Comment Up
It's very disgusting to sit down at my dining table, open up the Palm Beach Post and read a horrendous article such as I did today on the Greater Bay lawsuit...particularly when I think of Peter Willard laughing his ass off. Here we have outside counsel blaming his failure to do his job for Lake Worth, a job he took willingly and wanted from day-one.
Greater Bay was to pay for and submit a site plan. They never did. They were to pay for all the financing. They never paid one dime for anything. All they did was stall and stall and eventually screwed up our pool when they finally did something.
The Development Agreement had a provision that essentially said that all government zoning land-use approvals had to be in by June 30, 2007, and if they weren't, either side could terminate the contract within 15 days notice. The City attempted to make a Comprehensive Plan change but it was challenged by Tallahassee.
The McCauley/McNamara law suit challenged the Lease agreement of 20 years minus a day plus a sub-lease of 20 years minus a day and a development period with NO time limit or cap. The Court agreed the suit had merit. The City knew that the charges in the suit were correct and went ahead and made an amendment to the Lease Agreement with Greater Bay. That suit was not dropped until Greater Bay was off the beach and rightfully so. Citizens formed a PAC to preserve the beach as Public Recreation and Open Space and to keep it from becoming more commercial. There was to be a referendum and the signatures on all petitions were certified as the citizens believed that they had a right to vote on what happened at their beach. Then the City, bending over backwards for Greater Bay, sued the PAC. The PAC, much to my dismay, bowed out of the process because of politics, not the threat of a law suit. Our outside counsel, Brian Joslyn, was behind that.
Joslyn says that there were several beach redevelopment plans over the past 20 years that had fallen apart for one reason or another. To straighten out that perception, there was a plan for a General Obligation bond, pushed by then mayor Rodney Romano, of $19 million to redevelop our beach in 2002. That failed overwhelmingly at the polls. The residents did not want to be obligated for that much money. No other suggestion for the beach got off the ground. Then Greater Bay answered the RFQ and presented a public/private partnership that would have tied up our beach for years with the city making no money other than $500,000 a year that would not even have paid for the lifeguards and have caused the City an annual loss for 20 plus years.
This was such a deal, that Greater Bay had no money, never had done a project of this magnitude, never got its bank financing and never even had opened up a bank account until years later when it was going to suit. Greater Bay charged that there was a government conspiracy to get rid of them from our beach even though they never performed, not once. People will say anything for a buck.
The biggest problem with Greater Bay was when the commission agreed to allow them to renovate our Olympic Pool before the Grant money expired. This was the biggest mistake of the city--allowing Greater Bay to appear to be a hero. I believe that this was the turning point. City attorney Larry Karns, at the time, told them not to go ahead with GB; they did anyway. If someone is not performing and jerking you around, you don't let them proceed on another aspect of a project.
Now Scott Maxwell and Pam Triolo want to get "to the bottom of the Greater Bay lawsuit' and what got us to this $1.6 million settlement. What got us here, commissioner, was Lake Worth being too trusting; they never even did a background check on the principal, Peter Willard, and never even bothered to see first-hand one project that Greater Bay constructed. The main reason was trying to get something for nothing with a partnership with a company that was going to pay all of the bills.They naively believed the bull because they wanted to and because as Retha Lowe had always said, "We have been trying to do some
thing with our beach for 30 years."
It would be her legacy when this beach was finally renovated. She was one of the top reasons why we are where we are today as well as the rest of the majority commission (Vespo and Burns) who went along with the insurrection--she initialed the contract without reading it, every single page of it, not the mayor, Marc Drautz. Of course no situation tests
us more than the urge to get something for nothing. That's what happened here. Everyone is tempted by "something for nothing." In this case, elected officials made a political decision to sign the contract without understanding it, without even reading it, and the snowball just kept rolling down the hill.
With every bad thing that happens sometimes there is a silver lining. In this case, the settlement is a good deal for Lake Worth considering we would have had a loss at our beach of several hundreds of thousands a year
over 20 years while Peter Willard and Greater Bay originally wanted to sue us for $40
million, or make an estimated $2 million profit every year for 20 years. We are now in
control of our beach, not them, and with good management, we will be making the money.
Supposedly in February, Scott Maxwell, the most political commissioner who has ever held the office in Lake Worth, will have a public workshop to bring out all the reasons that he wants the citizens to believe as to what occurred here. This is being done to justify this commission handing over $1.6 million of our money to the biggest scam artist who ever hit town and of course, to "hit" his political opponents right between the eyes. The sad part of this is that there will be a certain percentage of people who will believe the politics here and not the facts.
It has been a snowball in hell that has not yet melted.
16 comments:
Thanks for continually setting the record straight. What in hell is wrong with Maxwell? We are better off that they settled but this case never should have gone this far. They never should have signed this contract to begin with. Commissions always know better than the people. I still can't get my commissioner to return my three phone calls and two e-mails with the same message, please call me. It is no wonder that we get pi**ed off.
It's a shame you didn't link to the article so that everyone else can see how Jennings and Mulvehill cost us $1.6 million plus attorney fees totaling over $2.4 million. Just add it to the "renovation" that saved our landmark casino and call it a day.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/attorney-comments-by-two-commissioners-led-to-16-m/nTsJ8/
People who fail to learn from their mistakes are bound to repeat them. I think I see a big mistake in the making.
Thanks for the link. There was nothing shameful about my not posting it. I just could not find it when I searched for it this morning.
