Comment Up
There are three citizen lawsuits against the City of West Palm Beach: Rybovich Marina, Palm Harbor Marina and Chapel by the Sea. Why? Because West Palm Beach's elected officials have approved of massive projects that developers want to build on the waterfront that will erase the skyline forever. Officials are not following their Comprehensive Plan several have charged. It is a pity that citizens have to use their resources to sue the city due to an elected mindset that only has half a mind when it believes that waterfront development and compromising principles for someone's gain is the only way a city can prosper.
Typical electeds' condescending lying political statement--(they must go to school for this--perhaps the League of Cities--Lake Worth uses this one too...the one they didn't use was anarchists wanting to hold the city back)
"Change is difficult. There are LOTS of people that would like to keep the city a sleepy little town. I appreciate that."
~ Mayor Jerry Muoio
Typical developer statement
"It will transform the Broadway corridor, just to the west, spurring a village of marine-related craftsmen that will improve the condition of the troubled and financially distressed area near Northwood." (The city is giving him a waiver on density from 32 units an acre to 55)
~ Developer Huizenga Holdings
11 comments:
“Change is difficult. There are lots of people that would like to keep the city a sleepy little town. I appreciate that,” the mayor said. “If you want services, we have to increase tax dollars somehow. Where is that money going to come from?’
Lynn, how about the last part of the mayors comment to the quote you included in your column about the proposed new development in WPB. We all want the city to provide services, we also all know services cost money. Just like Mayor Jeri Muoio said in the PB Post article, “Where is the money going to come from?” Every time someone in our town ask for more services they should ask themselves the same question, where’s the money going to come from?
The last part of her statement is the same old rhetoric that we always have to listen to--it's a cookie cutter statement.
Long-term debt is not the answer. Live within your means...one of the beliefs of a major political Party and one belief to which I subscribe.
Come up with Plan B and shorten the term of the debt. Get rid of the slum and the blight and you will see a different LW where property values will go up.
"get rid of the slum and blight" is easier than done. Where do you start? There is so much of it and the scars go deep. You still need good infrastructure and a good foundation to build.
Some of the living within our means are out of our control, like pension liability which, along with police and fire take up too much of our budget. What is left is nowhere near enough to mount a decent Capital Improvement Project and still maintain all we have.
Homestead exemption after homestead exemption and the all non-profits and churches chip away at any taxable value that could help pay for the much needed improvements.
Guess where you could find money that EVERYONE would pay into. That's right, the utilities. Too high already? Well at least EVERYONE would be paying for the improvements on their monthly bill. Especially water because it is water system upgrades that are so needed in College Park and where fire hydrants are needed.
But that is where the $20 million we have now are already coming from. It can only be spent on water improvements not streets and sidewalks.
You also bring up all the fees "they are not telling you about" and the total, with interest we'll be paying back. This will occur with any amount we borrow. The bond writers always get a big chunk. If everyone paid attention to how much they really pay even for their own mortgage, they might look seriously into paying twice a month to drop their long term costs.
So we could break it up into pieces. Three separate bonds to vote for. One for water and fire hydrants, one for streets and sidewalks in areas not needing water and finally, one for the Park of Commerce.
1st one would most likely pass, the second would possibly eek by but the POC, our best hope for long term industrial taxable property value appreciation, down in flames.
So now, we'd have not so much debt... but less chance of being able to afford it without the extra POC taxes to help.
Hard decisions with little options. Just keep doing what we are doing? That's not very palatable either. What do you suggest?
Yeah, I have always said, "Let the poor people pay the same as the wealthy."
Your 3 bond issue sounds ok but I would like to see the actual costs broken down and exactly what money is designated for what. We all would be shocked!
There is never a good time to tax but this is the absolute worst time. Peter Timm and Laurence McNamara had good ideas.
Mr. Timm wants them to ask for a smaller amount and start piece-mealing it. Start with one district etc. "Worst first" sounds good but in reality it would be easier to lambaste them for that method once started calling it half-assed. I can almost hear it now, and from all the chronically negative ones we read here all the time. Especially the one who wants everyone running the city to call and "ask" her every time they want to take a dump.
How do you EVER resolve the 33% of properties pay for all the debt? Whether it's $60 million or $600K? I never heard McNamara's plan. I'd really like to hear Dee's plan.
2:54 you ask for solutions and then when you get them you call the people "negative" and be crude about it. :(
anony at 2:54. Chronically negative? What about independent thinkers who don't go around saying baa, baa all damn day jumping off of cliffs and just have some sense? The 30% seem to want to pay for the entire city. Go ahead. More stupidity going for you. You are going to pay for thirty years of neglect and pay for it into the next generation. Way to go. Talk about dumb. You don't think that College Park should pay for their own pipes up there?
No. I think the water utility should pay for the maintenance of their system. That means upgrading when needed. I believe that is what the $20 million they already have will accomplish. But it probably doesn't cover bringing the streets and sidewalks back up to acceptable condition. Same with storm water. We get a charge each month on our utility bill and have since Romano was mayor for storm water. That's got to be a pretty good sized pot of money and we can use that to "pay as we go". But, again, what about the roads and sidewalks?
You are right; I don't want to pay for the 70% of non-tax paying properties, but what are the alternatives? If there is no other way to pay for it and it really needs to be done, the city needs to go for the bonds. They are also doing a really bad job of selling it to us. I haven't heard ONE person say we don't need the infrastructure improvements. Just that the city won't crumble the day after the vote if not approved.
Of course not. But we hire people to run the city. These are not new problems. This commission has made it a priority. Vote it down if you like and make them start all over again. The conditions will not change much but the costs will surely go up.
Look-this is all smoke and mirrors. We HAVE the money to maintain our roads and sidewalks. But that's NOT GOOD enough for the crooks on staff and in office. They want to play pie in the sky. How many grant writers could we get for 400,000 per year? After all it's only the taxpayers money, right ?
My favorite part of the district one propaganda fest was when Maxwell kept mentioning "if there is a new Commission ". We can only hope, you blow hard, Scott. And by the way , NOBODY appreciated your time share-like pitch for almost 40 minutes. Desperate a little ? And then you have the nerve to tell the peons that had to sit through your windbag concerto that they "should keep their comments in question form "? Screw you and city staff, Maxwell.Even P., the faithful lap dog, was getting antsy!
Post a Comment