Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Commission Logic

Comment Up

The commission and their developer backed supporters say that a 4 story building can't be built--they must have a 6 story building.  What they are saying is that developers want to build higher--more money to be made.  Their other argument is to allow heights to be compatible to the other buildings that are taller than 45 feet in those blocks. Why?  Well, just because. They want to convince you that we were never a low-rise city and by saying it over and over it will finally sink in and "stupid" people will change their minds.  Of course now what they have done by not honoring the vote is to allow 65 feet in our downtown and 45 foot buildings in the section west of Dixie. I guess that is to be compatible to the EcoCentre building or City Hall while ALL of the rest of the properties are one and two stories as well as all surrounding homes in the neighborhood.

Ask yourself why they want to dishonor voters and only want to honor developers? They really believe that by ignoring the vote by the YES people, it will be no big deal.

Between now and March 2014, do you think that they will all of a sudden become capable of or be characterized by clear or valid reasoning in anything? If they show this much contempt towards you now, will you remember that on election day?

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

OK... name one developer that would risk investing in Lake Worth.... even if he could at the "sky scraper" nose bleed, blot out the sun height of 6 stories.

The State law simply states that you must follow procedure in changing land use plans and prohibits a NIMBY gang mentality vs sound planning procedures.

It removes the possibility of someone designing a graphic with boxes depicting an unreal, worst case, couldn't happen in 500 years scenario to scare people and telling them that if you don't vote a particular way, then sky scrapers will be built right next door to you, playing on the fears and your paranoia of corruption in small town politics.

True, you even admitted we are somewhat more than a "low rise" community when I pushed you citing all the buildings that would put us at most in a medium rise category. But of course, you just follow up that "we" don't want "anymore" high rise (as if 6 floors constitute "high rise") buildings in our "downtown". Downtown happens to be between Federal and Dixie and the height as adopted by the commission in our "downtown" is 45 feet, not 65 as you state above.

The ONLY place you can build 65' high is East of Federal Hwy. And then it can ONLY be for a Hotel with at least 50 rooms.

Unless you can show me different, and I'm positive you can't.

But of course because I'm right, you won't post this.

Anonymous said...

A question to ask each and every one of these disgusting weasels when they come begging for your vote next election- "Why is a vote in an election important to you now? My vote in the last election DIDN'T MATTER TO YOU"!!

Lynn Anderson said...

I have NEVER said we were anything but a low-rise city. Obviously, you misinterpreted something I said. That's not possible though, right? You see what you want and hear what you want.

I don't plan on having a back and forth on this. What this is now about is the simply fact that this elected body saw fit to use a law that they say pertains to the charter amendment to NOT enforce 45 feet downtown.

If a Lucerne can be built, now so can another. Thank God for Laurence Mcnamara who stopped you from going to 75 feet.

Anonymous said...

Can't we recall these a***oles for not recognizing a legal election? At the very least, can't Pam Lopez lose her professional credentials and be fired over all of this?

Anonymous said...

I think your picture shows that 65 feet is not unattractive. Anyway I do not think the commission counts on or needs your votes. Nut jobs like 9:08 do not decide elections. No, those "disgusting weasels" will not be begging you.

Lynn Anderson said...

10:01--It is not whether or not a building is attractive at 29 feet or two stories...that is NOT the point of the charter amendment.

Also what you say that the commission does not "need your votes" just shows exactly what I am speaking to--arrogance and power and really divisive people who have no right to be leaders in this city.

What decides elections is the outcome of the vote of the electorate...usually and normally--unless you are in Lake Worth.

Anonymous said...

"Nut jobs like 9:08 do not decide elections. No, those "disgusting weasels" will not be begging you".

The 56 % that said NO to increased heights in our downtown did DECIDE AN ELECTION! The above mentioned disgusting weasels,A.K.A. our Commission, decided to ignore 56% of the voters in this town.Not real bright. Can't wait to see how they pat the voters on the head and say "but we LOVE and RESPECT you now. Your vote REALLY, REALLY matters to us NOW "! LOL Good luck with that.

John Rinaldi said...

I am OK with the additional two stories provided that we limit this height to only a hotel that is built east of Federal in the new district. No other type of structure can be built at this height. With those limitations I can't see how the character of the city will change as we already have a closed 6 story hotel that everyone likes. Remember, any developer looking to build a hotel still has to comply with all our new laws requiring proper setbacks and community benefits. The city is in a financial mess and if God were to bless us with a developer willing to build a hotel we would have hundreds of new jobs in town along with tourists going to our shops and restaurants. The benefits would far outweigh any negative anyone might find in the additional two floors. I say we give it a chance to work and pray that our new hotel district attracts a developer. I fear that this issue will just keep us divided when in reality there are no developers interested in investing this kind of money on a hotel in our city. We all need to stick together and fight to get our neighborhoods cleaned up and safe from crime. That is the real issue we face.

Anonymous said...

