No this isn't a soft shoe shuffle dance move. It's a heel to butt kick; it feels like Greater Bay all over again. The City of Lake Worth is complicit, working behind the backs of its citizens to get rid of our beach because they have no one capable to manage it or maintain it, so they say. Can we get new staff please? Is this going to be another law suit down the road? The good citizens of this great little city always are taking one step forward but commissions, especially this one, always ensure that the one step results in two steps back.
The pool bottom was filthy on Monday evening
The city is entertaining a plan to give a long-term lease to a company that will, once again, change our beach park forever and possibly shut down our pool and cement it in. Who knows as it was all out of the Sunshine other than for 30 or so people who attended their "by invitation only" meeting. It's time for the Friends of the Lake Worth Pool to revive itself and get active.
Yesterday, Hudson Holdings, the company that John Szerdi is affiliated with and must recuse himself on any decision affecting the city by them, had a meeting at the Glasshouse in the Bryant Park neighborhood adjacent to their Gulfstream Hotel. They told the invitees (all property owners of the Gulfstream Condo Association), their plans going forward: a parking garage and a 65 foot addition to the hotel and them possibly getting their own private parking space and membership to the new Beach Club they will be building at the beach depending on the city's decision. They are not the least bit worried about the referendum the people won at the polls to keep it at 45 feet.
They also talked about our casino/pool property and from the sounds of it, Lake Worth is about ready to negotiate a long-term lease with them. Fifteen people attended the Negotiation Committee meeting on November 4, 2014. We, as citizens, have not yet been told about this out of the Sunshine negotiation. As I previously reported, our city attorney, Christy Goddeau is not allowing any information out on this to the public to how many entities replied to the ITN or what's going on. But Hudson Holdings is an exception? Now you have to wonder if it has anything to do with their strong connection to John Szerdi. Hudson can invite all owners in that condo but no one else can know anything?
The City issued the ITN in September 2014 and received the initial replies. Attached are the minutes for the public meeting held on 11.4.2014 to discuss the next steps in the process pursuant to the ITN. Since that time, the Negotiations Team has been having meetings and reviewing the replies. The meetings and replies are exempt from the Public Records laws and the Sunshine Law at this time (see section 286.0113(2)(b) and 119.071(1)(b)(2), Florida Statutes).
Didn't we just spend $13 million at our beach? Even though our beach and casino had a major overhaul, the city wants to incur another public/private partnership it seems. Getting rid of the responsibility is easier than doing the job yourself. Where have we heard that before? I guess it enjoys lawsuits.
The city is seeking the following:
Casino Beach Complex Expansion
Notes from an Atendee at the Hudson Holdings meeting regarding our beach:
Participating in ITN
per Steve Michael of Hudson Holdings:
“[Hudson Holdings is ] participating in the ITN [Invitation to Negotiate – regarding development and management at the Lake Worth Beach]”
“Pertains to the land to the south of the casino”
“A 1 acre parcel of land”
“Our plan is to build a beautiful Beach Club and Conference Center”
“Membership [would be available to 15 S Golfview Residents]”
“A great amenity [for residents of 15 S Golfview, and others?]”
“We try to bring value to the community”
“[It (the property next to the Gulfstream) will be] a parking garage integrated into a very high end hotel”
“Beachfront acre and a half [parcel]"
"It would be a long-term ground lease"
"We would put close to $30M into the beach"
"20,000 sq. ft. of conference space"
"The ITN is directing the second hotel" [at the Gulfstream]
"We've been working on this for 6 months"
"We're trying to do it as fast as possible"
Hudson says they will build 20,000 sq. ft. of conference space. This drawing is to show you how big that would be.
What the hell? Look,the law is the law. The Gulfstream can only build to 45 feet. THAT is the LAW. Torcivia's OPINION DOES NOT OVERRIDE a legal election by the people of Lake Worth.Hudson Holdings had better beware. If they follow the city's advice to ignore the law, they WILL be taken to court. If they have been stupid and arrogant enough to flaunt the law and begin to build ANYTHING over the legal 45 feet, they will have to tear the building down after they lose in court.WARNING-WE WILL SUE THEM AND KEEP THEM OR ANYONE ELSE BREAKING OUR LAWS IN COURT FOR AS MANY YEARS AS IT TAKES !!!!
