Vote Yes on Amendment 2
Some people want to change our downtown and have more 6 story buildings ( as tall as The Lucerne) and they say it will add to our tax base. The truth is, it will not. It will just cost us more money for services, infrastructure--police, fire, etc.
They tell us we can't attract a hotel developer unless we let the developer build higher in our downtown. They have absolutely NO facts to prove their assertion. What they have is opinion. In fact, a major hotel chain said that a 4 story hotel would be viable for them..other 4 story hotels have been built all over the country--.another thing you are not being told.
They say that the 65 foot Lucerne attracts business. It is NOT the building that is attracting customers; it is the businesses that lease there--Kilwins and Starbucks have a product people want to buy. They could be leasing anywhere and still get the customers.
Once the Lucerne was built and the ground floor was leased out, all rents in downtown Lake Worth went up. That will happen again if new, higher buildings are built. Owners have to make money and pay construction loans and their bills.
They complain that all our storefronts are not occupied. Ask the landlords why.
Developers have been allowed to build 65 and 100 feet since 1996 before the recession hit the entire country and severely affected Lake Worth. Why haven't they?
The NO people blame all of us who want to keep our small town charm on the slum, blight and crime when it is their monied friends who came into our city and bought on speculation and rented out these properties to many undesirables who trash our city and commit crimes.
There is no additional parking to accommodate for taller buildings that will have more people working in them.
They say that we are only motivated by emotion rather than facts when just the opposite is true. But one thing that seems to be apparent, they are motivated by greed and on unfounded reasoning. Just consider the talking points of the opposition and those who want our downtown to grow up.
The fact is, people want to keep our city a small town. We like it. We are used to it. We do not want a concrete jungle. We want a friendly, liveable small downtown where we can see the sun, a city with oodles of charm, and we resent a small group of politicians and planning representatives telling us what is best for our quality of life. Tourists come here for the sun, not 65 foot buildings.
You have to ask yourself, why don't they like our downtown when everyone else does? To remain the unique city that we have been known for over the past 100 years,
Vote YES on Amendment 2
25 comments:
Wow, I really loved that. Thanks, Lynn. We do have a special downtown and developers need to build within our ordinances and build to the height we want. Four stories are reasonable. I was looking at the skyline over the weekend and most of the buildings now are one and two stories. Four is a big change. Six would be unacceptable.
The Lucerne is here because of a developer that lied his face off and a Commission and P&Z that were greedy enough and STUPID eneough to believe the lies. Loretta Sharpe,Greg Rice, Wes Blackman,Mary Lindsey- that side has to lie and MISREPRESENT what a no vote would really mean to lake Worth. They have to FOOL and CONFUSE people into voting no.
Chip Guthrie--Your long narrative picking apart my blog is all political. I did not post and it really belongs on the other blog.
I am FOR a low-rise city and this is not a debate on my blog or for your assumptions. NO one wants to keep LW poor, least of all me. I have written against the CRA and your decisions to attract more poor folks by using government money to achieve your ends.
I have said over and over again, this is an advocacy site and as such, it is not Fox News. i will not, ther4efore, post your political rhetoric here.
Let's go a little further. Lake Worth is sorely in need of some type of shuttle/tram/trolley/public transportation system through town, up and down Federal and to the new beach casino and tri-rail.
This is one more aspect that developing the Lake and Lucerne corridor East of Federal would help.
We could use the innovative way our neighboring communities move people from one commercial area to another. In Delray, they have open air electric vehicles that can carry 10 to 12 people running a circuit from their downtown to the beach and back. In West Palm, they have enough density to allow outside contractors to operate "rickshaw" style bicycles around their downtown and to City Place as well as a Trolley.
We just spent millions of dollars on our own beach and we need to keep an eye on how we ensure it succeeds. Because of making it greener, we have made it less "walkable" and Mulligans has had to operate its own small shuttle for customers that can't or won't walk the incline from the lower lot or the long trek from the South lot with all the confusing parking meters.
Adding mixed use to the corridor and a Hotel plus an expanded and open Gulfstream East of Federal would help the ability to use :bed tax" money to help this type of endeavor. It is not about heights. It is about compatibility with surrounding structures and sustainability. Lake Worth is having a hard enough time sustaining as we are. We don;t need any more deterrents to development or public transportation.
Chip Guthrie
Lynn, just once admit that the area we are talking about is from Federal Highway, to Golfview, not your precious Downtown where the Lucerne was built. Just once Admit there are several building over 65n feet in this area. This was called the Hotel District when the Gulfstream Was built in the 1920´s At 88 feet.
