Letters to the EditorPalm Beach Post
October 16, 2015
Casino pitch not in city’s interest
In response to the article, “Developer returns with new casino pitch,” one concern I have that was not mentioned is that Hudson Holdings’ revised proposal calls for the city to finance a parking garage with a revenue bond in the amount of $3.5 million — $6.5 million, with interest.
Hudson Holdings has always promoted its project as one that will give city residents everything they want and will cost them nothing. It seems that has changed, and this should concern all city residents. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
The other issue noted by The Post and that has always been part of Hudson Holdings’ pitch to promote their project: They claim that the existing casino project is losing money. My understanding is that the beach complex is in fact operating in the black now, and that revenues are expected to increase.
A reasonable approach to maximize the revenue at the beach is for the city to first do the minimum amount of work necessary to get the casino’s vacant upstairs space in condition to be leased. Then allow time to see if it works and go from there.
To jump in with another big project, when the last one was completed only three years ago and without sufficient time to fully evaluate it, seems premature.
Ginny Powell,
Lake Worth
Steven, Steven, make my wish come true and start renovating that hotel. You're not going to do that are you? That never was the plan. Miserable scam.
ReplyDeleteThe parking garage would be paid for with a revenue bond. That means that the money collected from the tourists and non-residents who park at our beach would pay for the garage. I think we should build a garage ourselves and sit back and collect the parking money. We need to have the out of town users of our property pay their fair share of the costs of maintaining our beach.
ReplyDeleteGood letter, HH is nothing but a scam artist group. Expect to see them come back with a lawsuit since City is not responding to their proposed public/private proposal.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of Lake Worth citizens never did and do not now want a parking garage to despoil the ambiance of our beach park.
ReplyDeleteNext step in his con plan will be to be "reasonable", "compromise", and pay for this travesty himself as long as he can get his hands on the profit center-the Casino ballroom.
Our present City Manager has neglected improving the ballroom for his 3+ years so that it now rents at a fraction of its potential.
Why let a suspect developer erect something only he and a small minority of citizens want?
NO PARKING GARAGE AT THE BEACH!!! NEVER EVER EVER EVER!! THIS IS NOT EFFING FORT LAUDERDALE!!!
ReplyDeleteYeah, they gave the city 30 days to respond...what a crock. The city doesn't have to respond as they didn't ask them to submit anything else. If they sue, and to lots of people it is one big winnable game, the city had better not capitulate and give them one damn dime.
ReplyDeleteI am giving Hudson Holdings 30 days to withdraw its proposal to overdevelop our beach.
ReplyDelete@4:11--that is way too generous...give them ZERO days.
ReplyDeletethe only message they need to hear is HANDS OFF OUR BEACH. you too, Bornstein.
ReplyDeleteWe need more parking at the beach, period!!!
ReplyDeleteWhether the city or a bond would accomplish the fact remains... The parking revenue could and would pay for a parking garage.
The only problem if you redirect the parking revenue away from the general beach complex fund where it currently goes now... Is that the beach complex absolutely runs in the RED because that revenue helps pay for the failed business plan, failing Casino building, and currently subsidized tenants under market rents.
At least with more parking available, more people could enjoy the beach, the pier, restaurants and stores... And more cars being parked means more parking revenue.
That ain't too hard to understand.
What's hard to understand,anonymous at 9:13, is your constant political instance that there is some failed plan at the beach.
ReplyDeleteIt will be running in the RED in 2016 because this commission of Maxwell, Triolo and Amoroso added costs that we could not afford and could not justify through revenues--lifeguards, custodians and even a $100,000 yearly reserve. When they did that, they knew damn well we would be in the red. This is their plan. They easily could have raised the parking price or eliminated the extra costs.