Monday, May 25, 2009
The down and dirty to why
“our beach” is a mess….(Stafford has removed this blog)
In 2002 the city voted down the 19 million dollar beach
bond referendum with 61% of voters saying “No!” So why does the Kool-aid (always attacking when anyone disagrees with him) cabal
think that it will be any different now? What do they really want at the beach?
(What they wanted at the beach was to finally, after decades of neglect, fix it up) Why do they sue to block any redevelopment? (No one sued in order to block any redevelopment. Stafford totally twisted the point or didn't understand the point)
Well, it all goes back to the infamous “plan B.” After the failure of the 2002 bond they came up with another plan supported by Larry and Dee McNamara, Lynn Anderson, and Jim McCauley. (I was not even living here nor was I active or interested in politics then but I was against Plan B once I learned about it because of the location of the building for one thing--however, it was better than the alternative by $7 million)
Below is a quote from an April 14, 2002 article where Jim McCauley explains “plan B.”
“The Citizens Committee, led by Jim McCauley and architectural designer Doug McIntee, explained how their $12.3 million project for the 19-acre municipal beach property was different from the city plan rejected by voters on March 12. The two plans look a lot alike, McCauley said, but the Citizens' Committee plan is smaller. It cuts most of the retail space included by the city but leaves a two-story parking garage, a nighttime restaurant, convention space and improvements to the pool.”
Fast forward to the present, the current majority on the city commission rejected a public private partnership between Greater Bay and the city that would have been yet another similar project at “NO COST TO THE RESIDENTS!” (Thank God we kicked Greater Bay off of our beach for non-performance and kept it in public control. That commission did the right thing)
Why?
Because, it was not EXACTLY what they wanted! The Kool-aid Cabal does not compromise. (The "compromise was another plan to present to the residents that would not leave them with a $19 million dollar debt) The current plan could cost as much as 10 million for the building alone. The total project could easily exceed 20 million dollars and other Cabal effort’s (RO mess)) (The RO is anything but a mess and has saved us millions) have strained our relationship with county (untrue) and could jeopardize a 5 million dollar grant to improve the property. (The building cost $6 million, the price we have always agreed to and the beach redevelopment was from the $5 million Recreational bond from PB County along with the cost of infrastructure that we had in our capital budget..spreading baseless fear is just another smear tactic because he wanted a passive park on our 19 acres even though we had a commercial building there for nearly 90 years)
Cara and her crew have come up with yet another pretty picture by a Michael Singer of Delray. Fear not they oppose the Singer Design group concept as well. (Totally false statement) Remember, compromise is not in this group’s vocabulary. (Again, compromise was to present a different plan) Visit Lynn Anderson’s Blog….(True, I was definitely opposed to the Singer design initiated by Cara Jennings and Rene Varela, Jungle Jims for little Jimmy and taking away 163 upper level parking spaces—still am)
I would personally love to see a passive park at the property but this group’s PAC’s have received financial contributions from beach tenants. (I would seriously doubt that $500 contributions from a couple of merchants turned the tide) This equals no passive park at the beach! They are not friends of the environment any way and have opposed projects like the Snook Islands Natural Area (learn more) but then claim that they want to “Save Our Waterfront.”
Hypocrites!
The Net result of this group action’s is a beach that resembles a dumpster, a “Hot Dog Park-ing Lot”, (again, another personal attack against a couple who helped save this property from a developer and kept it in public control) No lifeguards two days a week, and a promise of higher taxes to pay for their newest “plan B.”
Well, it all goes back to the infamous “plan B.” After the failure of the 2002 bond they came up with another plan supported by Larry and Dee McNamara, Lynn Anderson, and Jim McCauley. (I was not even living here nor was I active or interested in politics then but I was against Plan B once I learned about it because of the location of the building for one thing--however, it was better than the alternative by $7 million)
Below is a quote from an April 14, 2002 article where Jim McCauley explains “plan B.”
