Comment Up
As everyone knows, we don't have any more trees to cut down.
We are the most densely populated city on the eastern part of Florida.
Lake Worth is vulnerable right now and the only town left that developers want to get their hands on. We have a lot going for us being a seaside city with the new casino, the beach redevelopment and people looking to buy the Gulfstream Hotel. We are on our way to prosperity. Developers know this and want to make as much money as they possibly can. That will happen if their friends have the political clout to raise the heights in our city. They also know that they can do that by a 3 to 2 vote. Politicians have been known to "sell out" in the past.
The local newspaper has always listened to that side of politics. Not once has anyone there ever sought the opinion of just average Joe Citizen, you know, the guy with no ax to grind and with no special interests. If The Herald has, please let us know.
Today Mark's editorial said: "Those who have voiced opposition to any increase in height are the same ones who want no growth in Lake Worth. They know that stagnation will cause a city to collapse into chaos, and that is precisely what they want. Those who want unlimited height will turn Lake Worth into a concrete jungle of condos for [people with no jobs." What a bunch of hogwash. Does The Herald really feel that all of us who want to keep a low rise city are stark raving mad? The Herald insults the majority of people in this City.
Right now Planning & Zoning is attempting to ensure that we have a sustainable city now and well into the future and has presented a Plan that will work. Heights are fine west side of Dixie and at The Park of Commerce. As one citizen recently said, "False perception from "Politicos" is nothing more than pander and slander in order to be self serving to those who want "their way" instead of what is best for our city as a whole.
Following are the dates for the Comp Plan:
June 6, 2012: Public Hearing before the PZB
June 13, 2012: Public Hearing before the HRPB
June 19, 2012: Public Hearing before the City Commission
July, 2012: State Review of draft amendments
July 17, 2012: Public Hearing and Second Reading before the City Commission
If you are as insulted as I by the above commentary and if you care about what your city will look like, please turn out to support all the work of this present Planning & Zoning board and voice your opinion. Drive south down Dixie Highway and look at some of the ghost towns and empty buildings--you will get a feel of what I am talking about.
54 comments:
Responsible growth requires taller buildings downtown and on Dixie. It's the way we can raise taxes to pay for things like a library. My house is a single family house and it exceeds 35 feet in height. No one complains about it and it fits in with the neighborhood. To say that this commission is giving the city to developers is wrong. We need flexability in the comp plan so that the city can attract the right development. You can't lump all development into good/bad. Each project needs to be evaluated on it's own merits. Wake up folks this city could go under if we don't get our act together. How tall is your building Lynn? How tall is Lake Worth Towers? How tall is the Gulfstream Hotel? Under our current rules many of these could not be rebuilt if they were destroyed in a hurricane. None of these buildings upset anyone in this city andthey all are very tall. Let's get real when we start assuming that tall means selling out. It does not mean that at all.
First sentence is BOGUS. The downtown falls into the CRA district. We would not get much money from that at all. On top of that, if you listen to Wm Waters, he will tell you that we pay more in services than we will generate in taxes.
No one is complaining about houses built decades ago. We are working on a Plan now that will sustain us in the future.
Next, The Towers was built in 1966. There was no planning back then. It was built for those on low incomes and fixed incomes, Seniors. I would seriously doubt that we see another building of that size.
I am not lumping all development into good or bad. Where did you figure that one out? Each project needs to be evaluated on the COMP PLAN, the LDR'S and the zoning for its use...not on its own merits.
My building is 2 stories and the zoning compensates for the height here even though it was built also in 1966.
We can take care of non-conforming in our Plan as we proceed.
What YOU want to do is "sell out" and going on a false premise to do it.
I'm one of the "Joe's" you mentioned with no ax to grind. I am not a realtor or developer. We have never been a "low rise" city as mentioned above. Just look at the Gulfstream Hotel. Built at our beginnings and an integral part of our identity.
While I don't want a canyon in town, we need the flexibility for the right development if it were to come along.
