Comment Up
Well it certainly wasn't boring last night but it was empty, shallow political bull. Vice Mayor, you are getting confused as to what IS political and what is not. Yada, yada, yada.
- Large Scale Comprehensive Plan passed--3/2 vote. The Commission went with Staff's recommendation on taller buildings in our downtown and upzoning of single family neighborhoods.
- Future Land Use Map passed--3/2 vote. The Mayor said that she was sorry that former members of our Planning & Zoning Board did not reapply. That's totally insincere and invalid as she was the one to vote this present Board into oblivion. They want members to tout their developer mindset.
- A Charter Amendment to change the name of the City of Lake Worth passed--3/2 vote. Can you even imagine that we will be celebrating the 100th birthday of Lake Worth and this Commission wants to change its name after 116 years of being named Lake Worth right before the Centennial? The Downtown Cultural Alliance (
Downtown Development Council) wants it to change--better image they say. Isn't Andy Amoroso on this council? Is that a conflict?
- A Charter Amendment allowing the people to vote for heights in our downtown in order to preserve the uniqueness of our low rise city failed on a 3/2 vote. This Visionary did not want the people to vote on how their city should look. They were afraid of the voice of the people other than their 40 friends. More density downtown will drive more business for Andy. Isn't this a possible conflict of interest that Laurence McNamara suggested? City Attorney, Elaine Humphreys said that only Amoroso could answer that question. He disagreed. It will be much more costly regarding city services to the taxpayers of Lake Worth as every dollar received in ad valorem, the city spends anywhere from $1.19 to $1.50 to service the property. And even more importantly, the city will not get the tax revenue, the CRA will.
This entire evening reminded me of the Hope and Change we all voted for in the last Presidential election. We got it and we are worse off for it.
You failed to bring up a good point the mayor made last night.
ReplyDeleteThe same 10 people that got up claiming skyscrapers were going to destroy the city are the same 10 people that have been workiong on the comp plan for 7 years and nothing has happened. They plan to keep it that way. Is the city worse off or better off financially than 5 years ago?
If it wasn't for the NSP2 grant (which many of the same people including you are against) the city would be one big gettho.
Is that what "the people" want?
F_ck no!
What happened to truth in Journalism.... Get your Facts straight Miz Anderson. Can't even get the names right? This article as a bit rushed wasn't it....From the names of the organizations, to what benefits what, and most of the quotes, were inaccurate.... fact check please....
ReplyDeletetp--
ReplyDeleteThis blog is commentary and opinion. Do you see quotes around anything? What organizations? The DCA? Whatever that is. Big freakin deal, tp. Most people will get it. What is your beef? Truth hurts, doesn't it?
Anony at 11:08 you are really one idiot. Don't you even understand when someone is engaging in political bull chit? The Mayor did just that. The economy was caused by forces out of LW. Where have you been? Don't you have any idea as to why our tax base fell? None at all? You and the mayor should ride out on the same horse. You think that the CRA will change the ghetto here? What they are doing will cause more of it. It must be fun to live in a bubble.
ReplyDeleteLake worth seems to have suffered more and longer than some of our neighbors. The past commissions get credit for that.
ReplyDeleteAs for the CRA tearing down blighted and abandoned buildings and replacing them with new buildings---that can't be bad.
The Voted last night reduced the heights we currently have. The recently elected Commission majority certainly knows what the voters want.
Why all the angst?
Maxwell, Triolo and Amoroso have their heads on backward. They'll allow you to vote on a name change which Maxwell chose all by himself but they won't allow you to vote on building height?
ReplyDeleteMaxwell's rant on 'shiny objects' - what do you think changing the name of the city is? It's a shiny object, a distraction away from the fact that he has no ideas for new revenue sources.
When asked about the CRA district and taxes the City Manager pretended he didn't know the answer. Everyone knows the answer and if he doesn't why not?
ReplyDeleteAny increase in taxes over the base amount within the CRA district goes to them and not the general revenue fund.
So there will be no increase in the tax base from building within the CRA district.
Pro 65' tall building people say there has to be a difference between the Comp Plan and the LDRs so that the city can request public benefits but the public benefits kick in for anything over 30'. The only reason for 65' is greed!
ReplyDeleteHoly crap. Does that mean they can get a public benefit and go up even higher? Miami here we come.
ReplyDeleteLast night was very entertaining. I saw Dancing Kim and her hot pink twin. A former doorman turned legal expert tried to sound intelligent, but failed when he talked about recusing. Blue eards flew out of the back of the room. And at midnight there was silence.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like BS from Pelican Pete.
ReplyDeleteWrong, and it isn't Pinkie either.
ReplyDeleteAnon 12:08 Posted: "When asked about the CRA district and taxes the City Manager pretended he didn't know the answer. Everyone knows the answer and if he doesn't why not?
ReplyDeleteAny increase in taxes over the base amount within the CRA district goes to them and not the general revenue fund.
