Comment Up
When I was in 7th and 8th grade, I lived on Virginia Drive, one block from Lake Osborne. It was a brand new community just being built. At that time, you could buy anything in Lake Worth for around $10,000. In 1965, my family retired here and bought into Lakeside Point Gardens, a brand new development just being built. It was considered an adult, retirement/vacation home community. Throughout all of these years before the financial meltdown of the national economy that affected Lake Worth in a very negative way, we paid taxes. Our values diminished along with the rest of the world. We still have a large percentage of snowbirds who own here and contribute to the tax base.
For the editor to call us "freeloaders" is a nasty bit of "journalism," insensitive political opinion and a hit below the belt to all of us who had no control over the meltdown and have no control to this day. Those who live in small houses were hit just as hard as I was. Many people who live in expensive homes pay half what they used to in property taxes. He doesn't call all those people getting free housing from the government, Medicaid, food stamps, etc. freeloaders does he. In fact, he must support the CRA government give-aways as he never writes anything against them either, a group spending tax dollars to attract more poor that won't contribute much to the tax base.
Those of us who live in Lake Worth are here because we want to be here. We like the small town feel and the small town look. I love it because it has been home for me off and on for 5 decades. Why then does the local newspaper invite us to move because many of us disagree on growing up our downtown with taller buildings? Are we not entitled to an opinion? It is not we who want to change the look or feel of our downtown that has been low for 100 years. Therefore, it is not we who should move.
We are happy here and want to preserve our city and its small town. Those who are not happy about small towns, may want to take that hike right out of here that the Herald suggested. The Lake Worth Herald editor knows the way.
As this is Valentine's Day, kiss your local editor, he needs a lot more love and definitely a lot more compassion.
the only people who read that are those realtor friends of his that have him twisted.Who cares about what he says.
ReplyDeleteNewspapers believe that they are God. People are rejecting them. My property values went way down right with the best of them, from $165 when I bought to 72 now. With my homestead, I pay little. What does the Herald want me to do? Pay it back to the state and not take advantage of the law? I am not a freeloader, sir and I resent what you said. This town is not just about business. It is about people and we are all working and trying to strive in an economy caused by thieves, banks and those dealing in the sub-prime mortgage industry, business that were corrupt. People should be first. I lost my job because of this and it took 9 months to find another. This was through no fault of mine just like my property value. So Mr. Lake Wroth herald, find another argument for building higher. It is not from citizens who own their homes.
ReplyDeleteBoy, are you thin skinned Lynn. Your criticisms are much more biting than the PBP.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that you never see any common ground or constructive criticism in articles that disagree with your positions.
The economy took a hit on all of us. Even those in the Friends of the Gulfstream PAC took hits in their property values. I don't recall them ever complaining about paying less taxes. During the boom years when property values were inflated, we paid more than we should have...those in houses with 5,558 sq. ft to a small condo with 780 sq. ft. Did we complain? No.
ReplyDeleteNow they are looking for any lame excuse to denigrate owners of smaller properties and bring favor to their argument. They only alienated half the city by calling us "freeloaders" and within the other half I would wager to say that there are people happy about paying less money in ad-valorem, perhaps even they.
It is the hypocrisy and insanity of the argument I have trouble with.
To answer 8:03 above--I am definitely not thin skinned. I am just not a doormat to unfairness and dishonesty.
ReplyDeleteWhy can't you get it through your heads. Nobody is building HIGHER!
ReplyDeleteThat is a fact!
There is nothing in the foreseeable future. Period.
The building height maximum is the same or less than it was before the commission voted to LOWER most of them and leave them the same as they've been for 100 years East of Federal.
The Charter has nothing to do with PLANNING.
If you pass this Charter CHANGE, you will simply further foul up the Charter. The Charter say you can build 10 stories West of Dixie. It will continue to say that even if this passes and IF it passes, by the Charter, you will only NOT be able to build 10 stories West of Dixie between 1st So and 2nd No.
The Land Development Regs and Comp Plan are what saves YOUR neighborhood. They also SAVE the downtown.
Ask William Waters these questions privately or at the meeting he gives his presentation.
Low information voters vote with their hearts. Informed voters vote with their BRAIN.
Vote No! on 2
When Mark Easton can say that those who oppose higher buildings in our downtown only WANT TO SEE LAKE WORTH DIE, then there should be a reaction from all reasonably intelligent people. When Easton can say that those who oppose higher buildings in our downtown DON'T WANT ANY BUSINESS TO MAKE ANY MONEY, then all normally reasonable thinking people should reject his madness. Liars need to be exposed. This sort of newsman should be put out of business.
