It was emotional watching the demolition of our casino building, a place that I first visited as a kid in the 50's--a place that still had the tunnel leading from close to what later became John G's--the days of the old Clock across from it and the wonderful long-time merchants, many of whom became friends and like family.
In one month the entire building will be razed other than some pillars here and there, etc. In 1.5 years we are to have an outstanding structure that will look like our 1922 building that gave the city so much pride and literally helped develop Lake Worth, attracting people from all over.
Just another thing that this Commission and City Manager has accomplished, something that has been discussed for 30 years according to Retha Lowe. Lisa Maxwell can now take that off her list of complaints. We are on our way as well to a breathtaking building and the financing is on track.
Once built, this building will attract world tourism to Lake Worth.
12 comments:
Lynn, you must be NUTS! Remember the circle of light Mulvehill coordinated, and you attended, to SAVE the HISTORIC building. Remember, the BCE campaigned on RESTORING the building not demolishing it! Remember all the studies done to test how sound it was and they tests came back negative. You accused Romano of pocking holes in the building. Then finally one single study came back saying the building is in good condition and does not need to be demolished. WHY NOW IS IT OK TO HAVE IT DEMOLISHED!
I have answered this so many times that it is getting boring now.
The ONLY forensic that was done proved that the building was structurally sound. We had to "save" this building or we never would have been able to build in the same spot, more than likely. It probably would have ended up on A1A--not acceptable.
Life is a strategy, don't you think? You take your best shots. Your buddies, Greater Bay, were going to tear down the building. You approved of that, so what's your beef? Instead of complaining, why can't you be happy about the progress?
Romano did jackhammer along with Clemens who wanted the building demolished to bring in their developer friends. In fact, Romano wanted a hotel on our beach. The building now is being constructed in a fashion that the people want in this city, not being directed by a Romano or a Clemens.
It is not for me to say what the most cost effective way is to reconstruct our casino. Leave that to the experts. In the meantime, it will be done for $6 mil and we will get Leed certification when it is complete.
Stop brining up old and tired arguments. Stop whining. Be happy that the city is going in the right direction. One of these days, we will have a great Lake Worth once again and you won't have anything to complain about. What ever will you do?
P.S. No, I am not "nuts." I just don't agree with you and all the nit-picking.
I wonder what they will find in the catacombs under the Casino.Buried treasure and artifacts.
Why do you consider holding elected officials accountable nitpicking? The BCE campaigned on SAVING the casino building LAST YEAR. Now it's being demolished and not a word about it, no explanation, nothing. How do you explain that? You can't, and they can't so it's ignored like it never happened. That's an acceptable practice?
Your statement about Romano wanting a hotel on the beach is just a flat out lie. Did your dad tell you that the day he made up the joke about screwing a peacock?
Stop with the lying all the time?
OK--I've just about enough of you. How dare you come over on my blog and call me a liar. Take a freakin hike.
Romano and a hotel is a matter of record, something you and your candidate don't believe in.
The Casino has been explained. Something about comprehension again? Your candidate has that problem too...must run in the herd.
As far as the Father's Day Joke, at the very bottom of it was a disclaimer that it was submitted by a reader. Everyone alive knew and understood it was a joke.
This is the LAST time I post your BS.
For those who are trying to post here to call me, the city commission or everyone a LIAR, this is my reply--
To clear this up--
I was all for "saving" the Casino. When I say saving the casino, if it had originally been condemned and torn down, we never would have been allowed to build in the same spot where it has been since 1922. We would have had to re-build down by A1A. We had a forensic engineer who determined that it was sound. From there, we contracted with architects, contractors etc. who finally determined that it was cheaper to nearly start from scratch. We will have virtually a brand new building.
I still don't know what your beef is other than to discredit me on my own blog.
Can you comprehend now?
L
P.S. Lynn, what I'm saying is that some of us out here understand WHY the building is "almost" torn all the way down. Some of us are in construction and it is done somewhat regularly. The real problem lies with attempt by city officials with your support to make it sound like it is something IT IS NOT.
It is NOT a renovation.
It is NOT "saving the building"
It is NOT going to be historic anymore. (except the slab)
We are simply tearing down enough of the dilapidated old building to rebuild on the same footprint.
Well fine. I do not agree with you that city officials attempted to lie or make this something that it is not. Things change as you know. I supported the Casino project, saving it, and building, restoring it, whatever it took to keep it where it is once this decision was made to go forward. Originally I wanted to shore-up and make improvements to our existing structure. I am not the engineer nor am I the contractor. It is up to them to make the decision so that the City can stay within its budget. Would you not agree?
You just want to stay on this subject that the city lied; I lied. That's what makes you happy today. You are flat wrong.
You made your point and I agree with your last sentence.
With all of the very polarizing arguing and protesting to save the casino that went on dont you think there is a lesson here? That maybe ALL of the facts should be throughly investigated before drawing such a hard line in the sand?
There is a coastal construction line for a reason. I wanted a building for the generations to come. This is risky business with our tax money. It also makes me seriously question so many people's reasons for taking such sides, including you Lynn.
Chris Fleming
thanks, Chris.
all I can say is this--That building was standing there since 1922, hurricane after hurricane. We lost a 2nd level during one of them I believe...had some roof damage...but the structure withheld the winds.
REG and team are experts on building on the Coastal Construcviton Line. I really need to revert to the experts here who have built buildings over the coastal construction line such as the Omphey that was recently built.
It is not for me to 2nd guess experts. I think that is what some are doing here even though they have had construction experience as one said. These prople that we hried know what they're doing.
I forget what winds it will withstand but it was high as I recall. I trust our staff not to lead us astray. I believe that some of the problem here are those who come out and say, "I don't tust the city manager" as an excuse to just keep on fighting.
You don't have to post this but you didn't post my "pre" post script comment. It was my first post on this thread however it seems you think someone else is me further up the line.
Thank you for agreeing with at least my last line.
I'd be interested in your opinion on how different the two issues, PBSO and PBCFD are. You are for replacing both of them with our own for cost reasons only. I agree with you on the FD issue. We did not go to the County because they were ineffective like police. We switched because of the burden of the pensions.
Public sector unions are going to drag the whole country down the tubes. I do view the Sheriff issue differently. Yes, you had the cost of pensions there too, but they were un-affordable because of a bloated hierarchy. Too few indians. Sometimes you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater and start all over again.
I think we now can go back to our own FD BUT we need to address the arcane manpower requirements of sending out three trucks with seven people to each little call. That is where they feathered their nest.
Speak to the difference in the two issues and I think you'll get more people agreeing with you. ;-)
Post a Comment