As much as I resented the banner, the boxes graphic paraded around by you and Ms. Mulvehill made me angry. You tried to get my vote by showing me a warehouse city. My friends and I are not satisfied with this commission, but we feel they are the least of two evils. The leaders of the yes vote appear to be radical misfits whose sole goal is cheap rent.

Anonymous said...

John it isn't about you. It is about these elected officials who say a vote doesn't matter. Think about that.

Lynn Anderson said...

Who are the leaders of the YES vote to whom you refer anonymous at 11:07. A CPA who owns her own home? The treasurer of RPPac who owns her own home? Long time residents of this city? People who are engaged in their neighborhoods and some who have even been on city boards? Those people?

Who are the "RADICAL MISFITS"?

Laurel Decker said...

John,

You're an attorney. Warm and fuzzy comments aside, you must know that the heights have been limited by a legal, certified election. The commission does not have the authority to nullify an election because they want to pretend it was in regard to a comp plan amendment. Surely you know what thin ice they are treading upon.
If you and the commission are OK with six story buildings, then I suggest you get busy building them where they can be legally built. That would be every where else in the city except for the area designated in the charter as limited to 45'. Because a majority of voters are not OK with it. Why are you not focusing on Dixie Hwy, where you can build to six stories and there are plenty of parcels for sale? There are no parcels for sale downtown where a hotel could be built. Why don't you focus on the blighted corridor into our city??
Normally, I would say that praying and hoping for God to bless us with a developer is a really weak redevelopment strategy and doesn't inspire confidence. But this IS Palm Beach County. I'm sure your prayers will be answered, if the commission is willing to present a truthful version of our charter limits and development regs to investors. But pretending that heights have not been limited is not going to work out well for your board and our commission.

Anonymous said...

11:14 I will not stoop to naming people but yes to your assertions add a lot of your disgruntled commenters, quacks who mindlessly address the commission, couple on lakeside, and the expert on the constitution. do not forget a ghost from the past from Atlantis.

Anonymous said...

The radical misfit must be Peter Tim. He voted YES on the charter amendment. freaking old hippie.

Lynn Anderson said...

12:49---WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL :)

Name calling does not become you. I think my brother-in-law has addressed the commission twice in 5 years. How many times have you spoken? Do you sit in the front row, the back row or hang off to the side with your YouTube camera?

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL :)

Anonymous said...

Thank you. I will remember this on election day even if they don't have an opponent. It is true what anonymous poster said above. They are not worried about any of us. They could care less.

John Rinaldi said...

Laural: The legislature of this state passed another crazy law which the City Attorney says makes our election null and void. If that's not true the attorney is committing malpractice. Believe me, I never told a client what they wanted to hear as it can come back and kick you in the ass. lawyers tell their clients they can't do things all the time and I believe our attorney warned the commission before the election that your petition was potentially illegal. So I really believe they are giving us correct legal advice. I don't think we are dealing with "thin ice" but if you're right we will find out at some point. Your suggestion that I and the commission start building on Dixie assumes that I have the power to do something about the lack of development in this city. I am not an elected official. I spend my days trying to run my business and survive on the very limited tourism coming to our city in the off season. I wish I could do more. My question to you is simple: for years we have allowed 6 story buildings to be built where the Gulfstream Hotel sits. There are other 6 story buildings in an around this area. In all these years not one developer has come to our city and built a new hotel. What are you really worried about if a hotel is built that is the same size as our Gulfstream? It really will change nothing about our downtown except for two things : jobs and business downtown would improve. Is it really worth dividing the the city on this issue when we really are in dire financial straights. I don't think it is. Remember we are only talking about a hotel. No other building can go as high as 65 feet. With such a limitation there is no chance that we will become a high rise city. So I am OK with that.

Anonymous said...

Someone up there at 12:04 said we all should get kicked on our asszes? What's that all about? For having another opinion? For winning the vote? Are we not allowed to speak out about all the slum and the crime in this city and this commission just wants to cater and sleep with developers and who want our city to go the way of Fort Lauderdale? Stick it where the sun don't shine.

Lynn Anderson said...

The legislature of this state passed another crazy law which the City Attorney says makes our election null and void. If that's not true the attorney is committing malpractice

Passed a law THREE MONTHS AFTER THE VOTE? I don't believe that the PAC agrees with this interpretation by our city attny.

Anonymous said...

2:50 Ok bright light, name a development or developer doing any business in this city in the last 3 years.

John Rinaldi said...

Remember, the height issue only involves one small area of the city and only one type of building. The commission created a "Hotel District" which allows a hotel to be built up to 65 feet. No other building east of Federal can go that high. There are just a few parcels of land that a hotel that high can be built on. So stop saying this is about us becoming Ft. Lauderdale. This is about getting one hotel east of Federal that will help our economic future. Our historic downtown heights were lowered to 45 feet so we will never see another Lucerne downtown. It's just about one hotel and nothing else.

Lynn Anderson said...

We KNOW what the commission did. It was not what the voters told them to do. Do they represent the voters and an election o5r do they represent their special interests and themselves?

