I don't know much about planning but what I do know is what is acceptable to me and what is not. I could be way off base here but...
In the back-up for Tuesday's meeting, I see a section regarding incentives for developers who give back a public benefit. We've had this for awhile now. No where do I read about the cost of infrastructure that might/could/will impact the city for a new development, a new house. We might have to have costly upgrades to infrastructure just to support that development. We should be able to charge developers for infrastructure on private property that is needed as a result of the development. This includes new or safer road schemes, sidewalks, curbs, storm water run-off, and utility considerations.
I see in the back-up where the developer, through a public benefit such as building a few bus stops, bike racks or the planting of more trees as examples, will be able to gain his desired end of possibly a taller building, possibly a massive footprint in comparison to nearby properties and more density that the present zoning might not allow.
Why can't we require developers to just work within our Comp Plan instead of coming before the P&Z for special favors. Why not just make them pay for all costs to the infrastructure. The only message in the back-up that seems consistent is bending over backwards so that developers can do what they want. We did it with Publix when the CRA handed over 1/2 of a million dollars for infrastructure on private property. I am just going along with the politicians who say it was for infrastructure. In actuality and in that particular case, it was just greasing Publix's palm to make it even more attractive to locate on the Hammon Park private property.
We should not be paying for infrastructure for developers to build on private property. Developers need to pay for these costs. All of our Code and Comp Plan should be written to reflect that. I'm not sure that it is.
Didn't Publix but that property? How is it still Hammond Park private property?
ReplyDeleteYes. It was private property. Publix bought it. It is now their private property. Is that more explicit?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. They (THE DEVELOPERS) should have to pay for the impact they cause our city. They should call it "impact fees" and should not only be limited to streets and storm sewers. It should include schools, water utility upgrades and traffic.
ReplyDeleteWhat's that... they already charge those? OK... then we should think up another tier of fees we can charge developers. Some amount that will make it unprofitable to build. That'll teach them to come to Lake Worth.
And Publix WAS a bad idea. We already have a Publix. Easy access off Lake Worth Rd.
The CRA collects funds to give incentives to people and businesses to improve Lake Worth. It likes to partner with people and businesses to get a desired outcome or reach a specific goal.
Some would argue that it was a good investment to spend $500K to upgrade the utilities around the property that would allow Publix to actually build on that site.
Obviously, you take the opposite view.
Obviously.
ReplyDeleteWith all your smart aleck statements above, anony, you are wrong.
ReplyDeletepaying publix $500K is not my idea of an impact fee. the city has never charged impact fees, they waive them.
ReplyDeletePublix will pay this city millions of dollars in taxes over the next few years and employ over 90 people. If that corner stayed vacant we would have all lost. Wake up and smell the money this city is now making along with those folks with jobs and thank God that corner is now one of the best locations on Dixie. lets hope others now come to Dixie. If you do the math we the city cam win with these projects even if we help pay for the infrastructure. Great job CRA.
ReplyDeleteDon't know about millions of dollars, anonymous, but the City of Lake Worth will NOT get most of this tax money--it goes to the CRA.
ReplyDeleteThose who bought into Hammon Park got screwed. This was supposed to be their pool and recreation area. Great job, CRA.
If the new Publix was a bad idea why is it always crowded? More residents can easily bike or walk there than that rat hole out west. I thought THAT was important to the city?
ReplyDeleteEven if the city gets a small percentage of the tax dollars that's more than a vacant lot would bring in. The $500k the CRA "gave" to Publix will be paid back in no time.
You're funny Lynn. The more good the CRA does in the city the more you hate them. it's starting to look like you hate them more because they keep proving you wrong!
It's easy to spend and waste money. The CRA has never made me change my mind about them. In actuality, the land there was sold to Publix for the benefit of the CRA, not you and certainly not the residents of Hammon Park, if there are any residents left that is.
ReplyDeleteThe Publix directly west of the I-95 overpass is nearly finished in its renovation. It is twice as large as the one downtown and when completed, it will knock your socks off.
You don't need to p*ss away money attracting a billion dollar corporation to do business here. They do their own market studies and this money was never an enticement. It was a stupid waste of $$$.
That's your opinion. There are certainly more residents that appreciate the convenience of the new store and the improvements in that area. A while back you were openly critical of the Hammon Park development. NOW you're concerned about the lack of owners?
ReplyDeleteI was critical of building MORE townhouses, period. However, some people actually bought into that "dream" and expected a pool, etc. at Hammon Park. Now they get to look a a big food store.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the lack of owners, I could have "told you so."
You need to start reading and comprehending better than you have. ok?
Hey you forgot to mention the couple of hundreds of thousands the CRA gave to Hammon Park to attract affordable housing. That certainly was money put to good use.
ReplyDelete