“The Citizens Committee, led by Jim McCauley and architectural designer Doug McIntee, explained how their $12.3 million project for the 19-acre municipal beach property was different from the city plan rejected by voters on March 12. The two plans look a lot alike, McCauley said, but the Citizens' Committee plan is smaller. It cuts most of the retail space included by the city but leaves a two-story parking garage, a nighttime restaurant, convention space and improvements to the pool.”
Fast forward to the present, the current majority on the city commission rejected a public private partnership between Greater Bay and the city that would have been yet another similar project at “NO COST TO THE RESIDENTS!” (Thank God we kicked Greater Bay off of our beach for non-performance and kept it in public control. That commission did the right thing)
Why?
Because, it was not EXACTLY what they wanted! The Kool-aid Cabal does not compromise. (The "compromise was another plan to present to the residents that would not leave them with a $19 million dollar debt) The current plan could cost as much as 10 million for the building alone. The total project could easily exceed 20 million dollars and other Cabal effort’s (RO mess)) (The RO is anything but a mess and has saved us millions) have strained our relationship with county (untrue) and could jeopardize a 5 million dollar grant to improve the property. (The building cost $6 million, the price we have always agreed to and the beach redevelopment was from the $5 million Recreational bond from PB County along with the cost of infrastructure that we had in our capital budget..spreading baseless fear is just another smear tactic because he wanted a passive park on our 19 acres even though we had a commercial building there for nearly 90 years)
Cara and her crew have come up with yet another pretty picture by a Michael Singer of Delray. Fear not they oppose the Singer Design group concept as well. (Totally false statement) Remember, compromise is not in this group’s vocabulary. (Again, compromise was to present a different plan) Visit Lynn Anderson’s Blog….(True, I was definitely opposed to the Singer design initiated by Cara Jennings and Rene Varela, Jungle Jims for little Jimmy and taking away 163 upper level parking spaces—still am)
I would personally love to see a passive park at the property but this group’s PAC’s have received financial contributions from beach tenants. (I would seriously doubt that $500 contributions from a couple of merchants turned the tide) This equals no passive park at the beach! They are not friends of the environment any way and have opposed projects like the Snook Islands Natural Area (learn more) but then claim that they want to “Save Our Waterfront.”
Hypocrites!
The Net result of this group action’s is a beach that resembles a dumpster, a “Hot Dog Park-ing Lot”, (again, another personal attack against a couple who helped save this property from a developer and kept it in public control) No lifeguards two days a week, and a promise of higher taxes to pay for their newest “plan B.”
What this shows is that Jim Stafford was against:
ReplyDeleteour casino
our beach redevelopment
our Reverse Osmosis
saving Old bridge park from developers
an attack dog
people who disagree with him
is a Revisionist who can't tell the truth
and is someone who listens to Blackman as if he is God.
I agree with stafford.
ReplyDeleteI would much rather have a 100% park at the beach without any commercial development. At the very least we wouldn't have spent all that money that we will never recoup with that 50% leased casino.
In Old bridge Park I would have preferred a completely redone and upgraded park with boat launching facilities, landscaping and a children's playground instead of the current third rate parking lot. Who cares if the developer got to build more units in S Palm Beach?
Thanks, Jim. We knew you would say that.
ReplyDeleteStafford and friends are always putting people down. No surprise here.
ReplyDeleteSo we don't pick and choose what news we want readers to remember; Commissioner McVoy wanted and still wants a passive park at our beach.
ReplyDeleteGreg--this blog is about Jim Stafford, not what you think you remember about Commissioner McVoy and decided before he got elected. McVoy always reminds everyone that the beach IS a park--not that he wants a passive park. If you recall the zoning was changed to a commercial zoning of BAC where previously it was ALWAYS Parks and Open space and the merchants were "grandfathered in."
ReplyDeleteI've heard that the county is looking at some improvements to Old Bridge Park and wants to put some sort of boat docks there.
ReplyDelete