When our city commission came to power, it did a complete and unorthodox sweep of the Planning & Zoning Board as well as the Historic Board and packed them with their friends. Highly qualified and a Senior Planner for Palm Beach County, Erin became a victim of the political juggling maneuver. It's great to see her back on the board and giving time to Lake Worth.
Last night was the first of a three step process to upzone some of the Gulfstream parcels that are still in a multi-family residential zoning so that Hudson Holdings can make their property more valuable and be allowed to build to 65 feet.
Hudson Holdings never told anyone 1.5 years ago that they wanted to build another hotel nor did they mention a parking garage. They blitzed into town, thanks to John Szerdi, and told us, to our face, that they were going to renovate the building within 9 months. So, what happened? Slum, blight, vagrants, code violations and a lien.
Obviously, they acquired dreams of grandeur and were told they would get what they wanted...be able to get approval for another building and a parking garage...and they were told they had better go for a zoning change to do it all. They tried to steal our casino complex. Our city is extremely compatible that way.
What happened last night on a 7/0 vote was setting up the property to be more valuable so that Hudson Holdings can make tons of more money from their original investment. No one believes they are going to be the owners of this property once it is all through, other than a few naive people in this city.
The one thing they were not told but were very much aware, was the Charter Amendment. The City is being very quiet on that one hoping that democracy will finally be flushed down the toilet. That could very well be the stickler. Elections and the will of the people should reign in this country, not developers wants and desires. It is about the people.
Nine residents spoke against the up-zoning and six people spoke in favor of what Hudson wants to do, three of whom are snowbirds who live in the Gulfstream Condos that face Bryant Park. If my memory serves me correctly, these two women were the same who complained about getting a decal sticker at our beach. Former commissioner John Szerdi took care of that complaint as well. They are not voters here so the hell with our Charter Amendment. They have been promised a parking spot by Hudson in their plans for a parking garage and are hoping for their parking problem at their condo to be solved as well.
The motion went something like this: The HRPB recommends approval to the commission of 15-01300001 and recommends appropriate scaling of the project on the southern part of the property. It also recommends unity of title.
A few members of the board did not want the buildings to go that high (they can go 65 feet with the zoning change) near 1st Avenue South and William Waters brought up compatibility to adjacent properties.
It will now go before the City Commission, the very same majority that did not honor the vote of the people, on December 8 for the First Reading and on January 5 for the Second Reading.
19 comments:
This board is an embarrassment to the term "Historic". One board member actually asked if he would be violating Florida law if he voted no to giving a developer what they demand.Another board member didn't even know where the parcel they were discussing was! So much for looking at your back up.
The attorney for the city out and out lied to and mislead the board on several critical points.The municipal election of March 2013 DOES matter with regards to this up zoning.She mentioned the tri board meeting at the golf course but neglected to tell the board THAT THE CONSENSUS OF ALL PARTIES AT THAT MEETING WAS 45 feet maximum height in that area.And that includes COMMISSIONER SCOTT MAXWELL who voted for the 45 feet heights.
We as tax payers must demand an end to these blatantly political and incompetent unelected boards.
Pudgy Fisher was there and as usual she only waddled to the front to speak after Lynn and Katie had spoken !!!Hey Pudgy, move your garbage cans or we'll code you !
Orphan piglet looking for father: Fears he may have become bacon.
Thank you! Stated very concisely and accurately. We need to get more people informed and interested so that this is a major point to be addressed in the next election. The gang of 3 and Bornstein will railroad this through no matter what the people of Lake Worth want. Now I fear our "small town character" will be buried with developers building to 65' right down the center of town and out. Maybe we should advertise a 2 for 1 Christmas sale for developers from Santa??
The Lawyer (9:15 pm) cautioned the Unelected,
Unaccountable Unwatched Board to stop all conversation
about this topic because the Public Hearing was over...
interesting but not surprising!
Annon at 9:30, your comment shows that you have no idea what our commission did to lower heights in the city. The fact is that only one type of building and get approval for 65 feet in height and that is a hotel that has 50 or more rooms. This can only be built in a limited area of the city east of Federal between Lucerne and 1st Ave south. All other areas of the city including our downtown are protected. Prior to this change in the law, a developer could build up to 65 feet downtown. So what the commission did was to protect the city from tall buildings but allow in only a very small area a hotel This was done because it was decided that the hotel would have a major economic benefit to all of us who live here and pay high taxes. So when you say our "small town character will be buried with developers building to 65 feet" you need to tell us where this will happen under our new laws.
Sorry, the election said 45 feet. It doesn't matter what this commission wanted and what they say is the law. All of this can be changed by an ordinance allowing other properties to do the same by allowing other uses, not just a hotel, to go 65 feet. What the city did was spit in the eye of the voters. That's the truth of the matter. I hope those voters gather together and sue.
10.23 so wrong, they can build tall buildings all the way through downtownm more Luverne buildings, South to 2nd ave south and all the way up to 2nd ave. north, tall buildings right on top of small historic homes since they are ignoring the height ordinance that we passed.
11:09 So Wrong.An election and a CHARTER Amendment now in effect trump an ordinance every time.Ordinances change every time the wind blows
Again, the law in Lake Worth does not allow heights in excess of 45 feet in our downtown. The old law allowed 6 story buildings. No matter how you try to distort it, this commission substantially lowered the heights in this city. Only a hotel can go to 65 feet and only in a very limited area of the city. If you think that's unfair or that our current laws allow 65 foot buildings all over the city you are wrong. No one spit in the eye of anyone. What happened was a compromise that a small group of folks just can't accept. That compromise was simple: lower heights all over the city except in one small place and for only one type of building. That is more than fair to me.
