Comment Up
We have a WONDERFUL downtown. Next time you are there, stop and have a
look up and down Lake Avenue. The stores are bustling, people are
coming and going and all seem to be greeting each person they pass along
the way. Suddenly anonymity is gone. There’s a sense of belonging, of
people caring and knowing each other, even if just a little bit. We can
even look up and see the blue sky and we stoop down to pet someone's dog..
Small town charm is
something people actually seek and small communities are once again
thriving. For many small communities the decline of population and
threat of extinction have gone. City folk are quickly recognizing the
advantages of small town living. In fact each year millions are heading
back to cities with a small town feel. And our city has everything a
small town should have and more.
Lake Worth describes us as a dynamic,
multi-cultural city with a strong social and environmental
consciousness. People are drawn to the city by its individualistic
style, acceptance of different cultures and lifestyles, many historic
structures, hip downtown, and distinctive residential neighborhoods. The
city has a rich history and is protective of its historic architectural
fabric. Over 1,000 historic buildings contribute to the human scale of
the city and the charm of its downtown and residential neighborhoods.
There are six designated historic districts in the city and a
preservation code to protect exterior changes to buildings in those
districts.
Lake Worth is one of the few towns in South Florida that has avoided
high-rise development and retained its old-Florida flavor. While the
city wishes to strengthen its economy, city government officials and
residents alike are very committed to maintaining the character of the
city, and protecting their town from insensitive development.
The downtown is considered the artistic soul of Lake Worth with an
historic theater and museum, live music clubs, coffee houses, art
galleries, antique malls, retail stores, and many restaurants.
The city has a broad array of recreational opportunities, including
the beach, boating in fresh and saltwater, a municipally-owned golf
course and fishing pier, a waterfront amphitheater, and many parks and
athletic facilities.
Why do people want to change
something wonderful? They say building higher buildings downtown will
increase the tax base. We already know that the city will not get any
additional tax revenues as it goes to the CRA and the city will be stuck
with additional expenses. If we start building higher, developers will
make money. Realtors will make money. Planners will make money. And
local newspapers will make more money in advertising dollars generated
by all of the aforementioned. So when you hear from a naysayer on why we
should start building up in our downtown because they say business will
go elsewhere, tell them you don't want to be duped! Take another look
down Lake Avenue.
P.S. Stop in and visit Hoffman's Chocolates, a new business in our downtown and a business that is happy to be here.
"Why do people want to change something wonderful? They say building higher buildings downtown will increase the tax base. We already know that the city will not get any additional tax revenues as it goes to the CRA and the city will be stuck with additional expenses. If we start building higher, developers will make money. Realtors will make money. Planners will make money. And local newspapers will make more money in advertising dollars generated by all of the aforementioned.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you against the jobs created by the above. Because employed people make money. They also spend it here where they live, in Lake Worth.
I have not spoken to one person who wants "higher buildings downtown". (Federal Hwy to Dixie)
In fact, the maximum height in that area is lower now than when the Lucerne was built by two stories.
Many of the people who support the lower heights "downtown" think it's ok to have higher buildings East of Federal, but there was no compromise offered by either side.
We also risk losing needed improvements to the Gulfstream Hotel property that would help that property connect the downtown to the water at Bryant Park.
We also risk losing our commuter train station at Lake Ave and the railroad track due to the long range plan requiring more density in that area for people to live near a transportation hub.
The Lake Worth Community Redevelopment Agency is tasked with encouraging development and redevelopment in the CRA area. The small area being addressed by a charter amendment is wholly situated in the CRA district.
While other communities around the state are trying to attract more development through their CRA's, we here in Lake Worth seem to hear demonization of that effort.
Speaking only for myself, we need to keep all our options open.
The Gulfstream is a National Treasure and registered historic structure. I'd like to make it easier for the owner to open it back up, not harder.
I'd also like to see our downtown and beach be a commuter train destination stop at Lake Ave.
Nobody wants buildings higher than what is now allowed. Keeping the status quo allows flexibility for the long range health of the city. The comp plan and Land Development Regulations are where these issues belong, not the charter.
Chip Guthrie, member
Lake Worth CRA
Well, of course, I disagree with you, Chip. It absolutely belongs in the Charter so that P&Z's and commissions can't continue to give waiver after waiver and special exceptions to their friends. We don't want 10 story buildings west of Dixie and we sure don't want anymore 6.5 foot buildings east of Dixie. The Lucerne is more than enough. The Gulfstream has the room to build a small extension on its property of 4 stories. Hopefully whoever holds the mortgage will allow someone to buy it cheaply so we can get going on this hotel. We need one desperately in our city. The TOD's don't set well with me either and allowing a 5 story one right at the foot of Lake Osborne is not something of which I am thrilled about.
