates to important issues facing our city. This post was made by yours truly on another local Internet forum. I thought you would be interested. Apparently, that which is not possible or highly unlikely is still being proferred as truth. Myth-making is a fine art and well-established in our humble city.

Person A - I am surprised with you. You are an intelligent person and should be able to separate fact from fiction. But I will give you credit for helping create the myths that propel some of the decisions being made in this City - on both sides of the dais.

Re the Smith property, per the latest Judge's ruling, the property has not been rezoned and retains it County zoning designation. Had it been rezoned to the City category of MF20, doing the math results in the possibility of 80 units. That was not an acceptable outcome. The P&Z and the Commission also required that the property owner enter into to an agreement with the City to limit development to 10 units an acre, along with other very important conditions. Those conditions run with the land. Without that agreement, they would not have had my vote. Nothing has been built there. The property owner still needs to come back and go through the site plan review process and ask for a special exception to build townhouses. That is not likely to happen in this market and may be years off. My prediction: The property will be de-annexed into the County and we will have less control over what happens on the property over the long term. We have already seen the confusion possible with public safety calls in your neighborhood where it is not clear, in panic situations, what is in and out of the city limits.

You know, I would really like to sit down with you and go word-by-word through the Beach and Casino zoning district. Whatever is NOT identified as a permitted use cannot be built - period. The proposed zoning for the beach is not broad at all. It is one of the most restrictive in the city. People look to you as an informed person and it concerns me that you could easily mislead people through material misrepresentation of the facts.

The city has turned down variance requests before. If you like, I can look up as many examples as it takes to satisfy your curiosity.

Greater Bay cannot "flip" the property to anyone without the approval of the City Commission. The City Commission and the Department of Community Affairs would have to approve any further change in the future land use or zoning for the property - if the project were to be transfered to another entity and they wanted to do something different than what the zoning would allow. By the way, nothing like that has been proposed.

We would not have to acquiesce to anyone regarding the zoning of the property. There is no "dirty little secret."

The City has turned down condos and hotels at the beach. The proposed Beach and Casino zoning district doesn't allow either of them. The former Mayor that you mentioned was the FIRST one to rule out a hotel at the beach as part of those proposals when it got to the City Commission. I have a copy of a Palm Beach Post article if you would like to read it that says so.

No one will be able to build a condo or a hotel, period.

Person B- At one moment you suggest that the CRA should expand its boundary to include the beach and in the next accuse the CRA of wasting money. I believe the reason that the beach was not included in the CRA was that it wasn't a source of a significant tax base generation for use in tax increment financing.

I agree that the City Commission and Mayor take the easy way out on many issues in our city. Unfortunately, the millions in waste you talk about (and I have no doubt that the figure is higher) is just that - wasted. Unidentified and uncontrolled spending has set this city back in many ways - but that mis-spent money cannot be retrieved. It's gone. I had an idea that we identify all the "savings" from instituting a special fund we could dump this "found" money into, but that just is not how city budgeting works.

Have a nice day.

Frozen-in-place at Grand Central Station

This is an organized "Freeze" held recently at Grand Central Station in NYC. Performance art.

Glooms Day Clock?

Development Agreement Amendment re Pool Improvements - Beach

This is a portion of the backup material for another item under New Business. This is on the City Commission's agenda for the 2/5 meeting. It relates to amending the development agreement with Greater Bay to reflect the timing of the pool project, the amount allocated for pool improvements and a release of a default on the part of Greater Bay if the work is not finished by April 30, 2008. That is the deadline of the State grant in the amount of $200,000. If work is not finished by that time, according to the requirements of the grant program, these funds will be taken back. There is no provision here for reimbursement of funds on the part of the developer.


The following two page letter is from Greater Bay. I was on the phone with Peter Willard two days ago and he read the letter to me. They are confident they can get the work done in time - that is, before the expiration date of the grant.


The following is a revised scope of work summary, identification of responsibilities and a description of the work to be performed:


This is the revised budget for the pool improvements. The amount over the $400,000 would be the responsibility of the City.

Fort the rest of the back-up material, click here to be taken to the City's website. There you will find the entire 49 pages worth of back-up material on this item.

Potential Good News re the Beach!

This item is appearing on next Tuesday's (2/5) City Commission agenda under new business. The cover memo from City Attorney Karns below refers to amendments to the ground lease that address the concerns raised by those that sued the City over the beach agreement. Essentially, passage of these amendments would eliminate confusion surrounding the term of the lease so that there is no question that the lease is for no more than 20 years. It also addresses the question about existing sub-leases at the end of the less than 20 year term.

This amendment would also correct the eastern boundary of the ground lease so that it is measured from the bulkhead line from the mean high water line.

Let's hope this puts the matter to bed once and for all. I can't help but think there were better ways of dealing with these issues than the filing a lawsuit.

Award from Rail-Volution Conference

Here is an award I received from the organizers of the Rail-Volution Conference held in Miami last fall. This is in recognition of the work I did as Tour Coordinator and my efforts in bringing experts in mass transit to Lake Worth for a planning charrette - focusing on transit oriented development near our Tri-Rail station. All free of charge.

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to attend the ceremony held in Miami last week honoring others who worked on conference preparation and participation.