Politics in this city is totally corrupt and it would be nice if people actually could or would learn the truth. It doesn't appear that you are close. Go back to the legal meeting of 2-2-2012 and learn the facts.
This blog will not be posting any comment deemed to be inaccurate, political or an outright lie. So don't waste your time.
You are correct, it wasn't easy to find and actually was old news. This is what the attorney said at the meeting that led to the settlement. McVoy's "no" vote was and is idiotic. He was asked afterward if he wanted to roll the dice after 4 separate mock trials returned multi million dollar verdicts against us.
The article brings out some very good points even though it does not address your concerns. The attorney said it WAS a good case contract speaking. He clearly breached the contract.
Where the jury would have sided with Willard was what Jennings and Mulvehill did to cause "bad faith".
So you have two issues. Did the city have a valid contract? Was it breached? By who?
Did the city operate in good faith in executing the contract that it approved?
Someone lied in deposition. I don't know who. Either Jennings helped with Mulvehill's campaign or she didn't. One says yes, one says no. That didn't look good and smacked of backroom dealing by the duo. Sort of "good ole boy", out of the sunshine stuff you like to attack if it is other than your pet socialist/communist/anarchist.
I believe the disconnect with Jennings and Mulvehill and whether or not one helped the other in their campaign could have been the way the question was worded. Jennings was correct in her testimony. Mulvehill was obviously confused as to what "help" meant to her. The question should have been more specific. Actually, whether one helped the other or not is NOT the reason why Willard was a scam man from inception or why this entire mess went south.
Lynn, it is time to let Jennings and Mulvehill assume responsibility for their actions. To say the question posed to Mulvehill in the deposition should have been more specific doesn't pass the smell test. Mulvehill prouly claims to have an MBA so she should be able to understand the various meanings of the word "help."
You are using our ineffectual outside counsel's term, "smell test." That is bull shit and a figment of his coping out. If they had asked the question did Cara Jennings help knock on doors or give you money towards your campaign? Her answer would have been "no." If they had asked, did Cara Jennings ever give you a helpful suggestion for your campaign, her answer might have been "yes." You must understand the question in order to answer it, MBA or not.
For the person who just tried to post here and call me nasty names and a liar, please post a comment that proves what I have written is false. You have the floor.
Mr. Maxwell,if want another term in office,you had better get your head out of your ass when it comes to the issue of Greater Bay. You don't know what in the hell you are talking about. Mr. Maxwell ,you are drinking the kool aide of the same people who tried to help the scam artists at Greater Bay steal our beach in the first place!!If you knew ANYTHING about this matter,you would be THANKING the very people you are trying to blame in your witch hunt.
When all this comes out in a special
meeting we will all be able to see if anyone was to blame.
Joslyn said, “You have this undercurrent in the city of what they (Greater Bay attorneys) are terming a conspiracy of a city commissioner (Jennings) and outside people getting another city commissioner elected (Mulvehill) who approved of her views to terminate the agreement,” Joslyn said. “The risk is that a jury buys that perception as opposed to focusing on the language of the contract.”
Now let's get this straight. Was Joslyn not hired to represent Lake Worth and to defend the ridiculous and mitigating the asinine perceptions? He was supposed to be on our side of this case, not Greater Bay's. There was a conflict of interest from the beginning with him. He caved in and the commission got scared. Pathetic.
haha, good one. This will all be a politically trumped up meeting to come to a political trumped up conclusion. It will be BS.
OK so this is a very "nasty" subject but here is my own take on it.
Why are all the questions being asked now by our political leaders instead of before it become a law suit for the city??
Where was the oversight during the project...the same as the current project where blogger are finding the errors and not our leaders?
What the hell is wrong with this city that I personally love so very much and why do we keep getting it to more scandals that solutions?
Where does the common sense and non-personal agenda's start to come into play and people who represent the People of the City and not just the "sides" they choose come into a position on the Dias?
Lots of questions and even wondering why this Commish thinks they are able to make "wise" decision when they seem to be so disconnected.
Its time to either make our city leaders realize that personal agendas are "Old Hat" and representation is the "New Hat."
For God's sakes there are many community leaders that are not elected that love this city and want to guide it to a positive level.
The worst was a Commish that Stated on the Dais that "he" has never been to the construction site of the New Casino when its tax payers dollers???? WHAT
For the grace of God can our local to national political figures just THINK IT THROUGH for a moment?
As someone said above, they will find out in the meeting who is to blame. i guess that person did not read what I wrote or have been writing all along on Greater Bay.
Thank you for your comment above, anonymous. Makes too much sense for some people.
As far as the commissio4enr above who has never been to the new casino, he has been against the beach redevelopment since the Romano days. Cost is everything to him. Sometimes you have to spend it to make it and this will be great for LW. He didn't even like the finance Plan even though it was brought forward by John Pickett. He tied it into Stanton and automatically rejected it. He continues to blame all the wrong people when in actuality, HE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT HIMSELF and his political alignment of people who got us where we are today. He did make the final decision to pay GB. That was all his decision. He owns it.
Scot Maxwell, Pam Triolo, Andy Amaroso and John Zerti sold our city out and gave 1.6 million dollars to a couple of con men.We need to kick eveyone of these people out of office. They are stupid, power hungry ,and dangerouse in their disregard for the majority of the tax payers in this corrupt little city.
Post a Comment