ReplyDeleteSzerdi,Maxwell and the rest will be revealed for the corrupt ass holes that they are!I hope that they will go to jail !
The lawyers Chitty Goddammit and Gin Tivoli certainly TRIED to keep it out of the Sunshine, but they've just been outed. Luuuucy,you got some splainin to dooooo !!!!!
ReplyDeleteLynn, what seems to be the prob? Maybe the beach will start making money....
ReplyDeleteYour "law" was ruled "null and void".
ReplyDeleteA comprehensive land use change is the only proper way to change land use designation.
And the only place you can build any higher than 45 feet is in the "hotel district" which happens to be right around the Gulfstream Hotel by our rules that are part of the Land Development Regulations taking some 8 years to produce.
The "hotel district" is not downtown.
That's cute but I ask, why do you care? It would be Hudson Holdings making the money, NOT the city.
ReplyDeleteTake it some where else to someone who might care what you think of this outrageous idea.
@4:59--you just don't seem to understand this although I have mentioned it time after time.
ReplyDeleteThis referendum that was won at the polls, can NOT be overturned by the city until it is adjudicated in a court of law.
Right now it is 45 feet.
It is not being OVERTURNED by the City, but by the State. If YOU have a problem with that call Ricky Boy, I am sure you have him on speed dial.
ReplyDeleteThese corrupt people won't give up. You notice they are trying to hide it all before the election? Everyone, please contact the city and file a complaint. Do something. Perhaps we all should go to the Common Ground Church and pray. Give them support and God will give us some. Commissioner Szerdi and Commissioner Amarosa, Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeee.
ReplyDeleteThe charter amendment did not address a land use designation . . . it was only 75 words and they were very easy to understand. It limited heights, no matter what the use.
ReplyDeleteThe CITY is NOT honoring the vote and are using this "law" as an excuse. They could if they so chose.
ReplyDeleteNow, the only one that I know who would possibly have Governor Scott's nubmer on speed dial is Scott Maxwell.
If I am not mistaken did not Ms. Decker start a lawsuit against the City, and then drop it. I remember you saying we were going to get a grand revelation, we the people are still waiting months later and still nada. Did she just realize she could not win, and that is why you have been so silent. Come on Lynn spread some more dirt we have an election in less that 2 weeks.
ReplyDeleteWes, the ONLY person spreading dirt is you. You do it better than any living person.
ReplyDeleteI have said to you before, if you want to know about the lawsuit, ask Laurel Decker. Maybe she will tell you.
I think I saw it on this blog that there would be an announcement about why the lawsuit was dropped. Am I wrong? It had a timeline like in the next few days or something like that. But it was to be addressed by Laurel.
ReplyDelete@8:35...I answered this in my post at 8:20. Please ask the Plaintiff. Only she and her attorney have the answers. I would guess that it was decided not to give a reason and keep any legal strategies concerning this to themselves.
ReplyDeleteOf course private interests want to get their greedy paws on our beach. This has been going on for years now and we keep rejecting it bc we want our beach to stay public and to stay a recreation area.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad I learned about this now and nit after the election.
Since it's been asked several times on here and stated the reason would be forthcoming, but now we'd have to ask her individually why the lawsuit was dropped, we'd have to assume it was because it was determined to either cost too much to pursue or was a losing proposition.
ReplyDeleteMaybe like in Ponce Inlet where the citizens held a referendum very similar to ours, it was found to be null and void as well meaning that if you desire to do anything that would amount to a comp plan change, like change your charter to reflect different height maximums, you have to first go through the process for a comp plan change, then change your charter to reflect that change.
Not saying I agree with that, but that appears to be the case and Laurel can't or won't confirm or deny it.
Maybe the city attorney gave his clients good advice.
The city attorney did what he was told to do thanks to William Waters' friend who knew the law might be signed by Rick Scott 3 months after the heights vote took place which was won against the city. It still has to be decided by a judge unless thee is a statute of limitations on reviving it. if I were Hudson Holdings, I would be finding out about that little cog in their wheel.
ReplyDeleteWhy should Laurel talk about it really?
I don't know anything about the process you describe above to be the fact but it is interesting. The citizens are allowed to change the Charter.
I wonder how many posts you fail to approve. Must be a lot. ��
ReplyDeletePlease read the policy. It is clear. No lies or personal attacks...no mentioning people are gay for some reason to go after them, whatever. You guys take the cake.
ReplyDelete