Comment Up
Charter Amendment on downtown height restrictions
gets kicked down the road to March
Here is an elected official who always got red in the face and downright abusive about it when he thought someone was "kicking the can." The Vice Mayor just did something that he has condemned others for doing in the past. How many times on the dais have you heard him using that expression? He ended up doing the exact same thing that used to tick him off. He kicked the can down the road. Typical politician. They change their minds when convenient for their own interests.
We even had to listen to him talk on and on about his wife at one recent meeting where the commission would not bring the ballot issue forward but kept all of us in the Chamber until Midnight just to stick in the knife. It was bizarre. He did a poor job of filibustering in order to run out the clock so as not to even discuss the issue. What does he think this is? Congress? He certainly treated the citizens with zero respect. It shows just how hypocritical politicians can be.
If you kick the can down the road, you delay a decision in hopes that the problem or issue will go away or somebody else will make the decision later. In this case, Maxwell is hoping that the "visionaries" will be clever enough to convince the electorate that they want to grow our buildings another 20 feet (or even possibly and eventually up to 100 feet from Dixie to A Street) in the downtown and be able to have more buildings of the size of The Lucerne.
While I was petitioning, what struck me as peculiar was the fact that I only ran into two guys--one was a downtown merchant who wanted to grow our city up and the other thought he could get some tile business out of the deal. Self-servers--must be pals of the Vice Mayor.
Instead of kicking the can, Vice Mayor Maxwell, what about asking some of the folks what they think about the value of keeping our downtown small. Start knocking on doors like I did. Communicate with your constituents--even your next door neighbors. I know--it's a lot of work.
Read the PBPost Editorial on Maxwell, Triolo and Amoroso's Low Blow.
Hi Lynn, my guess would be that residents will be so angry that this was put off that they will come out in force in March and not only vote yes in overwhelming numbers for the referendum, but vote to remove any of the commissioners who voted to delay this. Bett
ReplyDeleteI just edited this comment below as it did not follow policy here (L.A.):
ReplyDeleteAt least you have something to blog about now.
Here's why you are a clown: In the past a lot of your posts have been bashing socialism and socialists.
Now that you're back in bed with Lake Worth's biggest socialists you've stopped the socialist bashing.
First of all, Mulvehill is not a Socialist. She was a Republican and now an Independent. I have no clue about McVoy's politics although I believe he is a Democrat.
ReplyDeleteI can't stand socialistic philosophies and neither can I stand the other extreme. Your name calling is ridiculous. This particular issue is one in which I agree. It has nothing to do with socialism. It has everything to do with the right to vote and that vote not being impeded by developer money.
It is not I who is the CLOWN.
Lynn Anderson, in Lake Worth spent weeks in the hot summer gathering petitions for the referendum, and now has to put up with being insulted by the developer friendly commissioners. This is a real example of commissioners representing their own interests, not the residents. Hmmm, let’s think, why would the commissioners want this to fail? What do you think is in it for them? $$$$$$$$ Write to the paper and the commissioners and let them know this stinks.
ReplyDeleteRE: Editorial: Lake Worth goes low in delaying height-limit vote
ReplyDeleteTO: ptriolo@lakeworth.org, smaxwell@lakeworth.org, aamoroso@lakeworth.org, citymanager@lakeworth.org
CC: cmcvoy@lakeworth.org, smulvehill@lakeworth.org
By a vote of 3 to 2, I declare the recent actions of our City Commission to be an official embarrassment and disgrace to the people and reputation of the City of Lake Worth. To quote the Post editorial, your actions are “disingenuous” (i.e., lacking in candor and giving a false appearance of simple frankness.) Lake Worth politics (and politicians) have hit an all-time low. The culprits are unapologetic. And I am disgusted.
