Friday, December 14, 2012

Building Heights, Politics and the People

Comment Up

Uncanny resemblance to our Vice Mayor!

WEST PALM BEACH: With an internal city poll showing that less than 40 percent of residents support allowing a tall building on the old city hall site, Monday city officials debated a 15 story hotel or a 5 story hotel  Why debate?  The residents have already told their elected officials what they want.

AND THIS WILL SOUND FAMILIAR:  The citizens don't want a high building but commissioners think they know better than the residents. West Palm Beach will have a referendum in March and the voters will decide. Everything is not or should not be all about the money.  The commission could vote to give the site a height exemption without a public vote. Isn't this something Lake Worth mayor Pam Triolo is considering in the area east of Federal in Lake Worth? West Palm Beach commissioners have said they wouldn’t do that, considering that voters elected for the height restriction in 1996 and voted against an exemption in 2010." Read more... at the PBPost.

WANT MORE?:  Because there are already high-rises on the WPB waterfront, elected officials say that having another tall building will fit right in...no biggy. This is the same argument we are getting from Lake Worth commissioners to keep heights in our Charter 100 feet west of Dixie and 65 feet east of Dixie. Lake Worth's charter amendment will correct that to 35 between F and A Streets  and 45 feet between Golfview and F Street (between southern boundary of 1st Ave South and northern boundary of 2nd Ave North) thus keeping our downtown small, charming and welcoming.

AND MORE SIMILARITY--THE PUBLIC IS STUPID AND HAS NO CLUE WHAT IT WANTS ROUTINE: “The responsibility is on us as a city to try to educate the public as to why the CRA and staff think the site should have a taller building,” said Eliott Cohen, a spokesperson for the City of West Palm Beach.  “There’s no way we can properly educate the city as a whole between now and March.” Don't you just love the arrogance of elected officials?

Do you suppose that Mr. Cohen was reading Scott Maxwell's playbook?

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Let's see here.... West Palm Beach residents want only short buildings? That would be five stories.

They rejected tall buildings.... that would be 15 stories?

The commission wants the best use of the old city hall property which is higher than 5 stories now, but if taken down, would only be allowed to build the short 5 story building.

Lake Worth needs a hotel.

Just like West Palm, in the small footprint of the city hall property, building only five stories would not be cost effective. Likewise, in Lake Worth, the only two properties that could support a larger landmark style building are not spread out enough to make them cost effective for a hotel if built 4 stories and they would be surrounded by taller buildings.

I know this makes no difference to you as winning at any cost or detriment to the city is all that matters.

Since the last time the voters changed the charter allowing 10 story buildings West of Dixie (the only change) how many were built by greedy developers?

That charter amendment will remain on the books. Your charter amendment will not remove it. So the charter will have two opposite amendments further pointing out how dysfunctional we are.

The visionaries voted to lower the maximum heights in the quaint downtown except for East of Federal Hwy. which they left the same as they have been for over 50 years.

The Gulfstream Hotel is almost 80 feet high. No complaint there. The EcoCentre is 62 feet and is "stunning".

The allowable heights have been lowered in the downtown district from 65 feet to 45 feet.

Some of your own people don't know these facts.

Lynn Anderson said...

Thanks, Greg? Loretta?

Soon we will be celebrating our centennial...100 years of small town charm.

We now have some planning in place whereas they didn't have this 100 or less years ago. So the argument that these buildings are there anyway and let's build more, doesn't fly with any logic.

The problem is, a developer can come in and buy up several parcels, bulldoze buildings and build higher. With a public benefit, he probably could build higher than even what you are asking for in the Comp Plan. Who knows?

The Charter is the constitution and if it says 100 feet and 65 feet, that is it. Tell me where I am wrong in this logic.

Anonymous said...

Not all the commissioners in WPB feel this way. What the city spokeperson said was the city's staff feelings and not that of the commission as a whole. There was no debate as they did not want any presentations until the city voted. However it was determined that since they were at the meeting that they could present their updated proposals. No Debate. They did and they left. By the way that was a CRA meeting and not the commission meeting.

Anonymous said...

"The Charter is the constitution and if it says 100 feet and 65 feet, that is it. Tell me where I am wrong in this logic"

There is no argument our charter needs to be updated. We no longer have a police chief or fire chief or residency requirements for those positions. House keeping.

The height issue is one that should be addressed in the comp plan and ldr's. Fine, limit height by charter, but not so low. I think most people don't think we need any buildings any higher than what we have already.

They already lowered them in the downtown district from 65 down to 45.

Your logic of someone being able to buy up a bunch of historic houses to put up some box is flawed. Not in our lifetimes. It is just a scare tactic.

The LDR's would keep any monstrosity from going up next to a single family residence.(anywhere in town)

Comp plan would keep any larger building, such as a hotel, in the center of the one ways or close to the Gulfstream.

Where is this logic wrong? Why is allowing a little flexibility in our core East of Federal Hwy wrong?

We don't want ugly buildings! Even if they are short. (17th and No D ring a bell?) But we do want "stunning" buildings in our core close to the Gulfstream, even if they are above 35 feet high, if possible.

Why cut us off at the knees?

Loretta or Greg identify themselves. And I am not a developer or connected to any.

Lynn Anderson said...

"stunning" was referring to the interior--NOT the exterior. AND--we just don't want tall buildings. Thanks

Anonymous said...

No Lynn, you and your cronies do not want tall buildings, that is NOT All the people in Lake Worth We will know what the People Want in March.

Lynn Anderson said...

Glad it is sinking it, anonymous as we know what you and your cronies want in March--higher buildings so that your developer friends can make money off of LW. It sure won't be the city making any money. Are you a Realtor or a property owner or an elected official who has been compromised by BS?

Anonymous said...

Sorry Lynn You are wrong again I am none of the above just someone that would like to see Lake Worth grow up a little bit...........

Anonymous said...

Lynn you keep sprouting out Quaint and Charming, but have you ever driven on Dixie Highway? There is nothing Quaint and Charming there, and it is one way to get to downtown.

Lynn Anderson said...

I believe that we are talking about our downtown. Let's get some developers to build on the Dixie corridors and get property owners to clean up the slum and blight. I'm all for that.

Anonymous said...

I consider Downtown between Dixie, and Federal. You consider Downtown from the Round About to the Casino.

Lynn Anderson said...

Thanks for thinking for me anonymous. I certainly do NOT consider the downtown to the casino. Pretty silly that.

From F Street to A street was Jeff Clemen's dream of a City Center between Lake and Lucerne. He probably got that from Lois Frankel. Can't believe the people voted that tyrant into office. Gads. Clemens wanted 100 foot buildings.

Anonymous said...

So where DO you consider Downtown?

I also consider it from Dixie to Federal. It tries to extend a little West of Dixie with a couple restaurants, but by and large is just the core area.

Anonymous said...

Well Lynn what do you consider DOWNTOWN if it is what Most of Lake Worth Residence feel what is the problem of taller buildings East Of Federal??????

Lynn Anderson said...

We are really talking about a Charter amendment and keeping the downtown a low-rise city. It is specific in the amendment.

I do not buy the argument that we need HIGH because we need a hotel. Yes, we do need a hotel but it has nothing to do with height other than a demand of a developer.