Comment Up
Nothing drives me more crazy than to read an article such as the Palm Beach Post article in today's paper regarding the Gulfstream Hotel and its owner, Hudson Holdings.
Hudson Holdings says it has a $60 million dollar project on their Gulfstream Hotel property and all they need is for the commission to upzone the parcels so that they can proceed. What the paper should have said is that by approving this upzoning it will allow Hudson Holdings to "move forward with its ALLEGED $60 million plan to restore..." They need to sell that "dream" to a big hotel chain.
What the newspaper also should have said is that there is a Charter amendment that disallows what they want to do.
Hudson Holdings bought this property. They never said at the time that there was any proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations on their buying it. The never said that they needed an upzoning. This is private property and the city does not involve itself with that, or does it? They didn't buy this with the insistence that the city upzone these parcels in order for them to make big bucks on their investment. They were going to renovate it and get it opened. At least this is what we know. We do not know what was promised by those in power or if Hudson or any of its representatives ever approached the city government. We do know that former commission, John Szerdi, an employee of Hudson Holdings, brought them to town.
"The situation is a mess."
~ Vice Mayor Scott Maxwell
And I agree. It's a mess and the direct cause of the mess is wholly attributed to Maxwell, Triolo and Amoroso.
6 comments:
I really can't understand the negative attitude to the Gulfstream Hotel. Lets all admit that everyone wants this hotel open and running. Now lets look at what the owners want to do with the property. They want to renovate the hotel and add on to it. This would essentially make that entire corner piece of property very valuable. They need the upzoning to accomplish that. If the city denies that request what do we really gain. The property has less value which means it generates less in taxes. Why would it be in the best interests of our citizens to keep this property less valuable? There is no good reason not to up-zone this area of the city which is surrounded by 6 story buildings.
Nest you argue that there is no guarantee they will renovate the hotel and they may just sell the property. That is true but remember if the property is sold it will be sold at a profit which will immediately increase it's tax value. The new owner will want a return on that investment and will start the work on the hotel.
My point is what sense does it make to fight this when we as a city lose each day that property sits there empty and closed. This is not public property like the beach. The owners of private property always want to make a profit off their investment and that is the way it should be. All we should be concerned about is that the project benefits the city. Lets stop shooting ourselves in the foot just because we fear development. We all want a hotel and we all benefit from the taxes, tourist income and jobs it will create. Of all the battles to pick I see no reason to make this a political football unless you want to stop this city from moving forward.
We, i.e. our anemic general fund, gets no benefit from any increase in property taxes as this property is in the C.R.A. district and any and all increase of taxes in this district goes to the C.R.A. rather than the City's coffers.
The citizens voted to keep the height here at 45' and amended the Charter to reflect that desire.
The City has to pay for the costs of concurrency with no increase of incoming revenue. The property value for the City remains whatever it was when the C.R.A. was established.
Moving forward can mean respecting the vote of the people, respecting the rights of adjacent property owners, and respecting the desire of the majority of Lake Worth citizens who moved here because it is not Ft. Lauderdale, Singer Island, Boca, West Palm Beach, or Boynton, but a community uniquely low rise amidst a sea of politician enabled developer greed eating up the skyline and Floridian ambiance.
Arguing that the City gets no benefit from an increase in the taxable value of this property is just not true. Every dollar that goes to the CRA benefits this city. It allows us to pay off loans faster and it is used to benefit the city. To say that any increase in the taxable value of CRA property is not helpful to the city tells me that yo fail to recognize the benefits the CRA gives this city. It also fails to take into account that The CRA district will at some point no longer be needed as the properties in those areas will be a thriving part of our community and at that point all those tax dollars will go into the general fund.
This commission lowered the height limits to 45 feet almost everywhere except in the new hotel district for the sole purpose of getting this hotel opened. That action fully respected the will of the majority of our citizens. To make a stand over one extra floor of height makes no sense when the benefits of this hotel far outweigh any argument you could make about the "will of the people". To say that the majority of our citizens would not grant this height limit to the hotel is just not true. I say the majority would give this hotel 65 feet if they just would geter done.
@12:11--we hear you but it's not about what you want, or your bosses want (Hudson Holdings) or what developers want or what investors want--it is WHAT THE VOTERS said that they wanted...45 FEET. Why do you keep arguing that fact. "OH, I say that the majority wants 65 feet but they LOST the election, oh dear...those damn voters are clueless."
The stand is over the VOTE.
The stand is not over one more floor which could go higher. If anyone is taking a stand on this it is the city, three commissioners and Hudson Holdings.
GET IT?
The only thing that stands is the vote. And it's really too bad that the city is forcing a lawsuit.
Nobody is forcing a lawsuit. You guys sue every time you don't get your way so why should now be any different? Typical dysfunctional people. "You made me do this." waaaaaaaaaaa
The other odd factor in this is that you keep complaining Hudson Holdings is incompetent and can't build anything, but you are also complaining they are going to sell the property to a "real" developer or "real" hotel. Wouldn't that benefit the city more?
The best part in all this nonsense is that Triolo, Maxwell and Amoroso are laughing in your faces and could care less if more of your unqualified candidates get elected in March. They're doing what they think is best for the city and realize that you guys know squat and there's no reason in hell for them to listen to you. At all, ever. That takes conviction. Something you wouldn't understand. Maybe you can get your friend the para legal to explain that to you.
I have no problem with the Gulfstream upzoning if it were premised on an actual proposed project but the project is really just an idea or proposal there is no real project being proposed, there are no promises tied to this upzoning.
More than likely, HH will take its upzoning and flip it and more than likely the Gulfstream will never be reopened, it will be neglected for another 5-10 years until it has to be demolished and the new property owner will build a new hotel.
Sad but likely.
Post a Comment