Regarding Commissioner McVoy and Compass Realty:Everyone on the other side of dirty and stupid politics here in Lake Worth is making a big mountain out of the fact that Commissioner McVoy brought back the Compass Realty contract for discussion.
1) First of all, he has every right to do this.
2) The Lake Worth Herald chastised him for doing so and invented blame by suggesting that former commissioner Cara Jennings told him to. WRONG, as usual. Commissioner McVoy had plenty of people unhappy with this Contract and I was one of them who asked him to bring it back.
3) Next the Herald suggested that he have no right to bring it back because the Mayor had already signed the Contract. WRONG again. The Commission has the right to bring the item back at the next regular meeting so executing the Contract was pre-mature. The Mayor should have waited. Also, the Contract says that it can be terminated "upon five (5) days prior written notice of termination by the CITY to Broker without cause. WITHOUT CAUSE!
4. Commissioner Scott Maxwell asked, "Why do we make agreements and then go back and break them?" Well, Commissioner, sometimes the Commission doesn't even thoroughly read the contract (and that's what I believe occurred here) or understands the possible pitfalls and gets the city obligated for millions of dollars in waste and law suits.
5) The Herald says that the present tenants at the beach do not pay market rent. WRONG once again. This is a dirty rumor and something that the Dirty continues to spread. According to former Director of Community Development, Wayne Bergman, he stated in a public meeting that the tenants WERE PAYING MARKET RENT. Can we please put that lie to rest?
The reasons why I wanted the Contract to be re-visited were--
1. It did not go out according to City procedure on an RFP.
2. It did not protect co-operating brokers.
3. It did not mention the amount of commission to be paid to co-operating brokers.
4. DeWoody of Compass said that he didn't have to cooperate with other brokers.
5. No one had ever heard of this company.
6. There was no protection for our present long-time tenants. Perhaps the Dirty thinks this is unimportant and the Herald continues to bring that point up, but they are flat WRONG. If the present tenants agree to pay the market rate, then they should get the right of first refusal. They, simply by being here long term, have proven that they are sustainable. If, on the other hand, a financial institution concludes otherwise, then the space will be opened to other prospects.
7. It did not protect the City from paying a commission up-front to Compass on a long-term lease with the possibility of that tenant breaking the lease and leaving early. I think that the Realty company should be paid the real estate commission on each yearly renewal whether it is a long-term lease or not.
Some of the above was satisfied by bringing it back for discussion.
17 comments:
Isn't it Dirty not to declare the fact that casino building tenants contributed to your campaign before discussing this item either the first or second time? Especially when the Commission passed an ethics ordinance requiring it to do so?
Well, how often do you think it appropriate to keep bringing that fact up? one-half dozen times? once is not enough? every single time something is discussed on the casino? What? Let's keep beating it to death.
Thanks, Lynn for a great ,informative article! Lets get going on OUR beach,and break ground as soon as possible!I am also glad that Commissioner Mcvoy brought back this issue.This realty company does not seem to be a good fit for OUR beach.
It's called the law, something the Best Commission ever better start remembering.
"Better start remembering?" Is that some sort of a threat?" Wes, what about you and Kilday when you voted on Sunset while on P&Z? You guys like to beat a dead horse. The Casino has NOTHING to do with campaign contributions and you know it. What about Retha not disclosing Sun Recycling? I swear you are trying to make the Dirty come out as Mr. & Ms. Perfect. This is the BEST Commission since I can remember. You will never find "perfect." Why don't you come down to commission meetings and ask them to disclose instead of complaining.
On another note, I don't even think Compass Realty should be paid a commission on the present tenants. In fact, I don't think there should even be an exclusive real estate company in control of our casino leasing for a 3 year contract.
If Wayne says the tenants at the beach are paying market rent than it's true. Wayne knows. The fact that John G's pays less than $16 a square foot and gets free water when everyone else pays much more is meaningless and should not be spoken of again. Thank good we have Wayne putting this issue to bed once and for all. Thank you Lynn.
Oh well, sign your name. I have NO idea what you're talking about. NO ONE GETS FREE WATER. Tell us more about that. The water at the beach is supplied by WPB, not Lake Worth.
The city of West Palm Beach does supply the water. It has one master meter for the beach, which the city pays for, therefore all tenants get "free" water.
Having to balance wanting to keep John G's at the beach after the "renovation" and negotiating "fair" rent is not easy and most likely best if in the end, no one is happy.
Lynn, your logic for bringing this issue up again is troubling. Of course they have the right to bring anything back up for reconsideration. But because they didn't READ it? "or understands the possible pitfalls and gets the city obligated for millions of dollars in waste and law suits."