We have always had the 65 foot height limit and we changed our Charter to allow 10 stories West of Dixie. Didn't see a stampede of developers running at us then and we won't see any if we KEEP the heights we all agreed to in the Charter amendment. You know, Charter amendment that WE ALL voted for. How's that for "what the people want"?
If you keep calling us a low rise city, will it make us so?
c
Our Charter with those heights, as mentioned 100 times before, was 20 years ago--BEFORE we had decent planning within our City. Sustainability is something we must strive for and Waters is doing that.
Are you trying to say because we have a few building that are high that we are NOT a low-rise city? Do you really think anyone will believe that propaganda...Besides you and your developer/Realtor friends, that is.
If you keep calling us a high rise city, will that make it so? NOT. What will make it so will be politics, pure and simple and corrupt.
Joe, how come you don't live in Delray Beach or Ft. Lauderdale? Why did you locate here in a little city mostly consisting of single family houses?
Prove that your house exceeds 35'!
The Courtyards are 37' to the peak of the roof and they are 3 stories.
So why don't we hear you and your "what the people want" propaganda demanding to put it on the ballot as a Charter amendment? We changed it "way back" 20 years ago (was Rodney Mayor 20 years ago?) we can change it again because, as you say, we are different now. It's what "we" want.
You know it would go down in flames.
I have never said we are a high rise city. However, you have definitely been calling us a low rise city. How do you define that? If we are anything, we are medium rise, if there is such a thing.
We still need flexibility when it come to heights and so I thank God we do have visionaries. Thank you Mayor and Commissioners Maxwell and Amoroso.
I certainly have more in common with their vision than with the Cara crowd fighting gentrification so we stay "affordable" for poor people.
c
Oh God, another person with a Cara fixation. What EXACTLY is the vision of this trio? They haven't voted right on much of anything. Do you want only expensive houses here so that only the wealthy can afford to live? Is that the goal? Why haven't they done one thing about the blight? It's been 6 months and not one word has been spoken. All you do is say well Cara and Jo-Ann, etc. gutted Code. There was one less code officer there after it was re-structured.
The editor of the Lake Worth Herald is entitled to state his opinion on the height issue in his editorial comment just as you state your opinion in this blog. Andrew Marra with the Palm Beach Post has written numerous editiorial comments with which many disagree.
I am a reader and subscriber of the Lake Worth Herald and am NOT insulted by the editorial in this week's issue. On what basis do you say "The Herald insults the majority of people in this City?"
Well, it depends upon who's asking here.
He definitely IS entitled to state his opinion. I just totally disagree with it for all the obvious reasons. It was sheer emotional rhetoric. Being an editor of a news publication who recently said that "The Lake Worth Herald has made every attempt to stand for what is good for the community without leaning to one faction or the other" did not do that--not even close.
Of course you are not insulted. You are one of those people wanting to build high.
This blog IS opinion and IS biased and politically incorrect at times.
It is ALL about balance more than anything else. We need to promote more home ownership and attract people to raise the tax base. We need to clean up the blight and get rid of slum owners who do not keep up their properties. Have balance and address blight, two keys to attracting people and have a better tax base.
If more people means more revenue from taxes, then NY and LA would be Utopia. Instead, they are the highest taxed cities in the world. Why? Services.
Former Elected Official
We do not need 65 feet heights in the heart of our downtown. 45 feet sould be the max between Dixie and Federal. East of Federal could be max 65 feet.West of Dixie in lots that are deep enough are also ALREADY zoned to allow up to 65 feet.These heights are more generous than what the majoirty of people attending charetts wanted-A max of 4 stories everywhere in the city-EXCEPT the park of Commerce. Ex Mayor Mark Drautz asked Wes Blackman ,former head of P&Z point blank how 4 stories max got turned into 10 stories on a proposed comp plan. Wes never gave an answer.Drive south on I-95 to Woolbright. Go east to Dixie. Drive around in the wonderland that Boynton's Commission and CRA promised their citizens. Head north on Dixie and look at what CRA promises did to Boynton Beach. Drive west on MLK and see how empty lots in those neighborhoods are the best that that same CRA could manage for the truely blighted areas of Boynton that really did need help.I'll be happy to drive Mark Easton, Andy Amaroso and Pam Triolo on a tour of how neighboring cities have screwed themselves and their citizens. I saw it all over the state when I was traveling for Amendment 4.Too many elected officials couldn't wait to sell their souls for the promised tax bonanza that NEVER CAME!We don't need to back slide into the days of unrealistic growth. PAM,ANDY AND SCOT can we PLEASE have some GOD DAMNED BALANCED DECISIONS FROM YOU ?!? Katie Mcgiveron
Hey Mark-do a story on what happened to Lantana's ball fields. Lyman feild that used to be off Broadway.That is a true developer success story!!