Lizabeth Felti, 20 year Lake Worth Resident
This issue is NOT so cut and dried. Even the Post editorial you linked to says the following:
ReplyDelete"We see no need for voters to alter these height limits. A 65-foot building (about five or six stories) east of Federal Highway would not be out of character with the Gulf Stream Hotel and the condominiums around it, and limiting heights to 45 feet could needlessly discourage redevelopment."
Which I wholeheartedly agree with. This would seem to be the COMPROMISE we so desperately want our electeds and appointeds to come up with. NOBODY wants sky scrapers downtown. NOBODY!
The editorial simply points out the difference between the downtown and the area East of Federal.
If the residents are made aware of the above, they could have a different view than what has been presented by petition takers.
The rules we have had on the books for the last 20 years did NOT see 10 story buildings being built.
Yes... let the people vote. No they are not stupid. Give them all the information to make an informed decision.
There is no reason why they couldn't have put this on the ballot now for Nov. Maxwell, needs to do more about the blight and codes here and get something done instead of holding off things and wasting money. Let the people vote, I don't think this would pass and it shouldn't, too restrictive as it is, but still, let the people vote, stop wasting money and get more done in this city to clean it up and eliminate the blight.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 10:46. Yes, Mr. Marra has said this before however he does not realize the repercussions of his statement. He is also not taking into account that all those who signed the petition said that they do not want our buildings to grow over 4 stories in the downtown.
ReplyDeleteWe can build 4 story hotels, a 4 story addition to The Gulfstream, a 4 story parking garage, etc. The Gulfstream and using that as an example is a special situation and is an historic building. Because we had no decent LDR's in the past does not mean that we have to continue to build high.
To the person who has attempted to post here and I did not publish the comments--look and re-read what you said. Obviously it was full of lies and/or smears. To call me a Socialist is the most laughable of the personal attacks. Grow up. You can post but again, read policy.
ReplyDeleteThe Post editorial is meaningful because it pointed out serious problems that exist with three members of the current commission. That fact that the writer agrees with taller height limits proves that it is not just about height, it’s about the right to vote in a timely manner. It’s about a petition that was signed by thousands of voters, and verified by the Supervisor of Elections so that it could be voted upon this November.
ReplyDeleteThis right to vote was delayed for no good reason, other than stall tactics, pure and simple. (Well, not so pure, but for obvious reasons.) This political maneuvering will cost the financially strapped city thousands of dollars for a special election. There is no reasonable defense for that. Three months is long enough for public education. And snowbird residents who are active voters (such as myself) either don’t register to vote in Lake Worth, or keep informed from afar and vote by absentee ballot. (I’ve already mailed in my ballot for the August primary elections.)
Why did Triolo, Maxwell & Amoroso choose to draw a line in the sand, when they didn’t have to? What are they so afraid of? Their stubborn refusal to budge, compromise, or listen to reason becomes more and more suspicious. (That, along with the untimely replacement of the P&Z board.) Even though these three commissioners may be making consensus decisions out of the sunshine, they’ve managed to shine a big bright light on their questionable actions and dubious ethics. Thanks to the Post editorial for being part of that spotlight.
As for the vote, I have no doubt of the outcome. It might have been close in November, but recent actions to delay the vote have pissed off people! The political stall tactics will backfire. This issue, as stated by the signed petition, will pass in March. Then, can we send the special election bill directly to Triolo, Maxwell & Amoroso?
Scott needs to clean up his foul mouth, he swears too much and has way too much ego, he needs to focus on cleaning up the city, addressing blight and making codes stronger, do something for his district, it is the worst most blighted area of the city, the people in his district should hold him more accountable, he should be ashamed of himself for not doing MORE, he could, but skates through life as comm, doing too little, clean up the blight if you want to go down in history as being an effective city comm.Stop saying the "f" word when you talk to people and clean up your own act.
ReplyDeleteI think Andrew Marra DOES consider the repercussions. 5 and 6 story buildings would NOT be out of character for the area East of Federal. And we reiterate his acknowledgement that 45' would "needlessly discourage redevelopment".
