I doubt if there is one person in this city that would not like to see the Gulfstream Hotel renovated, rebuilt and opened. It has been way too long that this historic structure has been allowed to go to blight and decay by the past two owners. The hotel must be a special exception as it is not even being coded.
Through the years, we had these owners appeal to the city to get every waiver imaginable that they said they just had to have in order to make their business plan work. They brought in their design architects and their lawyers. It has all been a heavy duty body blow. Hudson Holdings even has a former commissioner working on its behalf as well as a local blogger who was the former chair of the Historic Resource Preservation Board. The company gave to majority commissioner campaigns.
The attitude was hell with the city and its Charter. The hell with the zoning--that can be changed with a 3 to 2 vote. And hell to the people. The city's Historic Board and the city commission listened to them, desperate for a promise that may never be fulfilled until such time the owners, Hudson Holdings, can suck the blood to the very last drop.
Then the city, along with three commissioners, dishonored the will of the people on the Heights Charter Amendment. They ignored the vote all for the developer and his promise to open this hotel and his need to do what he wanted even though he could have built a four story on the vacant land.
Then all of this catering to an investor/flipper/developer paid off in a lawsuit filed by three residents looking out for rights--your rights--my rights.
Hudson Holdings, if it was serious, could have demolished those out buildings eons ago. They could have started to renovate the hotel as promised when they first arrived on the scene. But then they saw $$$ in their eyes and knew how to jerk around elected officials. They haven't renovated the hotel--none of this has happened. Why? Well it's not the lawsuit.
On Tuesday night, our city attorney, Glen Torcivia, brought up the lawsuit stating that the Plaintiffs filed their appeal which means it goes to the 4th District Court of Appeals. That's a beginning of a process. Generally, a brief would be filed about two months. There will be a response filed by the city. Usually, 30 days after that, another response will be filed. So, you're looking at 4 to 6 months before you get a ruling, said Glen.
At 1:31:26 into the meeting Commissioners Amoroso asks,
"Is it true that in our Ordinance or somewhere that they [Hudson Holdings] can not move forward [with renovations, development etc.] as long as there is a lawsuit pending?"
Glen Torcivia: "No, No. They're free to move forward but from their perspective, there's a risk...There are plenty of cases that do move forward."
10 comments:
This has been a horrible thing. I remember voting for a low-rise city and all the shenanigans that went on with those supporting development. Banners, money and bull shit. I was very happy that we won the vote. A vote doesn't mean anything to this city. it is very strange to me that they all got voted in again. Life is strange I guess.
It's obvious. Someone decided that they could make a whole lot more money if they could build higher and build new. the did their lobbying to get what they wanted. They almost got our beach. They don't want to do anything to the existing hotel.
This lawsuit has never been about the Gulfstream Hotel. It is about a referendum won at the polls on a charter amendment. This happened BEFORE the Gulfstream came into play.
Why do con men keep coming to lake Worth? It's not for the sunshine,it's for our corrupt ,stupid Commissioners who will say yes to any bright shiny object that gets waved before their beer-goggled eyes !
It has been apparent since they promised to have the reno done in 14 months 22 months ago, and have done nothing so far, that they never intended to put any money into the hotel but are looking to flip it for a profit.
Nothing has stopped them from redoing the hotel itself and tearing down the derelict buildings on the property.
Hudson Holdings and Steve Michael never had any intentions in renovating the Gulfstream. It's just a ruse to get free beachfront property to flip. And he's got the right folks in power now and vying for longer 3 year terms; and 10 times their annual salary in campaign contributions. He's just playing his cards to tear it down. And BONUS! he gets to blame it on the unruly citizens of Lake Worth, and our legal team and Bornstein will lead that libelous charge.
Think about it: he's a hedge fund flipper. Why the hell would he care about renovating an historic hotel? He flips for money. That's his trade. And his plan is to own 500 properties in Lake Worth. And he has a majority commission more than ready to jump to his commands for the right price.
And his buddy Scott Maxwell, who unfortunately is now VERY powerful, will once again try his magical signature move in giving away property publicly owned by the citizens to his cronies who just can't make it what's the word? Sustainable? Profitable? Of course we all know he will again try to prove that we just can't AFFORD our beachfront. OH, WHATEVER CAN WE DO?? WHY WE MUST TRY DONATING IT TO HUDSON HOLDINGS TO MAKE A PROFIT. And too bad. Those bad, bad, vocal troublemakers in Lake Worth BLOCKED us from renovating and restoring it to it's glory. Trust us, it wasn't us. Of course we didn't refuse to do even basic maintenance or code requirements... It WAS THEM. THE DASTARDLY CITIZENS OF LAKE WORTH.
Too bad in the end we had to demolish it, just couldn't be helped, could it? And maybe we'll just have to flip our beach front too--after all this anguish. Sigh---
And the State of Florida deemed this referendum to be 'NULL AND VOID'.
Why aren't the litigants suing the State of Florida for that decision?
Anonymous at 10:29--this has been answered on so many occasions.
The State of Florida did NOT deem this referendum null and void...the City applied a post-facto law that did not apply and did that all by themselves. That is why there is a lawsuit.
Please explain how the city of Lake Worth can circumvent a state law without any legal repurcusions?
Please explain how any contractor would go through with any job knowing there was a pending lawsuit?
Please explain what the problem would be if they did in fact knock the old building down and put up a new one?
Please explain how the lawsuit was filed AFTER the variances were made for HH but you try to claim the lawsuit is not about the Gulfstream? Why wasn't it filed prior? The trio "ignored your vote" a long time ago.
Please explain how you can say everyone wants to see the Gulfstream open when it's you and your friends monkey wrenching every step of they way?
Please explain why you would expect the city or anyone else to take legal advice from you or anyone else that reads this drivel.
Please explain why you are a BROKEN RECORD and clueless?
You had one, only one, legitimate question. The owners can definitely knock down the iconic hotel. They own it and it's on private property. If I were they, I would do just that. So, why don't they do that?
Post a Comment