To raise the tax base development must take place in the Park of Commerce. Building townhouses up and down Lake and Lucerne will not help because of the cost to provide services and the TIFF going to the CRA.
Repeating the past mistakes of building unwanted townhouses is foolish.
Learn from the past, don't repeat it.
The appeal of Lake Worth is it's uniqueness in a highrise county.
What will be gained by building higher? Will the space be residential or office? Who will occupy it?
Don't let short sightedness ruin it.
When people talk about the fallen property values in LW they forget to mention how quickly the property values rose. Faster than in other parts of the county.
There was a false high created by the flippers in the real estate market.
A lesson must be learned from this experience.
LW can not allow development for the developer's gain only.
Why are 45'tall buildings needed when the most recently built developments are 30 feet to 35 feet tall and residents complain about their imposing facades.
The new majority vote on the dais say they have a vision. Can they actually see how tall 45 feet is?
It is taller than the Cultural Building on Lake.
It will tower over the new Arts Lofts at 25 feet!
Yes, home ownership is the key, get more to own houses, clean up blight, and see a little more gentrification take place, as property values go up with home ownership and people taking pride in their properties, home property values go up and taxes go up, this helps a great deal, we need more pride in our city, we need more home ownership, we need clean, safe, and orderly neighborhoods where people will want to raise families, and really want to live here because it is nice, safe, and clean.
Thanks to anony above. That says it all. We don't need to build high. Where did this idea come from--some developer no doubt. If developers want to build, they will build. We don't need to hear this old tired song and dance that they will go somewhere else because LW is not giving them heights. BS. Once our beachfront is finished and The Gulfstream is sold, our city will be wide-opened and extremely attractive to developers. Property will be much more valuable. In fact, they should be buying up property now with the idea of developing to get ready for the boom that we will experience.
Our city should not be handed over to developers on a silver platter and be allowed to build too high.
The talk now is the TOD's. No one wants rapid transit here in little Lake Worth. It is absurd. Again, this height of 65 feet that is proposed is to accommodate the builders only, not the residents of this city. I sure don't want that height at the foot of Lake Osborne, the entrance to single family residences and two story condos. They are mentioning three TOD's...how stupid is that?
As we have a Budget deficit every year that results in reduction of services, I can understand how somebody could make a case against new development costing more in services than the new project would generate in additional taxes. By the same token, that argument could be used to eradicate the population of Lake Worth.
The statistical representation of Lake Worth's high density is correct, while there are multiple areas of blight, vacancy and underdevelopment on Dixie, Federal and the Lake-Lucerne corridor.
The last real estate development boom largely passed over Lake Worth---given the number of new units constructed and our population--compared to other municipalities. Also, there are no developers lining up to pave over Lake Worth. That is not to say that prudent planning should be ignored when looking to the future and incentivizing some strategic new development.
The canard of height in Lake Worth and the vitriol concerning The Lucerne by a few would be unfortunate if they derailed any future development In Lake Worth. Having walked door to door in several political campaigns and taking a survey in the past Street Painting Festival, I am not aware of any significant objection to height in general or The Lucerne in particular---the vocal minority notwithstanding.
There are a limited number of properties on the west side of Dixie, several along Lake & Lucerne-especially west of Dixie---and the 6 blocks on the east side of the FEC railroad tracks that I believe could contribute to the quality of life in Lake Worth----by replacing existing structures and providing availability/choices/alternatives of goods and services as well as residential units. While some sites like the Theis site and maybe 1 or 2 west side of Dixie sites lend themselves to 6-10 stories, the majority of the aforementioned might be best redeveloped in 4-6 stories.
