Cogs in the Wheel
Section 9 (a) (2)
Referendum from the Lake Worth Charter
The qualified voters of the City shall have the power to require reconsideration by the city commission of any adopted ordinance and if the city commission fails to repeal an ordinance so reconsidered, to approve or reject it at a city election, provided that such power shall not extend to the budget or capital improvements program or any emergency ordinance or ordinance relating to the appropriation of money, levy of taxes or salaries of city officers or employees.
In this case, it is Ordinance 2012-30--building heights ballot issue.
Last night during discussion under Public Hearings on the building heights referendum and placing it on the March ballot (that is costing us $21,000 because this commission majority decided to limit our rights and "stick it to us" and not place it on the November ballot at no cost), Glen Torcivia, new city attorney stated that he had just received an e-mail from someone unidentified with the State Office of Economic Opportunity saying the Referendum by Respectful Planning Pac is prohibited by State Law. It was an incredible statement that further went on to say that the city should get an advisory opinion regarding building heights.
No one alive believes that someone just out of the sky blue at the last 98 seconds of the day, sent an email stating there was a legal issue to our ballot initiative citing Florida Statute 163.3167 that has to do with Comprehensive Plans.
A Comprehensive Plan is directed by politics. A Charter change is directed by the electorate. We were reminded last night by Ms. Sharpe that the Charter was changed by vote nearly 20 years ago to reflect heights in our City.
Right now I have been told that I can't get a copy of this "e-mail" under the Freedom of Information Act of the actual transmission from this unknown person in Tallahassee who is acting like some authority to our Charter process until the information clerk is back from a grievance leave, days unknown.
This group will do everything or anything to put a cog in the wheel.
I think the way it was explained to me back when it first all started is correct. The new state law says comp plan trumps charter. However if it is enacted, it may be subject to legal challenge, at which point it may be declared unconstitutional. Although I believe it should be voted on since it went this far...I prefer LW should not have to be the one to set the precedent. Let some other town take the expense... It sucks all around. I really think the town should consider another triboard meeting to see if they can come to some acceptable compromise... Hate to say it because it is unlikely, but that's how I see it.
ReplyDeleteOh, and the general idea is for the LDRs, the Comp Plan, and the Charter all to be complimentary to each other... Maybe this can happen someday? Even if the commission never will be.....or the populace? ARGHHHH! We are going to argue ourselves into obscurity...
Finally, you keep on harping on the commission on this case, but it WAS passed to ballot... How can you STILL complain, when it was the lawyer that brought up the issue. This was apparently within other comunications regarding moving forward with the Comp Plan. This new law, which we all KNEW about because it was discussed back when the Comp Plan was first voted on, has an end date of 2011 for any Referrendums as to them having an effect on a Comp Plan. Now.....all it would take would be a Commission decision to change the Comp Plan....right? So I suggest a compromise is in order.... Set it to 50 or something, and just end it already!! We have so much to fix....and I think we can find a middle ground somewhere....It's only 20 feet!!
Twenty feet is the same as another 2 story building--almost.
ReplyDeleteIt is mighty suspicious that an e-mail is sent just a few hours before the commission meeting implying that it might be illegal. I can hear it now--on the phone--will you hurry and get that damn e-mail to me, the meeting is starting in just an hour.
ReplyDeleteTP - if you believe the LDRs, Comp Plan and charter should all be complimentary, do you believe that this new commission's increasing of the heights in the comp plan to 65' from 40' makes it more complimentary or less?
ReplyDeleteThe new LDRs are not complimentary with the new comp plan heights now. So I guess all the consensus at the Tri-Meeting at the golf course to set the heights in the LDRs will go to waste.
And why is Triolo, Maxwell, and Amoroso harping on the fact that they didn't increase the heights in the comp plan when they clearly did.
Why won't they admit this fact.
The maximum height in the comp plan was 40' they increased that height to 65'!
