Commentary on the CRA and P&Z Boards
Now don’t get excited. Most graphics are used for effect and poetic license. I believe that the majority of Board members should be applauded for their service to our City. It is their supreme authority that I challenge. This commentary is aimed specifically at Planning and Zoning and the CRA Boards because that is where I see a very big problem. It is my opinion that these two Boards have too much power, for these are the Boards that affect our lives the most.
Many Board members are too political and behave as if they have been elected rather than appointed by the City Commission. These members even have the audacity to make snide remarks against our Commissioners at any and every opportunity, the very people who appointed them, as well as comments against the public, the very people they should be listening to and who are actually paying for their projects. They really believe that they know better and make no bones about who holds the power and who, in their minds, has the knowledge. How dare anyone question their decisions?
Monday nights’ workshop with the P&Z Board is a prime example. Even though the Vice-Chair said, “We work for you,” that message was topped off with more disingenuous discourse when all of the Commissioners were invited to call anyone on the P&Z at any time if they did not understand what the Board was promoting…threatened the Bert J. Harris law regarding the Sunset parcel and tried to rush the Commission into a decision on their Comp Plan changes and approve it as it was. You could definitely distinguish the leadership and the power on that Board that night—John Paxman and Phil Spinelli. Commissioner Jennings stopped the Board dead in its tracks. Her argument? The citizens should have the say about the direction the city should go. This is a prime example of why we need Florida Hometown Democracy.
From time to time and especially on big money items, these politically appointed Boards have a tendency to make decisions that are not in the best interest of Lake Worth and its citizens tax money, spending willy nilly on projects that have been lobbied to death such as the CRA's decision on the Pugh property and Hammon Park. The CRA recently voted 7 to 0 on Hands On Consulting to do a study on the Cultural Redevelopment idea of theirs. This Group was pushed through by the CRA Director. She wanted them. She got them. The CRA says we need this study and this direction for our city whether we want it or not and they will spend a big consulting fee ($200,000) to get it. They want this city to be an artists’ destination and firmly believe that is what we need to give it vitality. Once these decisions are made by Boards, our Commission can’t overturn them. It took a lot of pressure and months of time and over $700,000 dollars to finally get the CRA to end the option on the Pugh property. I give Bill Coakley a lot of credit for exposing this bad decision on his web site, lakeworthmedia.com. I personally still question spending $13 million on 6th Ave S and 10th Ave North in order to attract development.
It was mentioned by the CRA attorney last night that the Board does not have to have Commission approval. They can do virtually anything they want. I always thought that the Commission, however, had to approve their budget. The Director at last night’s meeting moved around $1.2 million dollars in the budget to other projects. Tom Ramiccio came before them once again wanting money. This time it was $10,000 towards the Street Painting Festival even though he already received his one grant allowed per year of $24,500 for Evening on the Avenues. He wanted a special exception and got it. The entire Grant is only $44,000 for the year and Tom got 78% of it for his causes. Ms. Olivia fixed that unfavorable percentage by shifting $15,000 from the budget into the Patron’s Grant Fund thus pumping up its available balance.
Does anyone know how much the Street Painting Festival costs? According to Mr. Ramiccio, it is over $200,000 to put on this event and the Street Painting Festival, Inc. even pays for the CHAULK according to the condensed balance sheet that was presented in the back-up. No supporting documentation of these figures was offered. It is an expensive event. Does it help our downtown merchants? If so, to what degree? The propaganda given was that people actually move to our city because of this festival. That's another sale of the Brooklyn Bridge.
Donna Ross, CRA Board member, made a good point during the review process on the CRA Director. In her opinion, Ms. Oliva was directing the Board rather than the other way around and changing the By-Laws was challenged by member Wayne Marcinkoski at last night's meeting. I believe if the By-Laws had been changed last night, the Board would have had less authority than ever before. You can’t have a run-away Board either. The Board makes the decisions but should not allow itself to be bullied or take staff input without question. Because one set of facts are provided does not mean that there are not another set disputing the argument. Boards must do their own homework just like the City Commission. They need to look at both sides of the coin.
A lot of the zoning decisions result in exclusion rather than inclusion. The P&Z made a horrible decision against the Lake Osborne Heights neighborhood when the 4.02 acres on Sunset were annexed into the City and zoning was approved by P&Z to accommodate a developer at the expense of this single family neighborhood. P&Z never listened to the residents and allowed zoning of Multi-Family 20 in a Single Family 7 neighborhood. They did it because they could and now they feel smug because we lost in the Appellate Court on the 5 parcel question.
We absolutely must have planning and zoning laws as well as code enforcement. We must have a Comprehensive Plan that makes sense to the city as a whole and approved by the residents, not just a few planners on boards who are development oriented. I question the argument that we are better off today than we were in the past. The quality of life here decades ago was great.
Finally, the Board members need to be responsible to the greater good of the citizens of Lake Worth. Since the Boards are political anyway and behave as politicians (other than the members who have obvious contempt for the public and the Commission that appointed them) perhaps elected Boards would do the trick. Four year appointed terms are too long because the politics in this city changes every two years and therefore board members should be subjected to two years like any other elected official here. Also, I personally would like to see term limits for appointed board members.