On a weekend that includes a CRA cleanup and an American Legion Memorial benefit, it is good that the City is thinking and writing about the future while taking action on the present and the past.
Mark Easton has fallen into the trap. He is enraptured by Lindsey, Maxwell, Sharp and gang and believes that no one else has a brain. How sad.
Love your image of what's left of the tree that is the foundation and "vision" of the pavers.
The Comp Plan and LDR's that were presented to the tri part meeting at the Golf Course in late January reflected the work of various P and Z boards over the last 7 years and codified what the citizens of Lake Worth presented as their desires for their community at various workshops during these meetings. All 3 boards came to consensus on adoption of what was presented.
The citizens paid $1M dollars for their voices to be heard, counted and followed.
For a Vice Mayor who is a solid rep of the Chamber of Commerce(s) and out of town developer interests to abrogate to himself the power to deny the implementation of the people's vision shows his lack of understanding of what representative democracy means and a dereliction of his duties as an elected official.
Heads in the sand,rant that we need more development on Dixie.21 years ago, Dixie had many businesses,
today many vacant buildings and businesses closing down, vacating more.Drive down Dixie,if not blind, then speak. Building more would logically spoken,increase the vacancies.The economy is in a recession and going into depression.Burden our City with more vacant developments?That is not why you are sitting in OUR Commission seats.Many apatheticals have voted without research for truth of viability of Candidates,who know the City problems and knwo overdevelopment cost us.
The Lucerne was built with 13 violations and a stolen,variance, never built, 110 public parking spaces condition,to illegally change Units from 22 to 82!Has anyonone counted the vacancies?The value of all,from $396,000 to today's Prop.Appraisers Office market value, $107.000!
Increased tax base?Which simpletons made that remark???Pam,I know is not stupid.Does she knwo the infrastructure cost for overdevelopment of vacancies?
219 N.L promised City $560,000 Townhomes,I just sold for one $99,000,-,2000 sq.ft,
and 3 story 3000 sq.ft. for $114,000.Increased taxbase??The infra structure is not covered,simpletons!!!!A.C.'s were ripped out of the ground by ilegals without jobs!
Super majority Commission members,
have no idea how infra structure costs relate to development.Ask the only one with real knowledge ,Wm.Waters,A.I.A.etc.
Blowing hot air does not make them look important!
The simplest Floridian,knows that Historic Florida brings billions in tourism dollars.Intelligentsia would concentrate on that.Idiots would continue overdevelping vacant buildings,homes for criminials,drugdealers,,illegals.
Will they pay for the infra structure and its' maintenance?
Criminally negligent Commission members have for 13 years not collected our fees for Sewage Treatment for 7 Towns.We paid the salaries of our employees who did that job.Not one penny was collected!!Let the simpletons collect that first and cover their Deficit,result of mismanagement of our City.Stop making stupid suggestions for overdevelopment.Fill the vacancies first!Do your jobs!
Writer of this socalled intelligent comment, has no idea what infrastructure costs are to us taxpayer property owners, for overdevelopement as we have experienced.Fill the vacancies first, drive down Dixie.
219 N. L Vacant $560,000 townhomes are now selling for $99,000 to $114,000 ,which does not pay for the infrastructure costs to the City. Increase taxbase?Don't use that expression,you have no idea how that can be realized!Get legitimate ,professional opinions, after solving the 5 and 6 years thousands of foreclosures and vacancies, which use infrastructure we now pay for!Do the commentators even know what infrastructure is and its cost of mmaintenance?Stop blowing hot air.It is not becoming!
I couldn't disagree with you more. The last 7 years have found boards stacked with anti development sentiment. There is hype on both extreme sides.
Our city is not a two story city. Never has been.
Height has little to do with smart development except in a few areas. And in those few areas, it is smart to go higher.
What is needed is the flexibility to be able to consider each project.