If the email is legitimate, we will see it, per our Sunshine Law. The Commission did not follow the P&Z rec for 40", however, I believe it did follow staff recommendation. If the LDR/Comp Plan/Charter DO NOT MATCH...idea is to make them match….hence all the changes and progress we are trying to make. The consensus at the Tri-Board meeting DID go to waste, as we have no record of it, which is why I suggest we do it again. The Commission did not raise the heights in the Comp plan. It reduced them in comparison to the current charter. The charter currently has 60/100 I believe.....so ALL of the work is being done to reduce the heights. The argument starts by HOW MUCH. The recommendation by the P&Z was 40, and that is slightly unrealistic since most of the current buildings along Lucerne and Lake from Federal to Golf View are at 40 or higher. I believe we should allow the 60 along Lake and Lucerne ONLY, from Federal to west of Golfview, with strict guidelines, and then go for the decrease on the height to 40’ north of Lucerne and South of Lake, rather than extending it to 2N and 1S. I think we can find a compromise. Personally I hate the idea of closing off the waterfront, and would prefer any larger buildings to be along the immediate area where the Lucerne and the other Larger Buildings already exist. Since it is historic area, we need to make sure any development is tasteful and appropriate, so it should go through an approval process. Put on your thinking caps ALL of you, and find a solution, otherwise some judge somewhere may make a decision that none of us like. We do need to keep in mind that the idea for the town is to be charming AND prosperous…
ReplyDeleteI am now in possession of the chain of e-mails. I did NOT get it through public information. A citizen forwarded it to me.
ReplyDeleteNext, this is all about the residents right to vote on heights in our downtown, not three people on the dais directing what the heights should be. If they had not changed the Comp Plan and had listened to what was decided at the tri-Board meeting rather than pretending it didn't exist, this referendum never would have happened.
"The Commission did not raise the heights in the Comp plan. It reduced them in comparison to the current charter."
ReplyDeleteTP sounds very confused. How about . . . when the signatures were certified by the SOE, the charter amendment did not limit comp plan heights, it increased them. We can play the "document shuffle" all day long. Lots of people, like TP, are confused by the different docs and how they work together. No matter how many times it is clearly explained, some people will just never get it.
But what people DO get, is that it is their right to have a say in what their city looks like. If we make our neighborhoods more charming, we will be prosperous because property values will go up. If we add more residential development and increase the deficit in our GF, we will not be more prosperous. It's that simple. Maybe downtown businesses will be more prosperous, but the city (taxpayers) will be more burdened to provide tax-payer funded services to a CRA district from which we get no tax revenue.
The "prosperity" argument just doesn't fly. One floor of commercial and five floors of residential in the CRA = tax burden. Is that simple enough?
Tp again you are comparing a comp plan heights to the charter heights and saying they are the same thing.
ReplyDeleteThe trio raised the height in the comprehensive plan from 40' maximum to 65' maximum.
You say the commission did not raise the heights in the Comp Plan. It reduced them in comparison to the current charter. That's 2 different things.
P&Z's recommendations that were agreed upon by the majority at the Tri-meeting was for 45' east of Dixie on Lake and Lucerne. I don't know where you got the 40'.
How can you STILL complain, when it was the lawyer that brought up the issue
ReplyDeleteI believe that this commission majority was behind this and had someone on staff pursue and do anything possible to stop the ballot initiative from being placed--probably Mike or William. The city attorney probably was ignorant and not in on it.
There are two sets of minutes from the Tri-meeting. The city clerk and the P&Z secretary both presented minutes.
ReplyDeleteYou guys need to improve your reading comprehension, AND your understanding of the different subjects. Everything you just wrote complaining about, conflicts with what I actually wrote. Doesn't change the fact that we need to fix this.....and whatever conspiracy you think is going on....spinning your wheels and whining is not going to solve it. Fix it....that's all.... May I suggest you get everyone around the table and compromise at 50? And limit the scope of the changes geographically to a few blocks rahten than 8 or 10 blocks? Stop trying to put words in my mouth. You and I will vote in March....if it's legal. The State law most likely will be challenged as unconstitutional..Maybe you can try working on that a little...? Is this PAC up to the challenge of changing a law? That might be helpful to the cause...