The only SMALL group is you and the other 2 commissioners!
The voters decided this issue and won by 56%.
That IS the only thing that is fair, anonymous at 1:59.
State statute trumps your vote to change land use apparently. Height limitation is part of land use.
lol. The law does not allow heights in excess of 45' in our downtown . . . except for where it allows heights in excess of 45'. Thanks for the laugh! And YOU are the one distorting in order to confuse other readers here.
This commission substantially lowered heights in this city . . . except for where they raised them, you dolt.
What you think is fair or a compromise is irrelevant. That's what elections are for. You're either stupid or you're a liar. You're definitely a coward, to spew your nonsense and hide behind anonymity. Pffft.
Laurel,
He/she isn't a dolt, coward, stupid or a liar or any other degrading name you wish to call him/her for their opinion. If you can't win the argument, try name calling to shut them up. Seems to be the democrat answer now.
What was stated is pretty accurate. The compromise that was offered by the commission but rejected by those not willing to compromise (you) WAS fair. It allowed only hotels, in a hotel district, to exceed the maximum height you insisted on, by 20 feet. While the presentation Wednesday night showed how 65' high buildings could not overshadow a single story building, which was one of the scare tactics of your successful campaign. HH only wants to go 5 stories for the new hotel where they could go 6 stories. Yes, you won the vote, but the vote was ruled by our own city's legal counsel to be "null and void" by a State Statute that was retroactively applied.
You started a suit to have the vote and charter amendment enforced but for some unknown reason, dropped the case. There was to be a big announcement of the reason the suit was dropped but none ever surfaced. Maybe you are the coward or maybe you found the city's legal opinion was correct.
So pffft all you want. It appears this will at some point go to court and it may win. The attorneys certainly will. And you may well stop more progress for our struggling city. And if you do file suit, it may end up with the same consequences another lawsuit caused at our beach costing millions of yours and my tax dollars. Maybe the hotel will sit empty for another decade and that should make you happy as long as they can't build a building on their property consistent with ALL other buildings in the immediate vicinity.
Signed,
Another dolt, coward, stupid liar anonymous tax paying resident (did I miss one?)
@4:34am...
Laurel Decker commented under her own name, unlike you.
I think your last sentence sums it up.
You know as well as I, that if you post "here" under your own name, you get attacked relentlessly and subject yourself to physical harm only if you disagree with your anarchist/anti-development/anti-capitalist agenda. I remember you tried the "unless you give your name, I won't post your comments" and your participation went WAY down.
I post ideas. It is those that need to be debated. It is your blog and you choose to not post several of mine for what ever your reasons are. I think the reason is they are on point and don't shed positive light on your argument. Again, if you can't argue the facts, shut down the speech.
My last sentence is obviously parroting Laurel mocking the former poster as being all of those derogatory terms. The annoying gif to the right on this blog of Bob Barker punching Steve Michael sums up what you wish to do. Stop the exchange of ideas by what ever means.
If you are anonymous, then you lose credibility.
For one year, I did not allow ANY comments at all on this blog. It did not affect my readership as I recall. I decided to allow them based on the policy I created. There were so many offensive comments that were being triggered by politics in this city. There are so many NASTY people here.
You are absolutely right. The gif on Steven Michaels is exactly what I believe. He is a guy who bought an historic hotel and has done nothing to keep out the homeless, the animals, the slum and blight. He got rid of the security guard eons ago. He has not done one thing that he said he would do. And the meeting the other night is what it's all about--getting the re-zoning to make the property more valuable and viable for some investor/developer.
You first paragraph is one big laugh. You say, "your anarchist/anti-development/anti-capitalist agenda. You don't understand my politics at all even though I write nearly on a daily basis against socialists and support capitalism. What I do not support is handing over our city to developers and go against our vote...democracy.
Have a great day, coward!
What you stated that I objected to was *not* accurate. It was a mish-mash of comparing the charter now to the comp plan then, etc. It was untrue. It was entirely inaccurate. You either purposely tried to confuse people by being untruthful or you don't understand what you are talking about. You are a liar or you are stupid.
I'm so sorry I missed the meeting Wednesday, especially since the presentation "showed how 65' high buildings could not overshadow a one story building". Is it going to be an invisible 65' high building? Six story buildings are not going to save our struggling city any better than four story buildings. WPB, home to the massive condos, still has multi-million dollar budget issues every year. Delray, home to the four story height limit, does not.
Deciding that you don't like the results of a legal election, and then characterizing a violation of our current charter as a "compromise", and then implying that I somehow have the power to accept or reject this magnanimous gesture is idiocy. (ah, sorry. but if the shoe fits . . .) My suit against the city has not been dropped, and maybe I *am* a coward. Boo-hoo. I won't be making public announcements of my private business with my attorney. The city's position on this matter is dependent upon the opinion of the commission majority. Get it?
What would make me happy is some ethical leadership in this city. I'm done with this ridiculous conversation. If you're not going to post under your name, then I will assume that you stand to gain financially from this project, like our former commissioner and former Planning & Zoning Board Chairperson and our former Planning Dept employees. The list gets longer everyday. Which one are you?
As I' ve posted before, I expect to see the Gulfstream demo'd. The historic registration doesn't do anything to protect it and the City and the Historic Board are not going to protect it either, this is a zoning redo for the property, HH will continue to let the building deteriorate and then will sell it to another hotel outfitter who will demo the building an build a new 6 story hotel on both parcels. Mark my words, this is what will happen.
HH has already demod historic buildings in Delray they have lots of friends in power here at the City, I see it coming.
Post a Comment