I also took surveys at the Street Painting Festival. Surprising how positive almost EVERYONE was about Lake Worth. One question, "What do you like least about Lake Worth" received bewildered facial expressions. When pressed to find anything wrong, some came up with not enough parking or a few knew of our high utility rates.
Not one response had anything to do with how high or short our buildings were.
Nobody hated the Lucerne.
You simply can't make a blanket statement that "we are a low rise city" or that "nothing should ever be built ever again higher than 35 feet in our city". It is looney.
Our city IS a two story city--always has been with a few exceptions.
Everyone hates the Lucerne. What I hate about it the most is--it does NOT conform to the rest of the downtown. It is totally out of place. Its architecture is of a box. There are no setbacks. There is no green. It is one big tall piece of cement.
The second thing here is--the developer got all sorts of concessions from the P&Z and the Corrupt? Commission as well as the CRA. We even gave them part of the city alley way for heaven's sake.
We do not want to revert to ways of the past. You are pushing heights on people who said that they did not want them as the anonymous poster at 2:38 above mentioned spending over $1 million for the Master Plan. Everyone weighed in on this just a few years ago. Now you are pretending that this never happened.
So, I would leave this to the experts, like William Waters, to come up with the right plan. As long as he is not compromised by all you out here screaming for 100 feet, perhaps we might have a chance even with him.
My memory of the 7.5 year Comp Plan process is of a constant perversion of the process by the Jennings-Golden cabal. Cara’s constant requirement of compromise of anybody who objected to her position was met with yet another demand that additional compromises to be made. Golden’s corruption of the data and notes of SAC completed the dominance over the process.
Many “Golf Course Combined Commission-Volunteer Board Meetings” have been memorialized over the years only to have Golden declare that the results were “dated” and therefore not relevant. Arbitrary decisions were then made by the commission Majority of Jennings—Golden—Mulvehill. The LDR’s final review was made by a P&Z Board dominated by the same Commission majority nominees.
Now we have an “unrecorded” Golf Course meeting that has been interpreted by the outgoing P&Z nominees of JGM.
Forget about whether or not development incentives should be included in the Comp Plan, Zoning Ordinances or LDR’s---the whole structure is unintelligible and therefore useless.
BTW—the process has gone on for so long, that it is time for another State mandated Comp Plan Review.
Your memory? Well, since you don't care to post under a real name, your memory means nothing to me. You are flat wrong and offering a bunch of bull chit to this blog.
What you want is HEIGHT. As I said in my blog, you people will resort to anything to get it. What you just wrote really takes the cake. Unfortunately there is someone(s) out there listening to this and believing you.
You talk about "arbitrary" decisions by Jennings, Golden and Mulvehill. WHAT WERE THEY?
As far as the unrecorded Golf Course Meeting, I blame every single person in attendance (board members, commissioners and staff) but especially the city clerk whose job it is to be there and on top of this stuff. Who made the decision to have it there? Who was responsible? Why did not one board member or one commissioner demand that it be recorded? Where was Maxwell who seems to want EVERYTHING his way and done correctly?
If Stanton had been here and not fired, you can bet that the meeting would have been in the Sunshine. But Maxwell was in charge and running the city at that point. Now it is convenient to "forget" what was said there.
As I said, I haven't forgotten. In fact, I remember the heights on the TOD's...Waters wanted 65 feet and the P&Z said 45 feet. The P&Z wanted to allow higher buildings at the Park of Commerce than he did.
I agree that the process has gone on way too long. Hiring William Waters has gotten us to this place now. We are very close as long as BS politics does not get in the way and the developer's lobby. I'm not even sure that Waters has not been compromised by you people. Just a thought. People who scream the loudest seem to get their way more often than not.
"Our city IS a two story city--always has been with a few exceptions."
A few exceptions:
City Hall
The Gulfstream
Goldcoast Towers
Le Fluer
1000 Lake Ave.
Cultural Council
Lake Worth Towers
Palm Lake Condos
Murray Hills (one building)
Danato's building on So Golfview
The Condo Bo Allen lives in
The building at No Golfview and 2nd
The Lofts
The Lucerne
Several Office Buildings on 10th Ave West of I-95
Dozens of single family homes and townhouses
And that's all I can think of in 5 minutes before coffee in the morning.