ReplyDeleteMaybe your point does bear repeating, but even though the last time we revised our charter it was to increase the heights West of Dixie keeping them at 65 feet East of Dixie. This was "proposed" as a way to spur economic development. Back then economic development was not considered a bad thing like it is today. So even if it didn't work out the way we voters intended, it was still intended to encourage development. If that is true, doesn't this proposed charter amendment act as a "dis-incentive"? To discourage development?
ReplyDeleteThat idea to "give incentive to develop" has now been replaced by the evils of "gentrification" which according to a power point presentation I watched at City Hall, "any" development tends to bring up property values thereby somehow pushing poor people out.
New houses "up" the value in the neighborhood raising the rents in the older, "dated" houses.
So therefore we must oppose "any" development as being "bad" development.
We see this phenomenon when we see people who purport to being on the side of poor people opposing decent affordable housing for just these deserving people.
I've attended quite a few home dedications by Habitat for Humanity. All recipients of H4H homes have had to financially qualify for them and then put in over 500 hours of work on theirs and others homes to purchase, not be given these homes. Sure, the loans are zero percent interest because there is no bank involved.
Please tell me why this is such a bad thing. Why don't you attend any of these emotional dedications and post pictures of these deserving families receiving keys to their brand new, energy efficient, owner occupied homes?
There is no reason "affordable housing" has to equal "slum housing". The Lake Worth CRA is trying to prove that point.
We are not out to build slums. We maintain the highest hope that the new owners will get involved in their new neighborhoods and neighborhood associations to make their environment better for themselves and their children.
That's what you do in your neighborhood and I do in mine. That is how we keep our neighborhoods from declining.
While I'm with you, and have stated so on many occasions, on the larger picture of spending our Grand children's money in these grants, I also want to make sure all the money that was granted gets spent right here in Lake Worth.
Your CRA staff did just that.
Your contention that it hasn't made any difference shows just how bad the situation is; that over 130 new housing units replaced abandoned, slum, and vacant lots and you can't notice any improvement.
Some of us can.
Chip Guthrie, member
Lake Worth CRA
Unfortunately, the only thing improved is that one house in a neighborhood that is hurting. There is no improvement overall. Did you buy your house interest free?
ReplyDeleteChip:
ReplyDeleteI think that the Habitat houses are attractive, but the CRA houses are depressing. Thankfully, most of the NSP houses are being built by Habitat. The CRA should continue to focus in the neighborhoods that need the most help. That is its mission. But please, get some better designs.
I have a copy of the Transit Oriented Development presentation. The Planning Council states in the presentation that 45' is sufficient for the TOD. That's why we propose 45' west to F Street. No one in the PAC is crying "gentrification" or demonizing the CRA's redevelopment efforts. But if redevelopment = 65 feet, then I think you are going to have a problem.
A lot of people feel that leaving the 65' option open is no longer an option. Because it won't be an option, it will be the rule. You say no one wants buildings higher than what is allowed. That's a bit vague. Allowed where? Charter? LDRs?
My understanding of community sentiment is that very few people want buildings as high as are allowed now.
Please tell me why this is such a bad thing. Why don't you attend any of these emotional dedications and post pictures of these deserving families receiving keys to their brand new, energy efficient, owner occupied homes?
ReplyDeleteSorry I did not answer this earlier. Basically, I guess you would say, I am against the hand-out mentality of some in this country who believe that government owes them something like a brand new interest free house. If you read my blog, you would know that. So, therefore, I don't have an interest in covering this or writing about it. Half the houses are affordable in this city. What about the CRA fixing them up?
Thanks for responding Laurel. You state: "I think that the Habitat houses are attractive, but the CRA houses are depressing."
ReplyDeleteI think the Habitat homes are well laid out and look nice with the front porch as well. They fit in well in our cottage neighborhoods.
The CRA houses you refer to I think are Adopt-A-Family built duplexes and single family homes.
All I can say in defense of the somewhat boxy design is that they fit the criteria for what was called for in the NSP-2 HUD requirements.
Some might argue they are 100% better looking than the abandoned structure, vacant lot or crack-house they replaced. True, they probably won't make an issue of Southern Living but they are energy efficient, hurricane resistant and have off street parking.
One of the benefits of Adopt-A-Family ownership of these units is that AAF will be more responsible for the outward appearance or curb appeal of these units so while they may not be architecturally significant, they should be well maintained.
My reservations of these AAF units has more to do with their tax exempt status or the "land trust" model that was proposed for the sale of some of these units.