Many Board members are too political and behave as if they have been elected rather than appointed by the City Commission. These members even have the audacity to make snide remarks against our Commissioners at any and every opportunity, the very people who appointed them, as well as comments against the public, the very people they should be listening to and who are actually paying for their projects. They really believe that they know better and make no bones about who holds the power and who, in their minds, has the knowledge. How dare anyone question their decisions?
Monday nights’ workshop with the P&Z Board is a prime example. Even though the Vice-Chair said, “We work for you,” that message was topped off with more disingenuous discourse when all of the Commissioners were invited to call anyone on the P&Z at any time if they did not understand what the Board was promoting…threatened the Bert J. Harris law regarding the Sunset parcel and tried to rush the Commission into a decision on their Comp Plan changes and approve it as it was. You could definitely distinguish the leadership and the power on that Board that night—John Paxman and Phil Spinelli. Commissioner Jennings stopped the Board dead in its tracks. Her argument? The citizens should have the say about the direction the city should go. This is a prime example of why we need Florida Hometown Democracy.
From time to time and especially on big money items, these politically appointed Boards have a tendency to make decisions that are not in the best interest of Lake Worth and its citizens tax money, spending willy nilly on projects that have been lobbied to death such as the CRA's decision on the Pugh property and Hammon Park. The CRA recently voted 7 to 0 on Hands On Consulting to do a study on the Cultural Redevelopment idea of theirs. This Group was pushed through by the CRA Director. She wanted them. She got them. The CRA says we need this study and this direction for our city whether we want it or not and they will spend a big consulting fee ($200,000) to get it. They want this city to be an artists’ destination and firmly believe that is what we need to give it vitality. Once these decisions are made by Boards, our Commission can’t overturn them. It took a lot of pressure and months of time and over $700,000 dollars to finally get the CRA to end the option on the Pugh property. I give Bill Coakley a lot of credit for exposing this bad decision on his web site, lakeworthmedia.com. I personally still question spending $13 million on 6th Ave S and 10th Ave North in order to attract development.
It was mentioned by the CRA attorney last night that the Board does not have to have Commission approval. They can do virtually anything they want. I always thought that the Commission, however, had to approve their budget. The Director at last night’s meeting moved around $1.2 million dollars in the budget to other projects. Tom Ramiccio came before them once again wanting money. This time it was $10,000 towards the Street Painting Festival even though he already received his one grant allowed per year of $24,500 for Evening on the Avenues. He wanted a special exception and got it. The entire Grant is only $44,000 for the year and Tom got 78% of it for his causes. Ms. Olivia fixed that unfavorable percentage by shifting $15,000 from the budget into the Patron’s Grant Fund thus pumping up its available balance.
Does anyone know how much the Street Painting Festival costs? According to Mr. Ramiccio, it is over $200,000 to put on this event and the Street Painting Festival, Inc. even pays for the CHAULK according to the condensed balance sheet that was presented in the back-up. No supporting documentation of these figures was offered. It is an expensive event. Does it help our downtown merchants? If so, to what degree? The propaganda given was that people actually move to our city because of this festival. That's another sale of the Brooklyn Bridge.
Donna Ross, CRA Board member, made a good point during the review process on the CRA Director. In her opinion, Ms. Oliva was directing the Board rather than the other way around and changing the By-Laws was challenged by member Wayne Marcinkoski at last night's meeting. I believe if the By-Laws had been changed last night, the Board would have had less authority than ever before. You can’t have a run-away Board either. The Board makes the decisions but should not allow itself to be bullied or take staff input without question. Because one set of facts are provided does not mean that there are not another set disputing the argument. Boards must do their own homework just like the City Commission. They need to look at both sides of the coin.
A lot of the zoning decisions result in exclusion rather than inclusion. The P&Z made a horrible decision against the Lake Osborne Heights neighborhood when the 4.02 acres on Sunset were annexed into the City and zoning was approved by P&Z to accommodate a developer at the expense of this single family neighborhood. P&Z never listened to the residents and allowed zoning of Multi-Family 20 in a Single Family 7 neighborhood. They did it because they could and now they feel smug because we lost in the Appellate Court on the 5 parcel question.
We absolutely must have planning and zoning laws as well as code enforcement. We must have a Comprehensive Plan that makes sense to the city as a whole and approved by the residents, not just a few planners on boards who are development oriented. I question the argument that we are better off today than we were in the past. The quality of life here decades ago was great.
Finally, the Board members need to be responsible to the greater good of the citizens of Lake Worth. Since the Boards are political anyway and behave as politicians (other than the members who have obvious contempt for the public and the Commission that appointed them) perhaps elected Boards would do the trick. Four year appointed terms are too long because the politics in this city changes every two years and therefore board members should be subjected to two years like any other elected official here. Also, I personally would like to see term limits for appointed board members.