ReplyDeleteSure we can build SINGLE story hotels too, and SINGLE story parking garages. But area East of Federal has the CHARACTER of higher buildings, which you fail to make ANY distinction. Andrew Marra points out this important fact.
Again... where is there compromise? Maybe the visionaries will put a competing charter amendment offering just such a compromise. That way voters could choose. Not just an "all or nothing" approach.
I think he DOES address your concerns about the delay of the vote and for the reasons you state. You are right; it is a stall tactic.
Though you say no one was lied to, statements to the contrary persist.
Yes, let us vote, with all the information.
There you go, anonymous 12:19. We are NOT talking about single one story buildings in our downtown. We are talking about 45 feet. We are talking about the very fact that the tax base will be meaningless to the general fund. We will not get that money. What we will get is all the costs associated with the infrastructure and all the costs of services. This will raise taxes within the city, not reduce them.
ReplyDeletealso, everyone is forgetting the simple fact that taller buildings are not going to improve our city nor will they improve our quality of life here. Small town feel is what we want for our downtown. Start building up on 10th Avenue North, Dixie Highway or The Park of Commerce where heights might be supported.
No one was lied to and I TAKE BIG OFFENSE IN THAT PERSISTENT LIE BY YOU and perpetuated by the developer side, win at all costs group.
45 feet would discourage development? Who says so? Developers who are greedy to a point of obscenity.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Mr. Marra on heights. As we all know, any commission can build 100 feet west of Dixie to A Street. It is in the Charter. After seeing the Lucerne for years now and knowing how it came about, we just don't want any more tall buildings and lousy city commissions and P&Z's selling our city down the river to a developer at our expense.
Small downtown charm is it. thanks.
To anon at 12:03 p.m. 1785 signatures, less those rejected by the Supervisor of Elections does not make thousands of signatures, no matter how you do the math..
ReplyDeletebit Lynn we will not be able to build anywhere this blankets the city, the empty lots on Federal Highway will stay empty and no one will want to build in Lake Worth, Can You Not Comprehend this.
ReplyDeleteI believe this to be a bogus argument. Is that something you just can't comprehend?
ReplyDeleteWe have a lot going for us right now a beach redevelopment that will bring in tourists like flies--a vibrant small town (people like small towns). Interest in the Gulfstream. We need to get rid of the slum and blight to attract development. Once this city is cleaned up, people will want to buy here and want to build here. Heights will not be a deterrent.
They are not a deterrent in other small low-rise cities that are prosperous like Carmel.
No Lynn Carmel does not have that problem, but the average price of a home is over $300,000.00, and the peoples income is much more than in low rise Lake Worth.
ReplyDelete45 feet would discourage development? Who says so?
ReplyDeleteAndrew Marra, Editor Palm Beach Post.
He sad "needlessly discourage RE-development".
" I disagree with Mr. Marra on heights."
Yes and you disagree with many more of us. But you do agree with his other reasoning. So he's only half wrong?
I have mentioned COMPROMISE several times, and you have never addresses where common ground can be found.
All or nothing... right?
Andrew Marra does not realize that the Charter allows for 65 feet in our downtown and 100 feet west of Dixie. That entire section near TRNA and the other side of the street could be consumed by high-rises. Conceivably our city could/can grow to these heights.
ReplyDeleteSo, in the minds of all those who signed the petition and all those who volunteered to get signatures, we do NOT want these heights in our city. If you had left well enough alone, none of this would have happened. We are only trying to protect our city. Should we compromise on that?
The P&Z has always found ways to change the Comp Plan, etc. There is NO common ground.
Well, to come over and take personal swipes at people won't cut it with me and therefore, just keep doing it as they will not get posted. Debate the issue please and stop trying to post lies and distortions.
ReplyDeleteI will answer you on the Carmel comparison which was not meant to be a literal comparison of our city but meant for something we could strive towards--without question, a CLEAN and un-blighted city on the sea that will bring up values. There is no reason in my mind that our property values, with a lot of work, can't escalate once again.
