Comment Up
Photos of the Casino demolition
Susan Stanton says, "During the last week, the City submitted extensive documentation to the Palm Beach Inspector's Office concerning a complaint received from a Lake Worth resident about the Casino Building construction's compliance with Florida's Building Code. The City has been working very closely with Doug Wise, City of West Palm Beach Building Official, who serves as the City of Lake Worth Building Official, MORGANTI Group, Construction Managers and REG Architects to ensure that the Casino project complies with all building codes and is a building that the City will be proud of once completed.
While I am very much aware of the continuing debate whether the City should have completely demolished the building and begin new construction vs. attempting to reuse as much of the building structure as possible, all parties involved with this project remain excited about the progress made to date and will provide any additional information the Inspector General's Office requires to properly respond to this issue.
Read the City Complete response (202 pages) to the Inspector General Office's."
You might be an English bulldog but he is a Pit
ReplyDeleteWhat was Wes promised to turn over our beach to a developer? Wes you are really selfish to want to take a public beach away from thousands of people.
ReplyDeleteThe real shame is that the City had to take valuable time and resources to answer this complaint in a 202 page reply. And you too, Commissioner Maxwell, can GET OVER IT.
ReplyDeleteGeez... A few of us out here are familiar with construction, zoning and planning. We have raised red flags from the beginning. But as in so many other cases, we were railroaded into this monument to mediocrity, bamboozled into a guise of "saving our 'historic' beach", meaning the old "structure", and when it appears that something seedy may have happened to allow this farce to go forward, Wes brings it to the attention of someone above our powerful BCE, to see if they agree with the masterminds on the dias and first few rows, or people who may actually know what they are talking about.
ReplyDeleteThe audacity of an active participant in the city to even question the wisdom of the BCE!
Since we can't seem to knock on doors and call residents as effectively as the "progressives" and put out a candidate that wishes to subject him/her self to the rancid gauntlet of small town politics, we may need help in stopping this "race to the bottom" of Palm Beach County. Enter the Office of Inspector General. THIS is her job.
Everybody applauds Palm Beach County in creating this new office. If Wes' complaint has no merit, that too will be made public and, I for one, will wear egg on my face with pride in the knowledge that experts in mal, mis and non feasance have had a chance to review what appears to be misdeeds by the BCE.
Wes, your crusade started well before this Commission so enough of the BCE nonsense. As a planner, we all respect that but to continue on with whether it is a demolition or not is fruitless. You even got Scott Maxwell hooked into your argument. That seems to be an easy thing to do as he likes to take stands against the City with the pretense of being the resident advocate standing up for we, the people. You know perfectly well, to do it any other way would end up not doing it at all or moving the structure off the coastal construction line. This is the area that we want to preserve for our Casino that has been there for 89 years and the one that will draw the people to an actual building (that will NOT be mediocre by the way) with an Atlantic Ocean view. This is important to its success and the overall success of the beach redevelopment project and to Lake Worth. It is unfortunate that you have been so obsessed with this to get to this point and take it to this level. Being able to say "I told you so," is all too important to you. Now we will have the Inspector General telling you that you are wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe above wasn't Wes. He doesn't have a problem identifying himself. I do.
ReplyDeleteI just happen to agree with him on this issue. You are probably right about not being able to re-construct the building on the dune if torn down. Or having the cost too high for our "Race to the Bottom" bunch. Maybe Wes can address that. But even the "evil developer's plan" was to rebuild on top of the dune. Only difference was it would be HIS money, HIS risk, and HIS to maintain. Not OUR Risk, OUR cash portfolio, and OUR maintenance costs. He also would have payed us $1million per year. Now, we are left with trying to eke out a break even point with a less than optimal structure, and a shrinking lease base cost per foot than can be attained by getting the best use and return on investment for the city.
I feel "gooder".
You may feel "gooder" but some of your "facts" are skewed.
ReplyDelete1. We would not have received $1 mil a year from Greater Bay--more like $500 thous for the life of the lease.
2. The life of the Lease was what was in dispute and created a lawsuit that the Judge agreed had merit. It was not for 20 years minus a day but for 40 years minus a day.
3. It was only a Lease situation. Do you honestly believe that Greater Bay, should the building get destroyed, be liable to rebuild it? NO.
