Comment Up
The Charter Amendment appears before the Planning & Zoning board on May 1. The board will provide its recommendation to the city commission. As Greg Rice is the vice chair of that board, I would expect that he will recuse himself as there is a definite conflict of interest as he helped form The Friends of the Gulfstream PAC telling people to vote NO for the heights amendment, confusing the voters with his message, suggesting that the YES people wanted to get rid of the hotel. Chair John Rinaldi stated on Facebook that he thought the illegal banner on the Gulfstream Hotel should have been twice as large. We expect John Rinaldi to also refrain from discussion. We know how they as well as this board feels and it is not the will of the voters.
It is projected that the First Public Reading of the Heights Amendment
will be on May 21 or June 4. The Second reading will be on July 2 in
front of the City Commission. No matter what the majority commission
feels about this issue (and they did everything within their power to
confuse the voter and delay the vote), they have to approve the amendment to the Charter.
When all those above changed the Comprehensive Plan to 65 feet from 45 feet in our downtown, it triggered the formation of a citizen's initiative to get the issue on the ballot. Height limitations were approved by 55.86% of the voters.
9 comments:
Why are they dragging this out?
Email from John Rinaldi-
Hi Lynn:
You are reporting that I said the banner put on the Gulfstream should be twice the size on Facebook. I have no memory of that and I had nothing to do with it. If you have proof I said that on Facebook can you point it out. I did publicly support voting no and I stated my reasons several times on Facebook. I also allowed discussion at our joint meeting about the issues raised by this vote. Board members are allowed the freedom to speak on any legislation that could come into law and affect the population of the city they live in. The reason we can speak is that the law affects us all the same. I am just like any other citizen when it comes to my opinion about any new law that is up for a vote. On the other hand, I cannot give my opinion on any quasi-judicial matter that may come before my board that I may have to rule on. It would not be fair to have made up my mind before hearing each sides evidence at a hearing. Greg Rice has the same rights and so would you if you sat on a board.
Now that the vote is in, what difference is my opinion? To my knowledge the P & Z Board cannot change the results or keep it from happening.
You should also know that there is a very real chance that the property will be sold to investors who will open something other than a hotel. Who knows that might even help the city. I recently learned that the fact that the building is on the National Register does nothing to protect it. It can even be torn down with no protection from the federal government. If this building continues to deteriorate that is a very real possibility.
Please check your facts and let me know if I said that. I really think I had no public opinion when it came to the banner. I was just as surprised to see it as you.
John
rinaldi is a big mouth bore and now also a coward.
People--do me a big favor--let's stop the name calling. The other side has done more than its share and no one can compete with them on that score. But it really gets us no where. I like John Rinaldi. He just took a different position than I did. I wish that he had admitted that the NO signs were a lie and the banner was breaking the law and deceitful. That's it.
Gee Lynn, I sent you an eloquent post of why the "NO" signs were in fact as true as the yes signs and you refused to post it.
I am a "NO" supporter and also wish everybody on both sides stop the name calling.
Your "rules" state that "Speak to the issue, not its author, or your comment will be rejected."
I mean this this sincerely.... please follow your own rules.
Eloquent is subjective. It is rather non-productive to make "eloquent" posts on why you supported NO. We all have heard the reasons from your group and rejected them at the polls. We won in spite of the lies and the NO people wallowing in the muck. This was not a blog for NO propaganda and it still isn't.
Lynn and I have been on opposite sides of many issues but we respect the right of every person to have an opinion. I really do not believe I commented on the sign at all. The last few weeks we have been working so hard i have no idea what I may of said but I do know that I focused on the issue and made a case for a no vote. Politics has never been a gentleman's sport. Since I have lived here both sides have done some nasty things to try to win an election. That's what happens and we all know it. Remember, we are all neighbors who live in the same city. Why attack each other. Agree to disagree and enjoy the day.
Thanks for posting, John. It is those who are out there bringing forth their views who take the biggest attacks. Those posting on Blackman's site are making up their own personal attack agenda to discredit anyone who is in their way. I guess I am one of those people who was attacked by the Lake Worth newspaper. All I am is an active senior citizen in my community and someone who wanted a low-rise in our downtown. To accuse me of being some sort of ogre is unforgivable. I am a friend of Lynn's and agree with her as well as the political committee that wanted a low-rise in our downtown. Can't stand the lucerne building there and don't want any more of them. Very inappropriate. Thank you.
I thought it was interesting that the new commissioner said in the Post that we need another referendum on the height issue because people were confused. Meaning the no people want to confuse everyone and get Amendment 2 overturned.
Post a Comment