The Respectful Planning Lake Worth Political Committee registered with the City Clerk on June 22, 2012, and circulated a petition to place a charter amendment on a ballot regarding building height limits within a certain designated downtown area. On July 23, 2012, the City Clerk delivered 1,785 petition signatures to the Supervisor of Elections for verification of sufficiency. The petition was certified on July 26, 2012, with 1,719 valid signatures and now the ballot question will go to the voters.
It was a long process. The present commission minus Szerdi (he would have voted with the majority anyway) refused to put the question on the November ballot thus costing the taxpayers of Lake Worth, $21,000. Your elected majority wanted the delay.
To ease the monetary pain somewhat, the commission also included changing the election from November to March thus giving them all four extra months of their term if it passes. I am not in favor of them serving one extra day of their term and can understand all the reasons for March elections and why March is better. What is annoying, however, is the attempt by commissions every 5 years or so to change the election date to their advantage. The voters changed this from March to November in March 2007 and it won by 260 votes, 1,904 to 1,644.
The other reason is, with March elections you find that one or two districts control the outcome of the election. Until we get district by district elections like Boynton Beach and where you only vote for that person in your district, College Park is in the driver's seat to determine the winner as they get out the voters. Now the president of this neighborhood association is up for president of the Neighborhood President's Council. Several years ago I predicted this political strategy. On top of that, they have voted on "educating" their members in the neighborhood associations on the height issue. We know that some of these NA president's are politically charged and want to grow our city higher. Their "education process will be politically strategic.
The vice mayor, Scott Maxwell, believes that all the political action committees, past and present, not in agreement with him and his supporters, are aligned with the same people and therefore are the culprits and the blame for everything that is "wrong" with Lake Worth. At least that is what he has stated or implied as to the cause of the Greater Bay settlement. He should be looking to his own support group or question his own vote to hand over $1.6 million. This is the political rhetoric that some politicians use when some citizens take a legal process to fight the bad or corrupt decisions of elected commissioners...blame it on the other guy.
On the Agenda for tonight:
The present Charter provides that elections for members of the city commission are to be held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November each year. The Commission has proposed that commencing with the 2013 election, the elections for members of the city commission will be held the second Tuesday in March. As this never should have been on the ballot in 2007 and only won by a few hundred votes, I am all for it being back on the ballot.
Should the Charter be amended to limit building height to 45 feet between Golfview Road and F Street and 35 feet between F Street and A Street within a designated downtown area (between a southern boundary of 1st Avenue South; northern boundary of 2nd Avenue North; western boundary of A Street North and South; and an eastern boundary of Golfview Road North and South), providing exceptions for existing buildings and already approved building permits?
Hi Lynn, First of all I hope you had a Happy Birthday.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, and to the point of what you've written, as anyone who was at the NAPC meeting last Saturday can attest, the NAPC did not vote to do any educating of their members on this ballot question. What was voted on and approved by the NAPC was to encourage the City to do so. Individual Neighborhood Associations are free to educate their own members in any way they see fit. To my knowledge, no NA has scheduled any kind of a forum or debate on this issue.
Thirdly, Robert Waples was also been nominated to serve the NAPC in 2013 as Chair and like me, he is absolutely committed to honoring the policies of the NA's and the NAPC NEVER to take a position in favor of or in opposition to any candidate or question that is placed on a ballot.
Finally, College Park has not yet held their elections for 2013 officers and my nomination FOR NAPC Chair is strictly contingent on the outcome of that election at the end of January. In fact, nominations for all officers and directors of the College Park NA remain open until the meeting at which time nominations are also accepted from the floor. Thanking you in advance for publishing this comment, I remain, Your neighbor, Mary Lindsey
Thanks for the birthday wishes as well as explaining the position of the NA President's Council.
ReplyDeleteThe city staff as well as the commission should stay out of the "education" thing. We don't need anyone manipulating the process.
Ok... if not the City and not the Neighborhood Associations... then who.
ReplyDeleteDo we rely strictly on the two blogs who pretty much have all the answers?
Can someone relay the FACT that our Charter was changed some ten years ago allowing for much higher heights West of Dixie (100')and was voted on by our citizens. The citizens didn't vote on heights East of Federal and they were left at 65'.
Or the FACT that the commission voted to LOWER the maximum height from 100' (Charter) or 65' (Zoning)in the downtown corridor (Federal to Dixie) to 45', and left the heights "as is" in the area East of Federal.
I believe there is confusion and know there was misinformation about what "inevitably" our Lake and Lucerne corridor would look like if every parcel was maxed out for height and lot coverage.