I'm not a great advocate of public transportation other than the trolley and palm tran. The CRA could do something good for a change. Bring back the trolley and find some grants to support that instead of authorizing rentals on the railroad tracks to be built that will be nothing more than Section 8 down the road. You brag about the Lofts. Anyone moved in yet? you also brag about 'walkable" cities. People want to drive their car and park as close as they can to their final destination.
AND anonymous above at 10:13, NO--this is about the downtown which is from Golfview to A Street. just because there are buildings in a certain area built 65 feet or over, does not justify building more of them. We want to limit building to 35 and 45 feet.
There is one empty hotel there because some investor made a ridiculously bad business decision. It was called a hotel district? Great stuff. Great argument. You've convinced me.
Your specious argumenton marginal costs to City Services is not borne in fact, experience or data.
SM's often quoted data is about as relevant as Larry Mac objecting to the Traffic Study on the Smith property being done in the summer (the traffic study was an arithmetic analysis that had to do with USE and had nothing to do with car count).
In general,
the TIS should include a morning (a.m.) and an
evening (p.m.) peak hour analyses.
Other
peak hours (e.g., 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., weekend, holidays, etc.) should also be required to
determine the significance of the traffic impacts generated by a project.
None of that was done, not in the true sense. I counted cars myself (did not know that Mr. McNamara did that) and in the month of June there was one car every 6 seconds driving down Lake Osborne Drive.
You can have "arithmetic" analysis and projections every day of the week but a true traffic study is best.
Lynn,
It is just that type of "I don't want to keep Lake Worth poor" but acting in just the opposite way that is making it so easy to alert people of the mindset of the CAVE ers (Citizens Against Virtually Everything).
You are against the Arts Lofts, a truly innovative way of using NSP-2 money we were granted. $23.2 Million Dollars that can only be spent on "affordable housing" against your better judgement. I was not part of the CRA then, but boy am I glad someone had the foresight to look beyond their nose to get more homeowner occupied housing, to shift the ratio of renters to owners, in our most needy neighborhoods.
The fact that this $23.2 million dollars employing people in our city and providing virtually the only building department activity in the past three years has made so little a dent in our overall taxable value keeping us in the same arena as Belle Glade shows how much we needed that infusion.
The "Lofts" I was referring to is a condominium project of architectural significance (like the Eco-Centre)located across the street from the low rise Dollar Store we are sure to see more of if the measure passes.
So that everybody is clear, you were against the "Arts Lofts", (5 are sold and two more almost sold out of twelve), you were against the CRA incentives that brought Publix to our real downtown, you are against the single family owner occupied housing that replaced abandoned and dilapidated slums or vacant lots,you are now against the $10 million dollar project of brand new upscale, yet affordable rental complex on one of our main gateways because it will attract "poor people".
The city will get tax dollars from that project as well as impact, permit and utility fees. You are correct that "if" it helps to raise the property values in the area, the CRA will also get some of those revenues to continue its work revitalizing the most neglected areas of the city. What is nice is that the amount that normally goes to the county will also stay right here in Lake Worth for worthwhile projects.
To your point of why the CRA can't do more on the public transportation front, although we have been trying, we would be prohibited from using any of the CRA funding outside the CRA district which stops at the Gulfstream Hotel but doesn't go to the beach or include the Tri-rail station.
But no matter which way we go to get support for a transportation system that could help the whole city, businesses, little hotels on Federal so they don't become more re-habs, our new beach and restaurants in our real downtown, we need to have places for these trams to stop like an open Gulfstream Hotel, shops and restaurants along the way from Federal to the Beach Casino and our quaint B&B's that are low rise and would also benefit from another hotel in our hotel district. That requires development and THAT is a dirty word to many of your supporters.
There are many good and passionate people on both sides of this issue but many I've spoken to have what I believe is the wrong impression of what's at stake.
Confused voters are your best customers. A debate could have more clearly addressed questions in many people's minds.
If you look at the larger picture, businesses are largely against the issue. We see it as an anti-business issue.
If that paints all business owners as greedy, people have to make that call for themselves.
Chip Guthrie
Thanks for all the negativity anonymous above. Name calling is idiotic and won't get you anywhere.
Funny, you post the name calling but you won't post thoughtful dialogue when it doesn't agree with you.
Chip Guthrie
Chip, this blog was about negativity. You got neqative. I don't agree with you on your "thoughtful" debate remark. All it is to me is a political argument.