Tell Maxwell to go back to his roots on slum and blight. No more excuses.
Someone should inform our embarrassingly uninformed mayor, and one of your anonymous posters, that this is not a "blanket" height limit across the city. I guess the mayor's idea of "educating" people is to spread lies. Showing her hand a little early, I would say. From her public comments, one would think that she has seen our flier, which had a very nicely done map of the area we propose to protect.
ReplyDeleteThe amendment covers a very small and sensitive area of the city: the downtown corridor from A St to Golfview and 1st Ave S to 2nd Ave N. Not complicated at all, wouldn't you agree?!
Elected officials in other cities have done the same as someone above has suggested: put their own charter amendment on the ballot to compete with the citizens' initiative in an effort to confuse the voters. The tactic failed miserably. Voters don't like being treated as though they are stupid.
Mr Marra is expressing his opinion on building heights. It is not supported by available economic and fiscal data. He apparently does not like to do research and base his opinion on facts, like some of the people who post here. That was evident in his editorial about selling our utility. If only he had bothered to pick up the phone and ask a few questions, instead of treating the editorial page with all the respect one gives a movie review.
....ok, let's compare our city to Carmel, CA.
ReplyDeleteSo this is our aspiration....Carmel.
Has anyone who posts on this blog ever been there?
Right from the get go, an enormous difference in philosophy is that Carmel does not disdain it's citizens who have money. They do not have a Commission who wants to keep the city affordable for immigrants and the like.
The list is ENDLESS of the differences btw Carmel and Lake Worth.
In my opinion, and yes, I and one of what you call 'the developer crowd', I would be thrilled beyond measure if Lake Worth took to aspiring to be like Carmel.
But it is so far from the realm of possibility, that I cannot believe someone posted that here.(or anywhere)
Just to let you know - there is more than "one "Village of Idiots - in Florida - (not far from Islamorada Village of Idiots) that is controlled by elected officials - that has a "secret" agenda to take care of a certain interest - that have been "bought off" to respond to their special interest. WILL THIS EVER CHANGE?
ReplyDeleteLynn, and Laurel Why is it a problem to build east of federal, we are talking about at most 3 lots. The heights of the Condos, and the G.S. Hotel are all above 45 feet, what is the problem, with the setbacks from the second, and or third floor, there would be no blockage of the Sun, and or Ocean Breezes. Why MUST it be YOUR way, OR NO WAY???
ReplyDeleteYou want clean, and unblighted? tell Cara, and her Pawns Mulvehil, and McVoy, to move on and let the city get back to Normal. When I moved here in the early 90's things seemed to be going good, First I rented, and then I bought, but when we became a sanctuary city, I knew things were going to start to go downhill. WE have had fight's for Chickens, request to plant Vegetable Gardens so the illegals could have something to eat. And Commissioners just about ending Code in the city.. It is time to move forward, and if that means building up so be it. We cannot go North, South,East Or West so that only leaves up. Get over it and move on...
ReplyDeleteNothing is impossible, anonymous at 8:55pm. Greg Rice always has said, "Think big." I already explained the Carmel comment so I won't further elaborate. If you do not believe that this city has a chance to get rid of the slum, the blight, the illegal, the over-crowding, etc., then we probably never will. If you don't believe that we can be a beautiful city, then we won't. There is no reason in my mind that this city can't turn around to be a wonderful city once again. And don't kid yourself, there is blight in every part of our city. People do not have the pride they once had in their properties..yes, even College Park. It is apparent that we ALL have a lot of work to do, especially the CRA that likes to spend $$$ and NOTHING EVER CHANGES.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is this anonymous at 11:03-- It is not that we MUST get our way. That has nothing to do with anything. The problem is 3 on the dais, who for the most part, are bullies and playing God with our city who had to GET THEIR WAY. It is a fact that this city could change and grow taller because of their recent vote. I have been here since the early 50's. This city has been around for 100 years, actually more, and it is a low-rise small city. I come from a small rise city in NJ that is beautiful to this day. I want to see our city beautiful once again and property values begin to rise. The recession hit us as hard as any city.