To address Lynn's concerns, again, I somewhat agree with your sentiments. I call it spending our Grand children's money. Our Grand Children will still be stuck with this stimulus money we are spending today. Since Joan Oliva and her staff was able to land $23.2 million of a very competitive grant based on Lake Worth's need and a very strong "consortium" of partners that could show they could get the job done, I wanted to try and do my part to help carry out the end result which is decent affordable housing in place of slum and blight. The CRA staff has accomplished that. So now we have to continue to work on the surrounding lots and abandoned houses and sub-standard living conditions that are prevalent in the NSP core area. And that is what the CRA board will be doing with program income, a residual of the grant expenditures.
The grant allowed H4H to ramp up its program that has always been in place, even before the "government handout". The recipients of the H4H homes are not "given" anything. They pay for the house at what I think is pretty close to market value and because the money is funneled through the non-profit, they don't wish to make profit on the mortgage and pass that savings on to make ownership more affordable.
These H4H home owners will be paying property taxes for the services they receive which is one more reason I fully support the H4H concept. If they get involved in their neighborhood, their investment will appreciate. If they don't, they could be contributors to the blight in the area and their investment could lose value. But it is their home. They paid for it. It was not given to them.
Chip Guthrie, member
Lake Worth CRA
"Basically, I guess you would say, I am against the hand-out mentality of some in this country who believe that government owes them something like a brand new interest free house."---interesting comment from someone who accepts dbl Homestead exemptions to qualify for the lowest real estate tax contribution possible.
ReplyDelete"I have not spoken to one person who wants "higher buildings downtown". (Federal Hwy to Dixie)".
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding me? The same people that plagued Lake Worth with the Lucerne are still around. Chip, what do you think of this Commissions decision to disband the entire P&Z board to get rid of Cara Jennings?Why is the CRA in our downtown and not in neighborhoods where they are needed?What do you think of more low-income rentals being built on 6th ave, in a town that is already plagued by low income rentals? Katie Mcgiveron
Actually, I take one exemption. How many do you have? And your point? I believe in people working for a living, not the government paying them to have their hand-out.
ReplyDeleteOne never knows when it will be necessary to protect rights. That is why I created a directory of good US lawyers who always can help. While reading your articles I came to conclusion that you are a legal professional and can recommend best attorneys to this directory. You can submit lawyers to the section of Florida civil attorneys or other appropriate sections. There is also a possibility for lawyers to publish legal news and articles as well as posting to Attorney Blog. I think, it can be useful to many of your friends who provide legal services.
ReplyDeleteLol. Now I feel bad, because I like the work that AAF does and I make contributions to them too. But the "it's better than what was there" mantra drives me crazy. It's an excuse for mediocrity . . . we should accept less than what's best because it's better than the worst. I guess it makes sense sometimes, but I'd like to walk through my neighborhood and admire the new homes, not cringe. How many of those boxy things were built EAST of Dixie Highway?
ReplyDeleteI can sell you a Ted's Shed that is energy efficient, hurricane resistant, and you can park your car next to it. Just sayin'.
Yup, the developer crowd is out in all its glory ready to take over Lake Worth.
ReplyDeleteTo Katie: On this issue, the one we will be voting on March 12th, I have spoken to no one who wishes to have more 65 foot buildings downtown (Federal to Dixie) including the members of the new pac. They can correct me if I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe main issue comes down to ANY effort to tie the downtown to the intracoastal will be made HARDER by not allowing buildings of the same size that now exist there.
We had a well publicized open meeting at Brogue's Monday night explaining the history of the area around the Gulfstream and how it was first designed as a resort that encompassed the entire block. It was a destination when the main mode of transportation bringing people to Lake Worth was the train. The area West of the Hotel was a "Hotel District". This is part of the design of the city.
Frank Palen, who was asked to present to our NA is the author of Lake Worth's Historic Preservation Ordinance and is an expert on planning issues. He probably knows more than most on what it takes to preserve the quaintness of historically significant 100 year old cities.
The meeting was very well attended and showed how much people wanted information on this issue. I urge you, and everyone for that matter, to attend another meeting with William Waters on the 18th so that you can get more information.
Once presented with the fact that our LDR's and Comp plan which have taken some 5 years and over $1 million dollars to develop already address the issue, COMPLETELY, (Look at the Chart) it becomes evident that the two sides are diametrically opposed over an emotional issue over two stories of building height. No give, no compromise.
I was told last night that the people of the respectful pac were asked to compromise and exempt the two to three pieces of property East of Federal Hwy. that could support a hotel or expansion to the Gulfstream Hotel to help make it financially viable and they were met with "NO COMPROMISE".
