Palm Beach PostLetters to the Editor
March 9, 2013
Limit would create framework for growth
As someone who moved to Lake Worth in 2012, I will vote YES on Question 2 in Lake Worth’s election.
This charter amendment, which would limit new construction to 45 feet in the Lake-Lucerne Avenue corridor, wisely provides exceptions for existing buildings and approved plans. In event of damage, existing non-conforming buildings may be built back to their original height.
Passage would put Lake Worth on par with Santa Barbara, Calif. This American Riviera city, whose population is 2.5 times that of Lake Worth, established height limits through a voter-approved charter amendment in November 1972. If Question 2 passes in Lake Worth, the 45-foot height limit will serve as a framework for healthy, sustainable and achievable growth in Lake Worth’s traditional downtown and allow for transit-oriented development around a future station on the Florida East Coast Railway tracks. The height limit will set a reasonable goal for the building community to strive toward.
Question 2 opponents have made their opinion known to drivers on Lake Avenue by hanging a “Vote No” banner above the fifth story of the Gulf Stream Hotel. If a 65-foot structure was built in the vacant lot directly west of the iconic structure, the banner on the landmark hotel would be invisible to the public.
RICHARD M. STOWE
Lake Worth
13 comments:
The bully no group didn't care about that. They only care about breaking laws to achieve their end. Look at who is behind them.
Mr. Stowe is absolutely correct. Because when I think of Lake Worth I think of Santa Barbara.
These are the type of people that are going to vote Yes. New residents and low information voters.
That just shows your ignorance and arrogance, anonymous. Personal attacks are pretty stupid at this point. You don't even honor people voting YES who have PHd's. You even bring them down to your toilet level. Everyone is STUPID in your opinion. How come you are being such a sheep and falling for the bull?
There is everything right about aspiring to be a prosperous city by staying low-rise. If you look at cities throughout our country that are low-rise, they are healthy and tourist destinations. No one comes to a city to look at high buildings unless they are visiting NY or Washington DC. We are unique and want to stay that way. You all need to find a better argument instead of resorting to lies and personal attacks.
One of these days, we want people to think of Lake Worth in the same way they think of Key West, Santa Barbara or any other low-rise city that attracts dollars and people.
The NO vote is referring to the YEs voters as Wrenches!According to this new resident the Wrenches are always throwing the wrench into the wheel of progress. This recent resident knows nothing about the history of Lake Worth zoning regulations or she would never believe this.
As usual this NO voter has it backwards again!
The residents have been fighting to keep this town compatible with existing historic neighborhoods for 7 years and just as the zoning regulations come to reflect that they run scared and start throwing lies around.
All they care about is personal financial gain. From Greg Rice who wants to build 100 feet on his property on Lucerne to Loretta Sharpe who is in foreclosure on her own house.
You mean she is spending all this money on this election and doesn't care about paying her bills????? Well that sure makes sense. She must be planning on really making some money if she gets her way on this vote. WOW, that sure is enlightening.....
What a deadbeat! wonder if she even paid her taxes. That figures!
Lynn,
Have any of these posters, or you, confirmed that Loretta Sharpe's hose is in foreclosure?
If not, you are just as bad as the "other side" in posting falsehoods.
I thought you did not post personal attacks without posting your identity.
Also, one of the originators of this, Suzanne Mulevehill had her house foreclosed. So ergo she can't be trusted either. And her foreclosure is a fact!
Please stick to your own statement to post the truth.
I really hope you post my last comment about Mulvehill's and Sharpe's foreclosures!
Please tell the truth!
Your facts are wrong. Mulvehill's house sold on a short sale, not a foreclosure.
And I did check out the facts.
Kind of looks like a foreclosure to me!
Case Description
Case ID: 502009CA039245XXXXMB
Case Caption: BANK OF AMERICA NA V SUZANNE MULVEHILL
Division: AW - SENIOR
Filing Date: Monday , November 16th, 2009
Court: CA - CIRCUIT CIVIL
Location: MB - MAIN BRANCH
Jury: N-Non Jury
Type: F2 - FORECLOSURE >$50K, <$250K
Status: DBS - DB PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT
Please check the Clerk of the court. And post the truth!
It sold on a short-sale.
Now do the same for the other person in question. Thanks.
Why don't you give MS. Sharpe the same benefit of the doubt that you give MS. Mulvehill?
Also where is MS. Mulvehill these days? It seems she is not coming back to Lake Worth!
Post this and explain please!
Ms. Mulvehill still has a residence here as far as I know. She is working and her job is taking her all over the globe. The last I heard from her, she was in Italy.
There is no benefit of the doubt to give. If you had clicked on the docket entries you would have seen that the Mulvehill case was dismissed.
I don't have to prove or give a source for everything I write. You can accept it or not.
Post a Comment