My guess is that your initiative will pass. But it will do so at a huge deterrent to future "good" development that was poised to connect our REAL downtown to the intracoastal waterway.
It will impede our flexibility to approve a good project, that could conform to the adjacent structures and flavor of our Eastern main corridor.
Not only could it cost us in future tax revenue, due to reduced value of any eventual development or, more likely, even less revenue due to no one even trying to put smaller buildings on the few properties that could accommodate a hotel or expansion of the Gulfstream Hotel to make it more viable. (One of the few properties this could affect)
We all should realize at this point, that the real agenda being driven here is that of "NO GROWTH". Not "low growth" or "respectful planning". There is a concerted effort to keep Lake Worth "poor" so that poor people can afford to live here. Doesn't matter that they will be living in squaller, slum and blight.
By limiting the choices for good future development, you are limiting Lake Worth as well.
65' East of Federal is NOT a skyscraper. The Gulfstream is NOT a skyscraper. 65' can conform to the flavor of an area that already has 65' and higher buildings.
People need to know that limiting height to 3 stories can limit chances for Lake Worth to meet its potential in THAT area.
It will definitely be a victory for those who wish to keep Lake Worth just what it is today, a city that has potential.
You are manipulating the process
ReplyDeleteMary, I believe that you can be president of the Council even if you are not president of an NA. Ryan Anderson was. Just the simple fact that the council brought it up regarding education sounds to me like an advocacy and a work in progress.
ReplyDeleteThere are not too many people out here who speak/write to a point of view. When members of a neighborhood association are told that those who petitioned to get signatures LIED IN THE PROCESS or passed out literature and all the other fabrications that are circulating around by mainly one political appointment to the planning & zoning board who just LOVES HEIGHTS and wants to CHANGE OUR CITY to her liking, then I will continue to write on the other perspective and one that the people want.
ReplyDeleteA low rise city does not deter development. That is in your mind and part of your bogus argument.
Start talking to the people more rather than the developers and Realtors.
The heights were changed much longer than ten years ago. It was closer to double that. If i were to rely on anyone, I would rely on myself but I don't go to commission meetings that often. Therefore I rely on the person who has no money in the game and HAS NOT made any bad decisions for our city like the Lucerne. That leaves out Blackman. One down.
ReplyDeleteyou what?You encouraged the city to educate all of us???????????????????????????????????How unpolitical of you.Is that a joke?
ReplyDelete...and now I'm ticked because this isn't a joke! I can read and do NOT need anyone to tell me "Community Benefit" isn't pay to play! (See agenda for Joint Workshop Meeting 1.16.13 @ 6pm City Hall Conference Room to see what's actually being suggested into LDR's!)
ReplyDeleteIt is how heights CAN happen.
Open the NAPC meetings up to the public! Any group that believes it has the authority to even suggest never mind 'encourage the city to educate all of us' need a mission statement review!
I'm insulted when it's suggested anyone has the 'freedom' to 'educate me' - No One is the Boss of me and I will scream propaganda when I see it!
"Individual Neighborhood Associations are (NOT and NEVER WERE) free to educate (Spread Propaganda) their own members in any way (Non-Profit Laws allow this?)they see fit. To my knowledge, no NA has scheduled any kind of a forum or debate on this issue." (Let's use public record and let's debate it - Open Mic. NO CHARETTES W/predetermined conversations and predetermined outcomes!)
"ASK - DON'T TELL!"
LDR's "Community Benefit" link
Pg. 110 - 115
http://webmail.lakeworth.org/PZHP/JWS%20Jan%2016%202013.pdf
...Think "The Truman Show"
http://www.dpz.com/
To Anonymous Jan. 15 at 12:57 PM,
ReplyDeleteRe additional tax revenue for our City:
100 % of the incremental tax revenue gained in the area affected by the referendum goes to the CRA. Our City continues to get the tax on the value of the property as it was in 1989 when the CRA was created, but nothing from any new development.
So the CRA has taken away from the general fund any increases in value that have occurred over the last years and will get all of the increases from any new development.
Meanwhile our City's general fund will be responsible for footing the bill for infrastructure and concurrency on any projects.
So development in this corridor will cause property taxes to increase rather than what you suggest.
I was sitting in for Robert Waples at this meeting. Myself and John Faust ? sorry if I got the name wrong, were the only two people present at the NAPC meeting to vote against this motion which Mary Lindsey put forward. The NAPC cries foul when it is labeled as political,yet it continues to do political things! Katie Mcgiveron
ReplyDelete