Go ahead a propose a Charter amendment to lower our heights to 2 story. Wouldn't THAT tell you what the public really wants? Or would you blather that the people are all corrupted by those you perceive to be "developers and real estate" people..... I'm not one.
Afraid to let the people vote?
For the Record:
I, Suzanne Squire
(aka: Constitution Lady)
Do NOT want Smart Growth.
It is Un-American and UN
(United Nations) mandated.
There is NO Authority in the Constitution (Contract between People & Gov to Protect and Serve) and NO Legal changes (Amendments) have been made to Usurp Our Authority/Property Rights!
Don't believe me - here's the proof in 3 Clicks!
1. ICLEI.org
2. Programs
3. Agenda 21 (See 'UN.org')
Smart Growth - Sustainability
"Promoting sustainable HUMAN SETTLEMENT development"
Comp Plan Objective 1.3.1 says:
"...to eliminate or reduce land uses inconsistent w/the community character..."
Comp Plan Policy 1.3.1.2 says:
LDR's shall be used to accomplish the ELIMINATION or REDUCTION of EXISTING NON-Conforming land uses..."
The Sustainability Czar has said Single Family Neighborhoods are NOT sustainable. The Dais caught a Budget change w/a NEW Fund Titled
"Housing Initiative" - "Land Banks" and there is a pending work session on "Housing and Property Management".
Now add in the Nuisance Abatement stuff and how the city 'preferred' themselves to get their liens paid BEFORE the Mortgage holder. Then go to a P&Z Meeting and see how much POWER the Unelected Have over YOUR Property. (I don't give a hoot who appointed them - they are UNELECTED by 'We the People").
It's Pay to Play w/a waiver!
Solution:
1. Make them define "Public Benefit" and HOW IT IS TO BE USED.
2. Notify (by Mail) EVERY NON-Conforming Property.
2. Open Public Debate on changes that ALL Understand.
3. Public Vote on Comp Plan/Property Rights Changes.
4. No (UN) Consensus used to AVOID the will of the people!
See Pres. Exec. Order #12852 "Presidents Council on Sustainable Development" - 'We Believe' Statement says: "We need a new collaborative decision making process that leads to better decisions; more rapid change; and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals."
(***Ken Lay from Enron was on this board)
"Follow the Money - Find the Truth"
Solyndra $535 Million
Solar Trust of America $2.1 Billion
(These are Guaranteed Government Loans where the investors get their money back w/interest or it's called 'Getting your Bait Back"! The last company is being bought up by non other then FP&L via NextEra!)
OMG How could I forget the UN ICLEI Energize Lake Worth Green Washing Plan to MICRO MANAGE EVERYTHING and then charge us a 'fair price' for such absurdity!
Page 9 - 3.0 says:
"LU 3.0: Buildings WILL BE constructed and maintained using a variety of green technologies and techniques," ..."to the APPLIANCES inside the building, to the FURNISHINGS, PAINT, and CLEANING PRODUCTS used in the building.
http://lakeworth.org/vertical/sites/%7B5E6FE119-0228-4C9B-B2DB-067168049C16%7D/uploads/FINAL_Energize_Lake_Worth_Sustainability_Plan-8-18-11.pdf
Put on another pot of that coffee--
Murry Hills has all 2 story buildings approx 25 feet high. It is Lakeside Point Gardens that has a 6 story building at the back of their complex that borders on 6th Avenue South west of the railroad tracks and I-95, built in 1967 BEFORE we had any standards in LW.
Don't even get me started on the other two handfuls of taller buildings. The most disgraceful decision of all is The Lofts on Lake and Lucerne in spite of TRNA believing that it will help the value of their neighborhood. It won't do squat. All this will do is open up the entire blocks there with eventual bulldozing of all those small houses so developers can have a freakin wet dream. :)
Sorry--I forgot about your question on letting the people vote. Funny you continue to mention this as I suggested that to Scott Maxwell over a week ago. He said that it would have to be worded correctly. I could not agree more. It is ALL in how you word a ballot initiative.