ReplyDeleteDon't bother again coming here with your propaganda. It will not be posted.
ReplyDeleteLynn, when the Lake Worth Herald disagrees with you and slanders you, remember the quote of Socrates at the beginning of your blog, "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."
ReplyDeleteHad the Herald agreed with you, your expressed opinions would be suspect.
Your readership certainly out numbers readers of the Herald, probably by a 10-1 margin.
Mr. Easton's poorly expressed opinions are the recycled rhetoric of his cronies, Chip Guthrie, Greg Rice, Wes Blackman, Cmr. Amoroso and the rest of the 'public be damned we want to grow higher' crowd that is hiding, along with Loretta Sharpe behind the mask of "Friends" of the Gulfstream. A more appropriate name would be Friends of Dollars in our pockets. They want to destroy our historic, tourism attracting downtown and its edges for their own enrichment.
Propaganda or the truth? What are you so afraid of?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 12:23--no one is afraid of the truth. It is your lies I don't appreciate here. Go to the other blog and post to your heart's content. Sing to that choir; just don't sing your line here unless you actually have something relevant to say other than your normal body slams.
ReplyDeleteOK I begged you to refute what you called propaganda. You wouldn't post that because it is all truth.
ReplyDeleteI understand your viewpoint and disagree with it based on what you called propaganda.
When I posted it at 8:42, there was nothing subjective.
It was clear. It was truthful.
At 12:33, someone else eludes to the truth or propaganda comment you made.
What exactly are the lies?
Where can someone build higher? The Charter? You are only changing the Charter in a small area. The rest of the city is not covered by the Charter referendum and will still be under the old amendment. Is THAT a lie?
Is the Charter the proper place to make planning decisions? Or is the proper place the LDR's and Comp Plan?
Just how exactly will the Charter amendment affect properties not located in the strip running East and West through the center of town?
Instead of calling people liars, please educate us by answering the questions one by one.
No one will be able to build higher than the Charter allows. The Charter now allows 100 feet heights west of Dixie and 65 feet east.
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking, the Charter amendment only affects height limits in the downtown and a block on each side to 35 feet between F Street and A Street and 45 feet between Golfview and F Street.
Planning is in the land development regulations but buildings must be developed within the Charter limitations.
So, only the strip downtown is affected...the most desirable strip of all to developers who want to make tons of money and change our city downtown area.
OK ... now for discussion, not propaganda, please respond. You state: No one will be able to build higher than the Charter allows. The Charter now allows 100 feet heights west of Dixie and 65 feet east.
ReplyDeleteWill the proposed Charter amendment change the height limits throughout the city or just the core area? Do any other areas of the city need protection from high buildings?
You state: Generally speaking, the Charter amendment only affects height limits in the downtown and a block on each side to 35 feet between F Street and A Street and 45 feet between Golfview and F Street.
So generally speaking, the Charter does nothing for the rest of the city. And thank you for stating that in the last paragraph of your response.
You state: Planning is in the land development regulations but buildings must be developed within the Charter limitations. If heights were eliminated from the Charter all together, could they be addressed just by the Comp plan and LDR's?
So with comprehensive planning and concise Land Development Regulations that have taken years and over a million bucks to develop, it is your opinion that it will be easy to get around them?
Thank you for replying. Now in review, did my comments @ 8:42 rise to lies and propaganda?
Changing the Charter is a very big deal, I'm sure you'll agree. We did it close to 20 years ago. It was a big deal back then too. We, at that time, wanted to encourage investment and jobs and businesses to build higher West of Dixie.
It didn't happen.
The make up of our town has become quite "liberal" and anti-development. Would you agree with that statement?
But I also find it curious that many people I consider to be conservative (you for instance) to be for this anti-growth initiative and many people I consider liberal to be for keeping the Charter unchanged.
The reality of it is that height probably has little to do with anything. You have described a well designed building located in the core area that is almost 65' high as stunning. I agree.
And you might agree that there are one or two ugly one and two story buildings inside and outside the core area.
It is trust in the elected officials and betrayal by eliminating the boards liberal/anarchist make-up that sparked this and the failure of all involved to compromise.
Fanning the flames was the decision to put this on March's ballot, not so much the money.
