Comment Up
There has been a question regarding how long a PAC can be in effect as well as the signed petitions. When we were involved in Amendment 4, signatures were good for the particular petition for four years. Subsequently, it has changed. Here is the new wording on the State of Florida's site:
- How long is a petition good for? A political committee may continue for years and there is no time limit. However, a signature on a petition is good for only two years from the date signed.
Respectful Planning PAC will continue to gather signatures of registered voters in Lake Worth until such time they have the desired number to put on the ballot. The people's right to vote on how their city should look should trump all else.
Yes, it used to be 4 years. I believe that it changed once the Reps took over and dismantled all growth protections and ended the depart of community affairs which was the state's watchdog. Scott hasn't done much good for Florida's protection in any respect.
ReplyDeleteLynn, I can clarify a few things for your blog posters:
ReplyDelete1. The signatures are good for two years per Florida state statutes.
2. We are petitioning in order to give voters the opportunity to vote on this issue. It is their right to vote on any component of the charter that they feel needs to be updated, such as March/November elections, or changing the name of our city. I fail to see why someone would be so angry about giving people the right to vote, regardless of how a petitioner words it or how a blog poster paraphrases it.
3. I have been in contact with the SOE to clarify the timeline for presenting petitions to the city. Their process for scrutinizing petitions for validity does not depend upon the election cycle. By the way, every year is an election year :).
4. Once this issue is voted on, it is my intention to disband the PAC, unless the other members wish to replace me and work on another planning issue. That is their prerogative.
My opinion now . . .
I have seen beautiful 6 story buildings and even higher. Chicago is one of my favorite cities and the skyline is gorgeous, the architecture is striking. The monstrous buildings in Washington DC are majestic, as they should be in our nation's capitol. I love the Miami skyline as well; from the 15th floor of a Miami Beach hotel, it is stunning beautiful at night. I don't hate tall buildings. They just have to be in the right place.
When I'm finished visiting the big cities, I come home to Lake Worth where I feel like a person and not an ant. I agree that there are ugly 2 story buildings . . . the CRA is constructing them in my neighborhood as we speak.
I think that there is some validity in everyone's position on this issue. The ultimate responsibility for the appearance of any new construction will lie with the P & Z board and the commission. Let's hope that your posters will be making their opinions known to them as well. But the actual scale of a city our size, the height/density of new construction is an issue that should be driven by the residents, not five commissioners, or the real estate sales people, or the developer's bottom line.
If the actual scale of a city our size, the height/density of new construction is an issue that should be driven by the residents, not five commissioners. Why was it o.k. that in the past THREE commissioners and the folks those THREE commissioners appointed to the P&Z Board were driving those decisions?
ReplyDeleteMy opinion now...
Most people I talk to are not "angry" about voting on the issue like you say, but are angry knowing the lies and misinformation that is being spread around the city, including commissioner's Mulvehill's "renderings" of how the city will look.
Which brings up another point. William Waters publicly stated there is no way the city would or could look like the information being distributed by your PAC yet your PAC ignores this. If he had agreed with the fake renderings you all would have had Willie put his quotes on the front page of the PB Post, but Waters refutes your data and he's ignored.
Why's that?
I don't have the time to go back and forth with you on every issue in LW. I reject your comments. I am sure Ms. Decker, PAC Chair, will answer you when she gets home from work. Perhaps not. Nothing one can say to you will penetrate, I am afraid. You need to understand LDR's the Comp Plan and the Charter.
ReplyDeleteIf this was NOT an issue, then why won't the Commission trio allow us to vote?
This has been explained on so many occasions now.
ReplyDeleteThe renderings reflect what three of the commissioners approved - 6 story buildings east of Federal Highway between 2nd Avenue North and 1st Avenue South. The truth is, and we all know this, that parcels CAN be purchased from private residences and bundled for a larger building. This was happening in 2005/6 with the development on 3rd Avenue South between Lakeside Dr. and Palmway. Historic structures HAVE BEEN torn down to build new development - right here inthe historic districts. Furthermore, the commission has discussed on the dias a 2nd Gulfstream building right next to the original - as well as the redevelopment of the Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Chase site - all of which are in the renderings. The reality is that with the political majority and the new P&Z Board they just stacked, it may actually look WORSE than the renderings.
I am responding to the above anonymous post because Lynn asked me to, but I don't intend to argue about our opinions. You can vote on it, like everyone else. That's the right we're petitioning for on your behalf, anonymous. You're welcome!
ReplyDeleteThe three commissioners that you refer to enacted a comprehensive plan with heights that were (are) in agreement with resident feedback through the master planning process that took place several years ago. The comp plan and the master plan results are both readily available on the city website. Feel free to educate yourself.
If you disagreed with them, the same way we disagree with the commission majority today, the petitioning remedy is available to you as well. Feel free to step away from the computer and exercise your rights instead of your pecking fingers.
I'm not talking about most people being angry, just certain angry-sounding posters on this blog. Like you. I'm glad that most people you talk to are not angry. A lot of people I talk to ARE angry. They feel ignored and tricked by certain commissioners. Their comments are quite amusing. And for the record, we are petitioning in all districts of the city, especially the higher income areas where there has not been so much turn-over. Very positive response there as well.
The only "renderings" that the PAC has provided to volunteers is a map outlining the VERY LIMITED DOWNTOWN AREA affected by the charter amendment. If any of the volunteers are using other visual materials, they were not provided by the PAC. We are certainly not lying to people. But you're nuts if you think people are going to believe that future 6 story buildings won't look like the Lucerne. It's there. It's not a rendering. I am not about to ask people to trust elected officials or staff who are trying to increase building heights and prevent the public from having legitimate input.