Thank you for correcting me on Lakeside Point Gardens. I actually put that down and changed it as memory and cognitive reasoning isn't what it used to be. But you know the one I was talking about.
I like the lofts. Very eclectic. Pool on top with a great view.
The point was, and is, there are more than a few multi storied buildings, and have always been since 1925 with a sprinkling of them since. No one is trying to make us into downtown West palm Beach.
So try to rewrite history all you want. If you say it enough, there are some weak minded people who will believe and follow you. Most who have either been here for a moderate amount of time and can trust their own eyes will know the facts.
Thou really doth protest too much on this one.
As far as the wording of a ballot initiative to change our Charter to lower our maximum height to two stories, that would be a challenge for even you to twist into something informed voters would approve.
It has nothing to do with "protesting too much." It also has nothing to do with Wes' revionist theory. What it has to do with is the simple fact that is what the people said that they wanted jsut a few years ago.
Now, Wes, I have been here since the 50's. I have seen Lake Worth for a very long time. I have seen elected officials for whom I admired and others who were corrupt and self-serving. Some were just plain mentally challenged and impressionable believing anything that sounded half-way intelligent...like blaming our stagnation on low heights. What a joke.
Wording of a ballot is VERY important. You don't think so? The written word is very powerful.
No one is re-writing history. You might be an exception by dreaming up a list of non-conforming buildings. What we are saying is 35 feet downtown--45 feet on the west side of Dixie and 65 feet in the Park of Commerce and to be respectful of the surrounding properties. Community benefits have been thrown into the mix however I would much prefer all developers paying all of the impact fees associated with higher buildings and the costs that the city will incur by servicing those properties.
We are in serious trouble.
Will someone kindly let us all know what you want as far as taller buildings. Please specify the heights you want and where you want them. Do you want our city to look like Delray? Boynton? What is the objective and your complaint?
The Jan 26th Tri-meeting at the Golf Course audio was set up to broadcast and record. There was a malfunction but neither the City Clerk nor the Board secretary realized that it was not working.
The blames falls clearly on the City Clerk for not checking it through out the meeting.
Was she even there????????????????
No minutes?
Was she there??????????????????????
The City Clerk did take vague minutes. Including such as the wording "Consensus: To support the regulations as proposed."
The Minutes suck. How can any city commission approve these minutes?
But what they do point out is, there was consensus on everything. Now a few want all that stopped along with the ZIP that they already stopped.
Agree with you Lynn, it is a joke. Wes is another one, pushing his vision, but one of developers, that is why he wants to be back on P&Z, he is in with all of them, he never wants to write or publish any of our comments on his website if we say anything against his crew, all a conflict of interest. I have lost faith in him and his website now, it is all one sided, God forbid you write something he does not agree with, he will not publish it, I have absolutely no respect for him or his ways or website now. He would holler like hell if College Park where he lives looked like Little Guatemala or had slum owners like his friend who is allowed to keep a dump in Pequeno Guatemala just because he is in cahoots with the developers, city, P&Z, and codes, they overlook these dumps for friends of his, but if it was next to his house, he would holler diablos.No es justo!
"It has nothing to do with "protesting too much." It also has nothing to do with Wes' revionist theory. What it has to do with is the simple fact that is what the people said that they wanted jsut a few years ago.
Now, Wes, I have been here since the 50's. I have seen Lake Worth for a very long time. I have seen elected officials for whom I admired and others who were corrupt and self-serving. Some were just plain mentally challenged and impressionable believing anything that sounded half-way intelligent...like blaming our stagnation on low heights. What a joke."
"Will someone kindly let us all know what you want as far as taller buildings"
#1. If this question was directed at me, it does not matter what I think. It does matter what the majority of people in this city think. Legal citizens anyway.
#2 I question the validity of this so called panel of 3 years ago. I have listened to the members of the recent P&Z board spew that they know what "the people" want and they do not represent anywhere near what the majority want. I believe this group was almost successful in trying to get people to think we are RAISING the height limits in the city. WE ARE NOT!