Rest assured, the people who come out to vote will only be interested in this issue. #1 is not in contention.
Wouldn't you like to see the Charter cleaned up? Maybe take heights out of it entirely and leave them where they belong. How about stipulating a super majority to make those changes you say are easy?
Thanks for your lengthy post...have not read it all. I believe what you are asking (AND YOU KNOW THE ANSWSER ALREADY) IS THAT the Charter can only be changed by a vote of the people. The comp Plan and all the rest can be changed from the dais on a 3 to 2 vote. The amendment is to protect the people here from the poltiics of the dais.
ReplyDeleteThis is NOT an anti-growth initiative... let's get that straight. It is limiting higher buildings in our downtown. Vertical Growth is not being limited elsewhere.
You are really misinformed when you think what sparked this had anything to do with anarchism. it has everything to do with the Constitution. Because one self proclaimed anarchist was on the P&Z, was no reason to kick off all the board. She was one vote but all of her reasons/votes were well thought out while she was on the P&Z.
You say amendment #1 is not an issue. Then why is it on the ballot? Which way are people leaning on this? They voted in Nov elections just a few years ago.
The charter is clean. It is the comp Plan and the LDR's that have needed work and need to be compatible and that is what they have been cleaning up.
One other thing I missed in your questions--about the supermajority on land use changes We had a vote on that a few years back and developer money came to town and defeated it by 119 votes. Money talks.
ReplyDeleteYes the Comp Plan did take years and over a million dollars of citizens' money to formulate their desires re growth and the P and Z spent countless hours and several years codifying them. And, finally at the golf course tri-partite meeting in January 2012, the 3 bodies reached consensus on what the P and Z presented.
ReplyDeleteSoon after, the Commission decided it was up to them to go against what the citizens had expressed they wanted and changed the heights in the downtown.
This is the reason that the citizens petitioned to change the charter to more closely reflect what they and an overwhelming majority want for their City which differs from most of the coastal cities with their ever diminishing skyscapes.
The Charter, the Constitution of our city, can be changed only by the voters and that is the reason height limits must be in it, to avoid any Commission's ability to change heights for developers against the will of the people they have been elected to represent.
If you will check the record of the P and Z board you will find that the votes were often 6-1 with the anarchist on the short end.
You will also find that almost without exception the P and Z approved all development plans that came before them, creatively giving variances and modifying plans such as the Lofts so they would be less obtrusive on the fabric of its neighborhood and the streetscape. To paint that diligent, creative, Lake Worth enhancing group as liberal/anarchist belies an ignorance of their work and its results.
No surprise with this newspaper. It has always been one-sided and has never understood this town. You would think since the Eastons have been here for 100 years, they would like our small town instead of sleeping with those who want to ruin it. What a piece of work you are Easton. What is is? Selling newspapers? More people, more sales? I doubt it. You move. I'm staying and voting for small.
ReplyDeleteNo one that I've heard, has ever said the P&Z board was less than professional, excepting the anarchist. The mere fact that she could have been appointed, supposedly to lead the discussion and votes further left into fantasy land territory, is testament to the fanatical fringe we have tickled in the past several years.
ReplyDeleteThe few meeting I attended saw a group of well intentioned resident citizens. Some had a little experience in building and real estate, but some were more suited for the tree board or sister city board than the Planning and Zoning of our city.
This was evident in the comments and questions I heard by some of these members. Talk about ignorance. And I don't mean that as an insult as you did. They just did not have the knowledge of the particular subject and were learning on the job. The questions were legitimate but something they should have known in a position that moves our city in the right direction.
Just as the author of this blog decries the political makeup of the current boards, so was this board. Helen Keller could see the anti-development sentiment up there. Didn't that reflect the 3 to 2 make up of the commission over the past years?
So the balance has changed and the ones at the bottom of the teeter totter are squealing now.
Painting them as liberal/anarchist? Where was Waldo?
You read into what you will. I totally disagree with you. Jennings was only ONE vote and was always on the losing side of the vote. It is better to ask questions than to vote ignorantly. These are volunteer boards so naturally citizens don't have the expertise of professional planners. That's why they have William Waters. It's why the city commission has a city attorney sitting there to keep them on track. But I know that they all studied the issues and learned. The makeup of the former boards was honest and there was not one project they voted down. They did vote to make some developments better than presented and this caused ire with some citizens who were friends with some even the CRA. So, I agree with you; the balance has changed.
ReplyDelete