Isn't THAT what the Best Commission ever is known for?
I really appreciate your decision to publish anonymous posts. I am not the sarcastic anon talking about how since Wayne stated they ARE paying market rents we can put that issue to bed, but I agree with him/her.
Singed,
Anonymoose
Lyn, what do you expect from the vote no on everything residents of this city? They don't want any progress and just want to bitch and complain. We have all lost our patience with most of them with their sky is falling mentality.
To Anonymoose-
Do you honestly think anything is "free" in this life? I know that you are not that naive. As they do not have a separate meter (I believe that is fact), you don't think then that the rental rate reflects city costs for that spot and water is not factored in? The tenants pay for everything else such as taxes.
As far as my reasons wanting Compass Realty contract to be brought back and it being troubling for you, I have an idea that anything that I believe is troubling for you. So, no surprise here. Some of your friends on past commissions (the worst commissions ever) got the city into a lot of trouble by NOT READING CONTRACTS such as the Greater Bay deal. So where is your "LOGIC?"
Now that you know John G's does not get a water bill you justify the fact that they really do pay for water as it is factored into their rent. If their rent is less than 16 asf and that factors in water, what are they really paying for a beach front restaurant. Do you have any idea how much water a restaurant uses. It is beyound belief that you Lynn, an educated woman would argue that John G's pays market rent. This family has gotten rich off the backs of this city and you know it. There are no beach front restaurant businesses that make what they make and pay such low rent with water included. Wake up and get real. John G's does not pay market rent and we all know it. I don't care what Wayne says.
First of all, the only tenant there who even uses any water to any degree is John G's. You have always said that they are NOT paying market rent. Are you an expert in rental rates for the LW Casino? Actually, debating this subject with the handful that complains about this is a waste of time. That is why we have contracted with a company to come up with comparables on the build-out building, if they can. Perhaps then some of us might be satisfied.
The blog was about Compass Realty, not about your incessant gripe that John G's should be paying more based on your belief, not cold hard facts. Let's wait for the report on this and then we will probably gripe some more.
Those who have a sink or a toilet do pay sewer. The other thing about the beach casino is that all who visit the beach have to pay for parking. No where else in the entire city do merchants have to worry about customers paying to park to visit their shops or restaurants. Why are some of you so against our merchants there?
Moose here... I don't know how much they pay in rent. The discussion was that "NO ONE GETS FREE WATER". IF their rent is low, good for them. John G himself negotiated the rent when he spent a buttload of money upgrading the kitchen and added bathrooms so customers wouldn't have to walk a quarter mile to the filthy public rest rooms by the pool. He also added a walk-up window and counter. I do not believe he has made his money on the backs of the taxpayers. The whole family has worked like dogs in that place for decades. They are successful and THAT is what some in this town can't stand.
A restaurant of that size can easily run through several hundred dollars a month in water. Add to that sewerage, which is roughly the same charge as the water. If they are not paying for it separately, most people would consider that free. If the perception is that they pay below market rent to begin with, and add the amount not paid for water and sewerage, it amplifies the perception.
I don't disagree with EVERYTHING you say. Probably only 30%-40%. The market rent "experts" (I'm not one) state a high, low and "most likely" scenario. When I reviewed the back up, they had already thrown out a very high high. I think it $50 psf. They didn't throw out a very low low. So the high topped at $30 psf and the low was at $18 psf. (from memory) I wondered at he time of reading why they threw out the $50 number. Any insight?
Anonymoose
I have no insight on the $50 per s.f. figure. This is the first I have heard of it. Perhaps they want to actually rent the spaces there and want a fair market rate. Let's just see what the real estate professional comes up with for a brand new, across from the ocean front, building. I would love to know how many people frequent our restaurants over there. I doubt if we could ever get an accurate figure.
The financial study had the three tiers of rental rates. That was so they could determine if we could even support the building by rental rates. Apparently, we can.
The answer to your question Lynn is YES. Every time the "best commission ever" discusses the beach, current tenants and leases they should disclose how much each tenant contributed to their campaign it doesn't matter how many times they have to divulge the information. Don't you think Suzie's argument the other night about right of first refusal would have taken on a different meaning if she disclosed John G.'s along with their vendors contributed over $1,500 to her campaign? It would have appeared she brought up the point because she owed them for their campaign $$$. isn't that pay for play? Or is that only when "the other side" does it?
Keep defending "the best commission ever" while you also defend them for not reading contracts, then trying to break them when they find out what's in them. See a pattern here?
Ok, I concede the argument. I'm just not as cynical I guess. I will suggest that they get a sign printed up that they can wave in front of them every time something comes up again where they have already disclosed. (That's a joke!)
Post a Comment