ReplyDeleteAnd they are totally inadequate and written after THE FACT.
ReplyDeleteWe will fix it by voting in March.
ReplyDeleteMost definitely that Tri-Board meeting needs to be repeated. There are a lot of issues with efficiency and staff and technology that need to be resolved. the fact there is no recording is a travesty. That day, if only for the fact that there was agreement, which never happens, needed to be recorded.
ReplyDelete"I am now in possession of the chain of e-mails. I did NOT get it through public information. A citizen forwarded it to me." The truth is Commissioner Mulvehill or Commissioner McVoy gave you the emails. The paranoia expressed in the comments here is amazing.
ReplyDeleteThe unnamed individual in the State Office of Economic Opportunity who wrote the email was reading the minutes from the Commission meeting where the Comp Plan was discussed. The State required that information be included in the Comp Plan packet submitted to the State for review.
Now it just so happens the referendum was also discussed quite vehemently at the same meeting; therefore, the minutes recorded this discussion.
The person in Tallahasse raised an issue that needs to be resolved.
IF we are going to go off in all different directions, how about this one? Our former City Attorney knew about this section of the Florida statutes, but did not say anything in public to the Commission. In private is probably a different story as many one-on-one meetings were observed taking place between the former CA and the initiator of the PAC. Was information withheld from the City Commission?
What do the chain of e-mails tell you?
ReplyDeleteLynn, what does the e-mail chain show?
ReplyDeleteWhy bother getting everyone around a table and agreeing,AGAIN?!? What in the hell do you think happened at the golf course meeting? And by the way, Pam did take notes of the golf course meeting. I watched her doing SOMETHING on her computer all night. Was she playing solitare?Maxwell and Triolo told her to make them dissapear.
ReplyDeleteThis referendum IS legal. It says NOTHING about the Comp Plan. It ONLY addresses the charter, and STATE LAW DOES NOT TRUMP A TOWNS CHARTER !!!!!We ARE ALLOWED TO AMMEND OUR CHARTER !!!!!
Pam Lopez should have gotten off of her fat ass and gotten Lynns info act. The idea that staff is refusing a freedom of info act is grounds for a law suit.
I did public comment at the meeting regarding the new law.....so it was discussed. Mulvehill and Maxwell both commented. So it was public, and quite in the sunshine, so-to-speak.... did we know this would come up? Yes. Did we know when? no. Will it have to be solved eventually? Yes Will it involve a lawsuit that may or may not uphold the law based on its constitutionality? Probably. The thing that gets me down most about the subject, and why I really did not want a delay... is that there will be no forward movement while all this is decided. NONE. Whether it's 10 feet, 14 feet or 100 feet. We lose opportunity day by day by day. It's time to stop fighting over it and sort it out amicably. Suggest a compromise.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/163.3167
ReplyDeleteThis is the verbiage of the State Law in question. Will this law be amended? Not sure... Is it constitutional? not sure.
That's on the comp plan not the charter.
ReplyDeleteThe Commission approved the second reading to move forward with the petition on the March ballot issue. The City Attorney was asking for six days to research this e mail that he received from the state. That was part of the minutes of the CMP package that we had sent to the state. Because he was not afforded his request it will take a lawsuit to decide what happens NOW. There are attorneys for Five different Investors that are currently researching who to sue The City, The PAC, or both.
ReplyDeleteWhy would ANYONE want to bring their business, or invest in Lake Worth when EVERYTHING we do makes us look RIDICULOUS.
We take one step forward and three steps back.
Who is on this PAC? That got the petition signed?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 4:17--
ReplyDeleteThe TRUTH IS--you have no idea what you are talking about. I did NOT get any info from McVoy or Mulvehill. Sorry to disappoint you.
If you did not receive info from M&M,then you have a spy in staff.
ReplyDeleteQuit fishin--Sorry--wrong again. I got it from someone, a private citizen, who requested it and received it minus the attachments.