#3 The Lucerne was always allowed to be 65 feet tall. While I will agree with those that don't like a lot about the building, it was NOT given a waiver for height. The waivers allowed the design, the setbacks (lack of), no stepping back of the upper stories so that it looks like a box, and parking requirements for both residents and public.
Everybody likes the Gulfstream, but even it would not belong in other areas of the city.
Not Delray although some of it looks good and has helped it come a long way.... Boynton....no way.
I have said all along, we need flexibility for good development. In my opinion, that means allowing higher buildings East of Federal to reflect what is already there. Currently 65 feet is allowed and should stay. That is roughly the height of the condos around Bryant Park.
Through the center of town, 4 to 6 stories if stepped back.
West of Dixie along Lake and Lucerne, especially near the RR tracks should allow higher buildings for a reason.
And of course in the park of commerce maybe to 10 stories if it is a good high employment project.
This is generally what WE THE PEOPLE voted for in a Charter change. If you think the Charter should be changed again, there is a process. That process does not include appointing a bunch of "no development" types to insinuate they know what "the people" want.
I know.... those of us who don't buy the BS spewed by the Amendment 4 crowd are stupid. The same stupid people want the opportunity to vote for the lowering of our height limit, which WILL STOP or severely limit a great deal of our potential for development of areas that desperately need it.
I think that puts me in the middle and far from either extreme on this issue.
We are not a two story city.
Great excuse. Is this the Janet Jackson defense? Let's blame it on a malfunction. What about just telling the truth. These are made up minutes and no audio because it was never set up for it. None of it is real.
Anonymous at 2:35--
I am allowing a lot of leeway here as this is an important issue. You were perfectly fine in your comments. I even agree with you on much that you said. However, it is not appreciated your coming over here and calling me STUPID and your personal attack on me and Amendment 4 knowing my passion for it.
I totally disagree with that paragraph of your statement and unfortunately by saying what you did, makes your entire comment political and emotional and it shows that you are on the extreme of this issue...
Read it again. I only stated that when the Amendment 4 vote didn't go YOUR way, you called US all stupid.
I did NOT call you stupid and did not mean it that way. I simply stated that if a Charter change was put to a vote, and my opinion is confirmed and it gets voted down, it would be the same stupid people (us) that voted it down. Or that is what you would say on this blog.
Like you said, it depends on how it's worded. That doesn't even come close to what the rhetoric would be on both extremes.
Sorry if you took it the wrong way and I can't go back to reread it.
I don't want to rehash the Amendment 4 issue--that was ALL developer and Chamber money that caused its defeat. The average citizen didn't have a chance to understand it and were hit right between the eyes by multi-millions paid in attack ads to defeat it. Florida is worse off for it which is being proven with the end of the DCA and other agencies that were protecting the citizens in land-use development issues. Now we have to get the Comp Plan right--keep politics out of it---IS THAT POSSIBLE? I would rather doubt it.
I am new to this, and thus may be a stupid question.
Lynn, when you say 'it is what the people wanted and voted for...' a few years back, can you explain what vote that was?
A vote on the Charter?
Thanks
Please show me where I said the people voted for anything pertaining to this subject. We voted on Amendment 4 requiring a supermajority to change land uses that diverted from the local charter requirements. Perhaps that is what you are talking about?
"EVERYONE HATES THE LUCERNE".
Just a tad over emotional don't you think? And just an outright lie.
LOL--
Now who is emotional?
Hate is a strong word, I agree. It was meant in the context that the building is inappropriate in our downtown.
Bornstein must like it ok. He just took a unit there in order to establish residency per our Charter. Not sure if he really lives there though.
Cheer up. It's only Monday.
I think it is a pretty building, looks fine in our city and downtown, adds a little more class. I just wouldn't want to live there for all the noise around that area of downtown with all those bars, clubs, and rest. playing music. Don't say all hate, it is not true.
It's not my idea of a pretty building, not in any respect. What is though is our library and our City Hall. Throw in the new casino too and the Gulfstream Hotel.
It is out of character for the main part of our downtown but then we have a new commission that seems to want to change our character.
Post a Comment