Anonymous said...

Lynn, that is just too logical.

Laurel Decker said...

John,

Many people were upset about the Lucerne condo and wanted to have a voice in just one aspect of our city's redevelopment: heights. I was thanked a thousand times while petitioning, and in the run up to the election, for helping to give residents an opportunity to finally be heard on this issue. I think the mayor had plenty of time to convince people to see things her (your) way. They were not persuaded.
If six story buildings are allowed, then that will be all that's built. We both know that. We both know that a simple majority of the commission can change the ordinances and comp plan that you claim "protect" our historic downtown. There's even a "planned development" loophole built into the LDRs that allows height and intensity variances. Did you miss that? I hope not, since you're the Chair of the P & Z. It's just been buried in the LDRs and conveniently omitted from every discussion. Would you care to comment on that "planned development" loophole?
I wouldn't accuse the attorney of committing malpractice, that would be hard to prove. His logic is rather contorted. I think an opposing attorney would not have too much trouble brushing aside his nonsense.

John Rinaldi said...

Laural you know that it takes years to change a Comp Plan and your suggestion that future commissioners will change everything and allow tall buildings all over this city does nothing to help our city. Our neighborhoods are falling apart and homes are selling for less than $50,000. Land values on some of our streets are listed by the property appraiser at less than $1500. can you imagine a piece of land on south C street is only worth $1450 for tax purposes. That means certain portions of our city are truly worthless. I find that unbelievable. Your fear of tall buildings should be far outweighed by a fear that we may not have a city much longer. Detroit went bankrupt this week. There are no loopholes that would allow a developer to put up a skyscraper in this city. All I am saying is that your time and effort saving the city from a six story hotel would be better spent bringing us together as a city to fight crime and blight in our neighborhoods. I really don't think those two stories on one hotel will make any difference to the majority of the residents of this city. Getting broken into or held up or dealing with drug addicts on our streets will have more affect on the quality of our lives than those two floors you are trying so hard to stop. As to your attorney's position on the law, I have to ask why at least 4 other attorneys not on the city's payroll have agreed with the city attorney on his opinion of the new law. If you think that's nonsense than give us the legal reasoning and I will be happy to review it. In the mean time, please consider working with us to solve some of the real problems we face in our streets.

Lynn Anderson said...

your time and effort saving the city from a six story hotel would be better spent bringing us together as a city to fight crime and blight in our neighborhoods

John--just want to pipe in a moment here--
This petition process was NOT about disallowing a 6 story hotel. It was about limiting heights to 45 feet from Dixie to Golfview in our downtown. Also, it doesn't take years to change a Comp Plan. It can be changed from the dais on a 3 to 2 vote. The years is the political red tape.

4 other attorneys agreed with Torcivia. Well, John, ALL of them were from his firm. Who do you think his firm works for? The commission.

All for addressing slum and blight, our major problem. As far as Detroit, goes, why not ask this commission why there have been NO discussion in the budget process on our biggest expenses, expenses that CAN break our city: Public Safety and Union benefits and our unfunded liability. Instead, they worry about the pot holes, small things in the scheme of things.

Laurel Decker said...

John,

I apologize, I should have been more specific with some of my comments. I meant that six story buildings will be built in the commercial districts where they are allowed. I didn't say all over the city, that is your liberal paraphrasing. I do not fear six story buildings. I think they are fine in the appropriate setting. This whole thing started because people like you didn't think that the extra two stories would make a difference to a majority of residents in the city. People like me think that the extra two stories do make a difference. So we asked people. And they answered. And you still think that it doesn't make a difference. What, exactly, would convince you that people don't want six story buildings, no matter what sort of rationalization you present?? They must feel that it compromises their quality of life somehow.
I find a lot of things about this city to be unbelievable. I saw in the PBP this morning a 750 sf residential dwelling on S. K St that sold for significantly more than it's last purchase price sometime around 2003-2004. Matter of fact, most real estate sales listed were for more than the previous purchase price. So. Things are improving, but I agree with you that we have a long way to go. I disagree with you that there are areas in our city that are worthless. You tend to leave out important facts. That said, how will a six story hotel downtown improve that property value on S. C St? Comparing Lake Worth to Detroit is a bit hysterical. Doesn't exactly scale. There's plenty of information available about what happened in Detroit, no need to mislead people with histrionics. A lot of cities like us have unsustainable pension schemes that will have to be addressed. Hotels downtown are not going to solve the financial problem.
I'm not surprised that you won't comment on the Planned Development loophole. It DOES cast a pall over your board and the commission, since you're swearing up and down that the LDRs protect us from just what the LDRs surreptitiously allow. Oh what a tangled web we weave . . .!!
Thank you for your input on how I should spend my time . . . :) I get many helpful suggestions from people here on this blog about how I should be out picking up other people's garbage, etc. instead of fighting for what I believe in. I am seriously considering it, especially since I could catch up on some sleep!