I post some of the scummy remarks from time to time in order to point out that the opposition plays dirty. I have a view--this is not a debate at least not on my blog. It has never been opened up for "debate." We are never going to agree on this issue or the CRA or the CRA giving $500,000 to Publix and $750,000 to the arts Council. I am sure that you think those are wonderful investments of tax dollars.
Thanks.
But I'm not a member of a PAC. I'm not a developer. I'm not a real estate agent or broker. I do own a business and have been somewhat active in the city volunteering on boards and in my neighborhood association for years.
The negativity seems to be from the Citizens Against Virtually Everything crowd. And I list the things you are against. I'm not trying to be negative.
I am for decent affordable housing.
I am for what previous CRA boards have accomplished. Publix, the Arts Council, the Arts Lofts and even the $10 million new construction project. We just applied for another $500,000 grant to build more owner occupied houses on lots we "land banked" but must be built on within ten years. We are doing SOMETHING.
But I generally view what we have accomplished and what we are accomplishing in a positive light, certainly not negative. You seem to only cast negativity on all of it. Has the CRA done ANYTHING you approve of?
When I read you disparage us as encouraging poor people to move here, I can't help but think back when I started off poor.
I bought a house. It was a stretch for us. But we've been here 30 years now in what is a great neighborhood. Through the efforts of people like John Lang, Al Snyder, Jim and Joanne Kelly, Loretta Sharpe and many more who have come and gone, we have made our neighborhood much better. And not all have been without controversy. But we still want to hear all views.
The only thing negative in my comment was possibly an exaggeration saying that the Dollar Store is the "Low Rise" you all want to see in our hotel district. But my point is that that building is as out of place there as a 6 story would be next to a cottage.
Of course I'm for allowing 65 feet in the hotel district. For a HOTEL. You sat there just as I did at Bryant Park's presentation and heard William Waters say how hard it would be to put a 4 story hotel with parking on one of our city blocks just as I did, however you still state it can be done.
In what universe is that negative?
Chip Guthrie
You took a lot of free money and spent it building or renovating 90 houses for people who are now homeowners. Yes, the argument is if you didn't take the money some other town would have. correct. I am simply against the hand-out mentality.
When I look back on the CRA, I can't really think of much that it has done that has made a difference in our city. When I took an interest in the political scene here, it was the tremendous waste on the Gateways that caught my attention...the tremendous waste of grant money to downtown business owners some of whom were friends..the tremendous waste of money to some homeowners...it was truly unbelievable...just free money in general....and the spending just continues with no improvement in sight.
As far as Bryant Park and that political meeting, I left an hour before your meeting was over. I HAD heard enough.
I might want to remind you all, esp. the ones who are playing this whole heights thing down, what John Szerdi said at the candidate's debate last year:
"What we have here is primarily a redevelopment area."
By "here" he was referring to downtown Lake Worth. I thought it was very ominous.
Might he have been referring to the area East of our downtown? That has a bunch of empty lots and a closed nationally registered historic site on it?
Chip Guthrie
Lynn,
I am not sure you can call the homes built, or reconditioned under the NSPII grant a "Hand Out".
They are all selling for more than the current median sales price fore houses in Lake Worth.
Here is what is still for sale:
Twelve townhomes designed as live-work spaces for artists on North F Street and Lucerne Avenue. Buyers must meet definition of an “artist.” Average price: $127,000.
A three-bedroom, two-bath home at 1405 Lake Ave., offered for $87,000.
Three-bedroom, 3.5-bath townhome at 219 N. L St., offered for $129,000.
A three-bedroom, two-bath home at 502 N. F St., offered for $89,000.
A three-bedroom, two-bath home at 512 N. H St., offered for $88,500.
Buyers of all grant-funded properties must have household incomes of 120 percent or less of the area median income — a maximum of $79,920 for a family of three.
And as you can see the income levels need to purchase them is also higher than the median income level for Lake Worth. This applies to all the properties in the program.
The new home owners were not given them, they have to pay the mortgage,even if it is a no interest one.
Lastly, the vast majority of the NSPII homes contribute to the tax role:
"McManaman said 166 properties have been bought with the federal grant money. All but 24 are or will be on the tax rolls. The exempt properties are apartments owned by Adopt-A-Family of the Palm Beaches, a nonprofit that rents them as affordable housing at monthly rates of $550 to $700."
Why do you think this is a bad thing?
