But first, if it’s true people are “bored and tired of hearing about the problems at the Casino all the time” then why do blog posts like these generate so much traffic?
The closing of the City’s municipal pool at the Beach adds another whole dimension to these issues. In a bad way? No. Actually the pool being closed, possibly never to reopen at the Beach, may be one of the solutions to all these problems created by a prior administration back in 2010.
Below is one of many examples of very poor planning when the ‘newly renovated’ Casino was constructed. Here is the problem: While having lunch at Benny’s last December an emergency vehicle responded to a call at the Beach:
|This emergency vehicle impeded one lane of traffic and meanwhile. . .|
|. . . another vehicle was making a delivery. Only a narrow lane was open for two-way traffic. One car at a time with pedestrians and bikes using the road as well.|
Parking for large commercial trucks is inadequate at the Beach and there is also no loading dock at the Casino structure to handle large vehicles. This planning issue simply wasn’t addressed, or was ignored, by a previous City administration. In 2012 a new majority took over the City Commission and five years later we’re still dealing with all this, ergo my New Year’s Wish for 2017.
Hope springs eternal and I’m confident 2017 will be the year to put most of the issues at the Beach to rest, like the leaking 2nd floor of the Casino and discussion about what to do with the crumbling municipal pool.
But the big problem with the Casino will not be solved for a very long time. Why? Because the fundamental problem is the Casino is in the wrong place. Instead of being in the center of the Beach property it occupies the far northern part. But did you know there was once a solution to this problem? There was. However, the public was never given the chance to see another plan:
|Remember the Greater Bay site plan with a Casino structure in the center of the property with a parking garage? Sadly, this plan was never presented to the public for consideration and ended up with the City settling a lawsuit for $1.6 million.|