4. The City had to maintain everything. Again, this was a Lease. Greater Bay did NOT own the building once it was built. It reverted to the city legally once the Lease ended like all leases.
5. The new building will be paid from REVENUES, not taxpayer money.
6. I have no idea what you mean by "less than optimal structure." Care to explain?
7. And I still don't understand what you are agreeing with Wes about.
What I agree with Wes is the current administration, or BTTBCE (better than the Best Commission Ever!)strategy of win at any cost.
ReplyDeleteTruth be damned. Yes we agreed to put the final plan to the voters. Oh, according to you, it was.... but without a vote of the residence. You suggest that meetings that had the predetermined outcome as it's goal as a vote.
Just like I voted to keep a building height of 6 stories Esat of Dixie but allow up to 10 stories West of Dixie.... and THAT is in our Charter!
The BCE pushed through the current restrictive heights without a vote of the people. Now we are stuck with a huge restriction to future development, unlike some of our neighbors.
You can't see the hypocracy in "save the Beach" and "save John G's" and what is actually happening. Remember the hand holding across the front of the building? To save the building (not the site) for all it's historic grandeur and architectural significance.
You say "I feel safer" each time crime gets reported in Lake Worth.
I feel "gooder" each time I read some of the BS on this blog.
Sometimes you make no sense whatsoever.
WE VOTED FOR NO MORE THAN TWENTY YEAR LEASE! So they made a twenty year lease "with the 1st right of refusal" and that to you means 40 years. Well maybe.
If the building was blown away, was he not required to carry insurance to rebuild? Another crack negotiation of the contract from our BCE?
If it reverts back to the city at the end of the lease, or in case of default or other issues, hypothetically, how then did we "give" it away? It remains the property of the city. Sort of like the Compass Center.
The revenues you claim will support the costs are subject to the type of rents we collect. Since "we" don't want any national chains that have the resources to pay top dollar and get us or best return on our investment. God forbid a "Chart House" or Cheesecake Factory" or other upscale restaurant desirous of the space at full market rates or more. No... Rachel won't be able to afford to taking her family there.
So... what's the next tier down?
I feel another "told you so" moment coming in the near future.
Did you happen to see where in the projections of revenue, how one professional listed the expected rent per square foot to be $50.00? Significantly higher than many of the other estimates from other likewise professionals. However that number happened to disappear from the end product and if it had been included, the best case scenario and all the rest of the rents would have shown higher.
How about the "difference of opinion" that caused our first leasing agent to walk due to demands of the BCME that would have greatly decreased his incentive to market the property to the highest and best use and mix?
Finally, I agree with Wes to simply show documentation to the IG. The BCME has a ton of staff to pile on the paperwork showing how this is "repairing" the building, and therefore not invoking the need to meet current code for "construction". Anyone can see, the building is being repaired and not totally rebuilt. What a bunch of morons we are.
But there still are requirements that have to be met while repairing the building to make sure it will be more "structurally sound" than REG said it already is. Oh, did we happen to mention that the same guy you said the building is "structurally sound" NOW works for the city? No... not overseeing the repair... say it ain't so.
Is there any wiggle room to see where SOMETHING may be askew? Maybe it's not my "facts".
I feel gooder
Well, I don't have to prove that I am always right like you seem to do. My ego is not that big. The only reason I allowed the above rant along with the insults was because you obviously spent a lot of time on it and you feel important to get it across to whomever it might just stick with that I am full of B.S. Let the readers determine that.
ReplyDeleteThe first real estate company did not even want to cooperate with any other brokers in leasing this property. He did not return e-mails. He did not return phone calls. The City made the correct decision. Get someone who actually has the city's interests here and not just his own. This new Broker needs to, however, work within the parameters given and not give his opinion to the press like he did a month ago.
How come you are ALWAYS against anything the City does? Why do you continue to stay in the minority? Why do you look at everything as black instead of white? As a conspiracy instead of a positive?
And give yur name when you want to debate and call this blog full of bull shit.
We want the casino project and the city hired some highly qualified people to get it done. So, what's the problem, Wes? Are you also challenging the ethics of William Waters? Anyone else?
ReplyDeleteTo Beth or whoever you might REALLY be--
ReplyDeleteRead the comment policy. Take a hike.