So there will be no increase in the tax base from building within the CRA district."
This is 100% True anything in the CRA District Stays like Vegas Baby! The only possible outcome is that some how funds filter to the CDBG Fund and then the CDBG Lines are re-drawn out of the CRA District into other area's of the city that are desperate for help as well. Its a shame that we have all these funds concentrated in one area north to south when just on the next block blight still exists.
People are suffering that really do need help not hand outs so they can become self sustaining and yet the answer is always "they are not in our area" Pity if you ask me.
Signed Caring for all of Lake Worth not just certain area's.
Why don't you talk about the fact that the 65' limit refers to "up to 65'"?? Also, the fact that the request to build will still have to go throught the P&Z and the City for approval. What you are doing is bring fear to the citizens of Lake Worth by bring "the sky is falling" approach to a situation that does not exist and Lake Worth will not turn into another Miami.
ReplyDeleteWith all the concern you seem to have, who (by name) are the developers/companys just chomping at the bit and waiting in line to come into Lake Worth? What, you can't come up with the names?? That's because they are non-existant and a figment of your imagination and that of Ms Mulvehill & Co.
And you should also state the fact that no Historic buildings can be torn down to make way for all the "new" development.
Let's get the facts out to the citizens and quit making this issue sound so bad. People like you should put your energy into volunteering for a Board or Community Service and quit the blasting of you elected officals.
RIP LAKE WORTH
ReplyDeleteLynn you said it perfectly last night: the "public hearing" was anything but. Maxwell and Amoroso don't even pretend to be engaged --why bother talking (or LISTENING) when they already know how they're going to vote.
As for the mayor, Comm Mulvehill got that right: if Pam doesn't like what's being said, she calls “point of order.” But it's perfectly acceptable if she & her buddies say nasty things to others on the dais. Triolo & Maxwell just love to call out public commenters by name so they can chastise, smear, mock, and defame former Commissioners, P&Z board members, or anyone from the public who disagrees with them. (I’ll say one thing for Andy, he knows when to keep his mouth shut.) Someone needs to listen to the audio minutes & grab Ms Mayor & Mr. VM’s quotes --they are outrageous BS!
Those last night who said (or think) that 65 feet height limits & up-zoning SF7 neighborhoods won’t have a negative (over)development impact that could destroy our small town charm. . . Well, I’ll take the high road and say they are naïve or mis-guided or unrealistically optimistic or sadly mistaken. I won’t use words like “silly fools” or “#@&! liars” or “greedy land-whore$.” But let’s re-examine this issue in about five years. Then I can say “told you so.” But that doesn’t mean I’ll be happy about.
BTW, can’t wait to see what suddenly happens with all that undeveloped land on Lake & Lucerne between A&F. Those predicting “a wall” dividing north & south are spot-on. --Beth
2:50 anonymous--
ReplyDeleteI don't know who you are talking to but I will assume that it is I.
First of all, I am doing exactly what I like to do. You call it "blasting." I call it exposing the truth.
You miss the point entirely. Developers will come in when they are ready to do so no matter whether they get more height or not. When you roll over our city as this commission has done, it will attract the idiots that will build to the max. The people have said we do not want tall buildings in our downtown. We get them anyway.
So, people like you should stick with your opinion but don't bother to tell me what I should be doing with my life. Sorry we don't agree politically or have the same vision about our City as well as its name.
I'd be interested in seeing what would happen if Mulvehill follows through with her threat of a petition drive. If there is such strong support for this amendment, there should be people lined up to sign the petition.
ReplyDeleteI personally wouldn't because I think the reduction in allowable height proposed is enough.
The hype would be just to fan flames and get the whacko anarchists and their supporters involved in the election. Finally, the adults are in the majority.
After their behaviour last night, you can say with a straight face that the adults are in charge. Don't think so. Get back in your loony bin.
ReplyDeleteWell, we had the political 4 to 1 for a while and before that it was a different version of 3 to 2. If it is so wrong now, it was equally wrong then.
ReplyDeleteThank you for making your point Beth. THEY had the political/voting majority for at least 5 years and what was done?
ReplyDeleteIf you are talking about voting on heights--it has taken all of this time to finally get to where we are today with the LDR's, the Comp Plan and zoning codes. This was all under the watch of the last commission.
ReplyDeleteThe Comp Plan was just presented to this new commission on Tuesday night. Some of the suggestions of the past P&Z were thrown out. What would you have had the former commission do over the past 5 years? We had to get to where we are today with a plan.
So, don't give any political crap that the past commissions didn't do anything about this. Because of them, we now have a Plan albeit not the one that is desirous in every aspect.
Actually, we had everything pretty much in place in spite of Sharon Jackson about 2006,-----but Cara came in and then we found out that we were doing this out of sequence and needed to do the EAR's-----then the Commission majority changed---then P&Z was changed by the new majority--and that brings us up to last Nov.
ReplyDeleteSo now we are back to where we were in 2006--with lower height limits.