I think Mr Waters is a lovely man who is probably the most competent Planning Dept director we have had in a very long time. Thank you to Susan Stanton for hiring him. But I don't care what he says about what will be. I would rather make sure of what WILL NOT BE. Apparently, I am not alone.
I do not control what Willie prints, or it would be more accurate, trust me! :)
In conclusion, the charter amendment only protects a very small and sensitive area of our city. Mr Waters has stated several times that 45' is plenty tall enough for a parking garage, if that's what you have your heart set on. They can still build to 100' west of Dixie, and 65' east of Dixie . . . just not between 1st Ave South and 2nd Ave North. Isn't that enough for you?
Keep in mind that the 45 foot building height limit east of Federal was the approved height by the City Commission, Planning and Zoning Board, and the Historic Resources Board at the Tri-Meeting on January 26th.
ReplyDeleteThe issue became divisive when the Mayor and Commissioners Maxwell and Amoroso voted to increase the building limit height to 65' east of Federal.
The renderings were ONLY to depict how high 65 feet looks. They were not to suggest that an actual building would look like the drawing. Everyone should understand that and I believe that everyone does other than the handful of people just complaining about everything. Ms. Decker has told you that that volunteers are showing the map that the petition affects in our downtown.
ReplyDeleteGet out here and walk the streets with us. You will learn a lot and complain less. And besides, your right to vote is being affected here. This is Democracy in action--not 3 people on a dais sticking it to the people.
Lynn, you now believe it is 'sticking it to the people' (referring to the majority vote on the dais)
ReplyDeleteBut don't we (as a voting majority) in LW, elect Commissioners because we agree with their 'vision' of the city - and entrust them with confidence that they will strive to better L Worth.
The persons elected to sit on the dais were chosen by the majority of the voters. Yet this blog continues to paint 3 Commissioners as being the devil now.
Whatever happened to the value of compromise?
And omg, of COURSE the buildings represented on the map, suggested to people an image if what the town might look like - if this were done by 'the other side' I think u would be up in arms about such an obvious and exaggerated depiction.
And I think it odd that this blog might 'challenge other people' to get out and walk the streets, as you have.
Honestly I would believe that vast majority of your readers have been 'out there' pounding the pavement - as I have.
When you say that your PAC and the volunteers you solicit, represent the the majority 'of the people' in LW.....very respectfully, an explanation would be of great interest.
First of all, it is NOT MY Pac. I am only a volunteer who believes int he right to petition the government and the right to vote. I believe that both of those concepts are int he Constitution of the United States of America.
ReplyDeleteAs we all know, many people elected to office are disappointments. That is why we have the right to Recall and the right to vote them out.
When you have three people playing God in the way our city should look, and will NOT give us the right to vote on our city being double in its size, then I say out with the bums. Let us all petition.
Are you an illegal or something?
And to the wise guy who came over here taking a crack at Rachel Waterman--what I was against was Rene Varela's obvious deception who forced us into an election for an interim Mayor. His political tactic and deception failed. She won that election. He cost us a lot of money for being a punk.
Equating an election of Rachel waterman with a Charter amendment because 3 elected officials denied the people's right to vote on our downtown is pushing it brother. Elected officials come and go. Buildings in our downtown are here to stay. We live with them forever.
Who the hell approved the Murry Hills DEVELOPMENT? that place looks like shit, destroying our environment and wetlands so that some losers that couldn't plan for there retirement have a cheap, ugly ass place to live!
ReplyDeleteI'm starting a PAC to have that place demolished so the wildlife have a peaceful place to live and not hit by cars and feed stale bread and such. The current residents can be moved into the vacant housing west of Dixie so they can be real residents of Lake Worth.
Polish Chris
I think Murry Hills, the community down the road from me, was built around 1970...over 40 years ago. During this entire time, it has been maintained. It is not blighted like so many areas of our city are. You should be so lucky not to live in blight as those folks in Murry Hills take care of their property.
ReplyDeleteSounds like you don't even like Seniors now? Is there anything you like or do you just like to rant and rave and lie and steal campaign signs? Maybe by the time you retire, if you're not fired from another job, the country will not be bankrupt and you might be able to afford to live at Murry Hills. They can't discriminate when people have deplorable personalities.
Murry Hills when built, cost the same as a single family house. It was not cheap nor was it expensive. In actuality, nothing around here was expensive. LW catered to the retiree who had disposal income. Now it caters to all the poor. What a switch. Look how this thinking has ruined our city.
ReplyDeleteI am glad you clarified that the renderings are what a 45 foot building will look like, but is it not a farce as to how many buildings will be built. The renderings that are shown makes all of Lake Worth, look like a concrete jungle....
ReplyDeleteThat was a startling effect and was done with intent. 65 feet is what it is. It is what the Lucerne is which was proposed originally go to higher. Developers have a way of doing that sort of stuff. I'll give the city a benefit if you allow me to go 10 more feet. It happens.
ReplyDeleteA concrete jungle downtown is something we absolutely want to avoid.
Lynn, you absolutely know the Lucerne
ReplyDeleteCould never be built now. Why are you trying to scare people. I know and you know this could never happen.
The Comp Plan and The LDR'S would never allow this to happen.
This is getting so redundant.
ReplyDelete65 feet IS sixty five feet. The Lucerne IS 65 feet.
Sixty five feet can be built.
Now, if you say that it can not be built, then let the petition language get on the ballot and allow the people to vote. The language is what we support as well as all those who have signed it. It was drawn up by a lawyer. There is no reason for the trio to re-write it or re-invent the wheel.
Whether it can or can't ever happen, we are ensuring that only 45 feet can be built from the end of Lake & Lucerne at the Intracoastal up to F street.