Thursday, October 1, 2015

Lake Worth Herald editorial on Hudson Holdings' proposal and the City's failed Casino complex

Below are two excerpts from The Lake Worth Herald (here is a link to the submittal by Hudson Holdings vis-à-vis the failed business plan at the Lake Worth Casino complex). To read the entire editorial, other City news, interesting historical items, etc., go to the papers website.

     Comes another proposal, a different idea, to help the City of Lake Worth deal with the hole on the beach into which the city continues to pour money. It is not like the City has any option at the time, at least until a better solution surfaces.
     The City tried using a realtor to fill the spaces at the casino when it re-opened after construction. It appears lease agreements and common area maintenance (CAM) fees don’t produce enough money to maintain the building (not the fault of the tenants) as the original business plan projected it would. [emphasis added] Parking fees have been raised to offset the costs of the building. 
     The City, in an effort to find a solution issued the Invitation to Negotiate which brought, for all practicable purposes, two proposals. 
     One of the proposals, brought by the original realtor of the building, was just another lease offer for the upstairs, un-leased space, along with more demands and a lower offering per square foot than the original tenants pay. It has been established, even with the upstairs leased, there is not enough revenue to maintain the value engineered building.

[and. . .]

     This is Lake Worth, and Hudson Holdings does own the Gulfstream Hotel. Those two facts alone will have two commissioners and their followers planting new signs opposing anything Hudson tries to do. They will be all about why the Gulfstream isn’t open yet. 
     They will never accept the fact there are two different business deals for Hudson here. One is the Gulfstream and the other is the Casino. Yes, one will help the other be successful and vice versa, and in the end, hopefully, Hudson will make money. 
     Oh yea, there is another reason some will oppose the project. 
     Hudson proposes to spend its own money to improve “public property” because it will enhance their other product. They are not proposing the taxpayer pay their way. 
     Maybe this isn’t the solution to the Casino fiasco, but it deserves a good open minded look. There are too many in Lake Worth, some elected, who automatically say no when the words “beach, casino, Gulfstream or Hudson” are used in a sentence. They are the ones who brought us the building plan that can’t pay for itself, much less pay the taxpayer’s money back.


mitch pomper said...

HH is asking the city toi issue a 6 million dollar bond for this project. Why would we do this? If HH does not pull this off the city and its tax payers are left holding the bag to the tune of a debt payment of $17,000 per month...i do not see how we can take this chance. HH has not shown any where in the country that they can pull of either the construction or running this complex

Anonymous said...

I agree with Mitch. Why ask the City to float a bond to pay for a parking garage? Why wouldn't HH cover this cost, since it is their proposal that would generate the need for additional parking. I see it as akin to developers having to pay impact fees for roads/schools affected by their projects.

Just Sayin' said...

Typical Lake Worth. Paralysis by Analysis. Too bad none of you numbskulls had the same misgivings when Commissioner McVoy screwed up the last project at the beach. HH deserves a fair listening to. LISTEN to the entire proposal and you might be surprised. Private developers are not all that evil. One of them probably built the house and office you all use every day. Dear blogger, do you have to publish each and every comment that gets sent your way? Please.