ReplyDeleteIf the state statute was on the books prior to our adoption of the comp plan and subsequent petition, it would appear that it is not so much a staff/commission majority/state conspiracy, but an indictment of the previous city legal staff. They should have known and advised the commission as such.
ReplyDeleteLynn, can you print the exact language of the statute being discussed and the date that it was adopted by the state? That would be helpful to know.
The Statute is highlighted in a link on the blog. It has to do with comprehensive plans. Specifically it says--
ReplyDeleteAn initiative or referendum process in regard to any development order or in regard to any local comprehensive plan amendment or map amendment is prohibited. However, any local government charter provision that was in effect as of June 1, 2011, for an initiative or referendum process in regard to development orders or in regard to local comprehensive plan amendments or map amendments may be retained and implemented.
Now this referendum has nothing to do with development orders or the comp plan. This is a Charter change.
So the question is whether the referendum for the charter change changes the local comprehensive plan amendment? Will they consider this an "end run" around a "referendum to change the comp plan amendment"? Because THAT would be prohibited?
ReplyDeleteThe Comp Plan and LDR's have never been in compliance with the Charter.
ReplyDeleteAs said, the Charter amendment affects a certain area in our downtown only. This is what was agreed to at the Tri-meeting that they now want to diss because no minutes were taken (other than those that were manufactured after the fact because of legal reasons)and there was no audio.
They have convenient memories.
A Comprehensive Plan can be changed by 3 commissioners.
The Charter can ONLY be changed by the voters.
This will be a vote of the people, unless, of course, this commission "educates" the voter with propaganda that is false or misleading and they turn the sentiment, their objective.
Perhaps they have a motive for doing what they are doing. It seems to revolve around the Gulfstream. They believe that a hotel must be 6 stories tall and we know that hotels don't. This is about allowing developers to make more money at the expense of the residents. Their action had nothing to do with the city of Lake Worth. They have fallen into the developer trap of "we can't make any money and we won't develop in LW unless we can build high." They are believing the bull.
The worst thing is--they don't care about what any resident thinks. It's all a game and they are using staff to achieve their end.
"The worst thing is--they don't care about what any resident thinks."
ReplyDeleteThis is the problem.
I am a resident too. I happen to agree with them and allow buildings that match the ones already there.
EAST of FEDERAL!
The tri-meeting was a three way meeting between tow "ADVISORY" boards and the commission, which has the last say.
They took the advise and adjusted some heights up and some down.
Why aren't you just as uncompromising with the heights they lowered? In the Park of Commerce?
I agree with TP wholeheartedly. Too bad voices of reason are shouted down here. We could actually accomplish something.
The Titanic is sinking and you think the chairs are misaligned. The rest of us can only keep playing the music.
The compromise was the Tri-Meeting in January where there was consensus on 35 feet and 45 feet downtown. The compromise, now that the commission changed its mind and got all in bed with developers, is to allow the people to vote.
ReplyDelete"The Tri-Meeting was the compromise" Who Says so I'm a resident of this city and did not elect 2 Advisory Boards to act for me.Who do these people think they are, they are Advisory to the Commission.I voted for the Commissioners I want they can vote for me. If I Do Not Like The Way They Vote I Can Vote Them Out Of Office.
ReplyDeleteExcuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me!
ReplyDeleteDo you know what TRI means?
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS I DO... Two advisory boards, and one Commission.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous has left a new comment on your post "A Stone Wall - The City of Lake Worth":
ReplyDeletePlease, please, please, please, please, please can that collected the petitions please, please, please, please, please file yet another frivolous lawsuit?
I want to see them
1. get embarrassed again
2. piss more of their money down the drain over contrived, make believe paranoid b.s.
"I am now in possession of the chain of emails."
Who give a crap what nonsense you are in possession of?
What frivolous lawsuit?
ReplyDeleteTwo people asked me to write about what was in the e-mails. Sorry you aren't interested.
What are you interested in? Yourself? Another developer? 100 feet?
Sounds like the ONLY one paranoid here is you. Go take your happy" pill. Breathe deeply. Eat well.