Although it cannot happen due to the LDR's and the Comp plan, the Charter will still allow 10 story buildings West of Dixie on both sides of the core area. (1st Ave South to 2nd Ave North) The charter would still allow up to 65' buildings East of Dixie outside of the core area. Please remember, I said neither scenario can happen due to the LDR's and Comp plan regardless what the Charter allows "up to". If you truly wanted Lake Worth to flatten out, the referendum should have included ALL Lake Worth, rescinding the prior Charter Amendment, not just the little strip from A Street to the Bridge, between 1st So. and 2nd North.
I oppose this referendum because it is bad for Lake Worth. It sends a negative business unfriendly message. But I also don't want skyscrapers in Lake Worth anywhere! 65' tall buildings are not skyscrapers. We could use a couple of new Hotels and an expansion to the Gulfstream to get it opened back up. So a "NO" vote may well "Save the Gulfstream Hotel".
As to your question why the CRA is not in the neighborhoods, please visit Lakeworthcra.org for the map. The CRA extends from our North to South border right through the heart of our city West to I-95 in spots and East to encompass the Gulfstream Hotel. It was platted long before my stint. We are doing what we can with the same reduced budget and economy that everybody else is dealing with.
Chip Guthrie
"The main issue comes down to ANY effort to tie the downtown to the intracoastal will be made HARDER by not allowing buildings of the same size that now exist there."
ReplyDeleteThat's YOUR OPINION,CHIP!!!And by the way ,answer the question- Do you agree with Scot Maxwell, Pam Triolo and Andy Amaroso shit-canning an ENTIRE LEGALLY APPOINTED P&Z BOARD just to get rid of ONE PERSON,CARA JENNINGS? Chip? And CHIP do you agree with a supposidly broke city flushing money down the toilet by REFUSING TO LET THE PEOPLE OF LAKE WORTH VOTE ON AN ISSUE? Chip ,do you think it is proper for our CRA to be in our downtown district sucking taxes away that this selectively broke city needs?WHY IS OUR CRA STILL IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRCT? Katie Mcgiveron,disgusted with you and the rest of the sucking GROWTH WHORES trying to detroy this town!!
Wow. I almost missed this because Laurel responded to my post above.... but in the same fashion, I'll try to address your concerns:
ReplyDeleteThat's YOUR OPINION,CHIP!!!
Response: Absolutely!!! You are 100% correct. That is my opinion.
And by the way ,answer the question- Do you agree with Scot Maxwell, Pam Triolo and Andy Amaroso shit-canning an ENTIRE LEGALLY APPOINTED P&Z BOARD just to get rid of ONE PERSON,CARA JENNINGS? Chip?
Response: What difference does it make whether I agree with your opinion of what happened. How do you know the reason they did this? Why would you ask me and how is that part of building heights East of Federal? Was Cara Jennings against economic development in the city?
And CHIP do you agree with a supposidly broke city flushing money down the toilet by REFUSING TO LET THE PEOPLE OF LAKE WORTH VOTE ON AN ISSUE?
Take a deep breath Katie. Quit shouting. I can read you loud enough. The people are voting on this as is required. It was a political move to try to force it on the November ballot and it was an equally political move to put it on the March ballot. Time will tell if it was a smart move on either side.
Chip ,do you think it is proper for our CRA to be in our downtown district sucking taxes away that this selectively broke city needs?
Response: Yes. I think it is appropriate for the city to be in the downtown district. If you think the CRA is "sucking" money away from Lake Worth, you have a misconception. Not only is all the tax revenue staying in Lake Worth, so is a lot of tax revenue that would have gone to the county, in essence, keeping more tax money in Lake Worth than before the CRA was enacted back in 1993.
WHY IS OUR CRA STILL IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRCT?
Response: To encourage development and redevelopment.
Katie Mcgiveron,disgusted with you and the rest of the sucking GROWTH WHORES trying to detroy this town!!
Response: When you have nothing to offer in the way of facts, you "name call".
Because I express my opinion (see first response) you ask me a bunch of unrelated stupid questions about topics I have no control of and have nothing to do with the Charter amendment that further discourages business in our city.
Since I answered your questions, why don't you answer this: In what way does the proposed amendment encourage business in Lake Worth? Jobs?
If the Charter amendment does not encourage business and jobs and economic development it either has no affect or it discourages business, jobs and economic development. Is this your intent?
Chip Guthrie
I have never understood why the Commission did not vote to raise heights in the park of commerce. Industrial is where we actually make money versus the cost of services the city provides for commercial and residential. And yes, it was all political. The people were forced to go out on a referendum and had less than 30 days to obtain signatures from a population many of whom were not even in residence. It was awesome. We did it. Now it will be up to the people if they are not bombarded by developer money convincing them that heights will make our city better after 100 years of being a low-rise city. We'll see.
ReplyDelete