Chip -- Hope your wife picks out your socks for you. The "artist" lofts are a joke. No real artists will be hanging their hats there. The buildings are hideous. They look like office buildings. The real artists in town would have appreciated a bit of help rehabbing the uniquely beautiful and historically significant houses in Lake Worth, many of which are decaying before our eyes. The CRA's housing program will prove to be a disaster. It's actually a welfare program, if you look closely at the terms. And I think what you'll see over the coming years is these homes turned into crack houses. If you look at really successful neighborhood rehabilitation, it usually happens when artists and gays and other adventurers notice gorgeous but run-down homes, move into the neighborhood, fix them up, plant flowers, then open cafes and art galleries in the neighborhood. The CRA is working at the problem from the wrong end. The excrement will come out the other. I'm very sad to see what's happening to Lake Worth. Misguided. Misguided. Misguided. One thing you could do though, Chip, to help your neighborhood, is to figure out how to attract a private school that would be an alternative to South Grade, one of the worst schools in the county. The property values of your South Palm neighborhood will remain seriously depressed until something is done about that school. Instead, you support the CRA's unrelenting drive to attract more low-income people to our town. And admonish Lynn. You're way wrong on this one, man.
Chip -- The Gulfstream is closed because the current owner does not want to bring the price down to the current market rate. He wants MORE MONEY than the hotel is worth now today in 2013. He is in denial about the real estate bust and still wants to get top dollar. Let's all call him and tell him to stop being an idiot. Other than that...we don't owe him anything. Oh, wait....... Do we? Did someone take money from him?? I think that question needs to be answered. I think there needs to be an investigation here, because personally, I cannot understand otherwise why a small group of citizens in Lake Worth is so deepy, intensely interested in helping the owner of the Gulfstream sell his hotel. Seems very, very, very strange.
The increase in value of every building Mr Guthrie mentions goes to the CRA. The county tax money giveback goes to the CRA.
We taxpayers have to pay for concurrency.
As a taxpayer, I would rather have the $14 million available to the City than spent on a pipe dream of development on these gateways.
Residential development rarely pays for itself even when the revenue goes to a municipality.
In these cases, the citizen taxpayer is reeling from a double whammy, since we get nothing.
Do you wonder why our millage rate is so high?
The Loft building by the way is what is out of place. It was given an illegal variance by a compliant P and Z board and Commission for a self created hardship to go to 62' instead of the then prescribed in the Comp plan 45' It replaced some art nouveau houses that were demolished at the suggestion and with a flimsy excuse from the woman in charge of historic properties then. So 1 story was the prevailing style in that area before the unwarranted variance was given. The Lofts building is the one that was given an illegal variance to destroy the 1 story compatibility (Dollar General) in that neighborhood
that existed before the developer contingent steamrolled an illegally high structure.
"it replaced some art nouveau houses that wre demolished".
You are either straight lying through your teeth or you have absolutley no idea what you're talking about.
The only thing demolished over there were some houses that the next stong wind storm was going to knock down.
nouveau houses. Where do you clowns come up with this stuff?
Wow, now it's let's belittle everything anyone says on the YES side of the argument. This is so stupid it's not worth responding to. I will delete any more garbage such as the above. Thanks.
Pointing out the facts and truth is not belittling someone. I'm trying to help them out. Do you really believe the houses that were knocked down over there were art nouveau? I can help you with reality too.
The only reason you won;t respond is becaue you can't. The houses that were knocked down were death traps.
The historic houses that were destroyed were art nouveau, somewhat similar in style to the apartment buildings to the west on Lake Ave.
Frederique Mittner used the excuse that some of the original shutters were partially detached from the structures and so these historic buildings qualified for demolition.
Remember Tauriello Real Estate. They came to town and schmoozed the development crowd and were given the variance to go to 62',
17' higher than the Comp plan allowed on the basis that the loft plan required high ceilings.
That's called a self imposed hardship and does not qualify for a variance but the Wes Blackman chaired P and Z of course recommended it to the Rodney Romano Commission who in turn approved the height violation.
I'm surprised Ms. Anderson put up your misinformed and somewhat juvenile rant, but as is quoted at the top of her blog, "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."
Adam Schlesinger LLC boughy the Gulfstream Hotel and owes $12,900,000,-.His destruction of the upper floors(gutted) reduced the value to $2,400,000,-see County Appraisal.
The Gulfstream Hotel is on the National Register of Historic Places and cannot be demolished.
The owner had no right to devaluate this Lake Worth Historic landmark!An knowledgeable City attorney would know what to do about that,since it is located in lake Worth.????
Not one investor would touch it for more than 3 million. It will take $5,000,000 to bring that magnificent Landmark Hotel,once elegant Center,in condition for operation as a first Class hotel which it deserves to be,warranted by its' location.
Post a Comment