To answer the above erroneous statement made by someone who just likes to twist the facts:
ReplyDeleteTruth be damned. Yes we agreed to put the final plan to the voters. Oh, according to you, it was.... but without a vote of the residence. You suggest that meetings that had the predetermined outcome as it's goal as a vote.
I have NO idea what in heck you are talking about. Do you? I was the one who worked with We Love Lake Worth PAC to bring this to the ballot. Did you? Of course not.
All you want to do is whine and your facts, as stated, are skewed. You want the truth. Learn it.
Blackman lost twice running for office in this city. Why is that?
ReplyDeleteI did not mean to insult you, Lynn. First you thought I was Wes. I'm not. Then I made statements in support of his complaint. I believe it's valid. You don't seem to be questioning that either, but that he shouldn't have complained.
ReplyDeleteYou asked me a bunch of questions and I tried to answer each one. I still don't remember voting for one particular beach plan or even going forward with the plan that is now being implemented. I'd love for you to let me know when that question was on a ballot. What was the question?
I do appreciate you posting most of my comments. I got a little carried away with some of the last few but it was just to show how different two views of one set of facts can be.
To me, the city made an agreement with the first broker, then changed the agreement and he walked. I was at the commission meeting when the commission directed the CM to inform him of the changes, taking away his exclusivity. He didn't like it and can't blame him for not returning e-mails. He wasn't dealing with anyone with a track record of keeping their agreements.
To the person asking Wes if HE is challenging the ethics of Mr Waters, I believe Wes is asking the IG to do that. Anyone else? There might be some surprises.
I'm not really that negative and don't just see the black as you say. Nobody reads the "good news paper". I don't praise the good things that happen like the Snook Islands project, or the fact that the CM is getting little for her efforts in bringing our budget under control with drastic cuts is services. And I am not even looking at the fact our taxes are to reach the maximum allowed by law. But like she says, nobody wants to make the hard choices and somebody HAS to.
Do I like what she's doing. Hell no. But I at least know she has to do something.
Now am I being negative to critique her choice of creating these huge departments that we have never had before? Are you being negative when you criticize the CM manager allowing the commission to non-fund the internal auditor?
This is sarcastic.... do you want only people who agree with you to respond.
I used the term BS because it's the term you've used many times.
Please contact me personally and we can discuss. This is getting us nowhere. Perhaps I will be able to explain my views on these subjects. Thanks. If you had posted with your name and you were a "real" person (someone I know), my "tone" might have been different. Anonymous does not get a lot of courtesy here particularly when they you say I am full of bull shit. Call me anytime and I promise to be very civil and explain what went on then. We all are entitled to our opinions. When mine differs from someone else's, it brings out the ire in that person. Debating is fun...opinion is something altogether. As far as William Waters is concerned, he came on Board well after the decisions were made on the Casino and our beach. I am rather confident that the IG won't bother to pursue that avenue, insulting at best.
ReplyDeleteMs. Stanton, the "debate" is only from a few malcontents who always complain about everything.
ReplyDeleteWes Blackman, one time Lake Worth Pl.&Zoning Chairm.coerced that Board to build the Downtown Lake Worth historic Commercial area,of residential Condo building"Lucerne", with 13 building code violations, which I shall send you the meeting minutes of, for proof.
ReplyDeleteNone of todays' Commission members,mostly new comers, were in Town yet.
Yes, I read the article today. We sure get some people in this city continually causing waves. Blackman bites the hand that feeds him by getting appointed to major boards and then personally attacks those who appointed him, the BCE. He supports Ramiccio and really should know better. He supports anyone that might be on the developer side of politics in Lake Worth and who are corrupt to the core. He says he just wants the city to apologize. We believe that one. I agree. Let's kick them out and get people who can do it for the $5 million.
ReplyDeleteAn old-timer who knows the score.
No comments have appeared here about the article in the Sunday Palm Beach Post about problems with the Casino project. I don't really have a dog in this fight about rehabilitation or demolition, but if there are problems this early... What is coming next besides the problems with the beach project?
ReplyDeleteThank you for a thoughtful question and concern on the casino rehabilitation.
ReplyDeleteMorganti stated they they found more damage than they expected on the north end of the building and they will build additional walls. Everything else is out of there so I don't anticipate any more "unexpecteds." They will build, per their contract, for $6 million and there will be NO change orders.