As far as a Sanctuary city is concerned, I am appalled at that but more appalled with the government especially the Feds. The higher the rents here, the more people living per room. We have way too many rentals owned by slumlords and speculators. Rentals usually attract the younger person or a young family, and in our case, the illegal immigrant. I am considered a racist by some because of my stand against illegal immigration. So be it. I have seen such liberalism and open border philosophies here that as a life long Democrat, I would be pressed hard to vote for one again unless there was no other alternative.
Once you open the can of worms like this commission did by not taking the recommendations of the P&Z as well as all 3 boards at The Tri-Meeting, then you have opened that can of worms for heights to continually grow. Nothing is stopping a developer from buying multiple lots down the road and building to his heart's content. The Comp Plan can be changed by any commission as it just recently did. Everything can be manipulated when it comes to building as we have seen in the past.
continued...
ReplyDeleteThe commission voted to change the heights to 65 feet and with that Comp Plan change that went against all the recommendations of the P&Z and William Waters, it is the start of more changes down the road until we have 100 feet being built west of Dixie. We don't like the height of the Lucerne. Our right.
To my other "fan" who always gripes about the fact I do not pay any ad valorem, I am not happy that my condo dropped in value 19% last year and 50% the two years before that. Not the least bit happy. I also do not know why you keep hitting me with that personal attack. I can also say that once we get can rise from this mortgage scandal that brought America to its needs, all properties will rise again. Ours, not as fast, because of the overwhelming number of people who own properties who rent to every illegal, etc. Some people actually believe that because they rent, they don't have to take care of the exterior of their property in any way. They do.
More code. More enforcement. The NA's are doing a lot to help here but it is going to take a very strong commission that really wants to improve this city. It is NOT from building higher. That is not the answer at all. The answer is CLEANING UP THIS CITY without delay.
We can continue to build and invest money in the park of commerce and all these pipe dreams that we have. But if we do not get rid of the blight in this city that is rampant, we will only rise from the ash.
If we continue to piss away money such as now spending $21,000 on a special election in March, a decision driven by ego and power, we will not rise above the ashes.
If we continue to allow a bully dais do things to hurt this city, we have no hope. This is about all of the people and not what 3 believe is the answer.
to support Lynn's point, Opponents of the condo project in WPB say it drastically violates the city’s comprehensive plan, a blueprint for development plan. The plan, they say, prohibits more than 164 condo units from rising on the property. Commissioners say they are allowed to grant waivers.
ReplyDeleteGET IT? THE POWER TO GRANT WAIVERS.
They don’t have enough empty condos in WPB.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/west-palm-vote-set-for-397-unit-condo-project-neig/nP8YX/
The great irony here is that if Golden/Jennings/Mulvehill/McVoy/Stanton had been even remotely doing the jobs to do attract businesses and investment to the city instead of making it perfectly clear they weren't interested in any outside investment they wouldn't be fighting this fight now. So their own intentional negligence put them in this position they have no one to blame but themselves.
ReplyDeleteHow soon before the lawsuits start?
Totally an untrue statement from anonymous above.
ReplyDeleteGive us some of your suggestions on how and what we should have done to attract investment during the worst depression since the 1930's? Let's hear all of your words of wisdom.
This community will turn as soon as this entire country gets out of this recession. Once that happens, our economy will start to improve. Once people have jobs, it will drastically reduce the stagnation.
How soon before someone kicks you in the teeth, anony at 10:41?
ReplyDeleteWell let see How about a Special Utility rate for the first year so that they would be able to become established before be hit with our higher than high Utility Bills.
ReplyDelete