A conversational potpourri with...

(my responses in bold - from a 2/8/09 conversation)
I am confident that Commissioner Mulvehill will fully disclose any contributions from beach merchants at the time of any vote on the beach.

Didn't she already vote to get out of the contract with Greater Bay? Didn't she vote for the various issues surrounding the RLI and RFP? I didn't hear any disclaimer The main reason I am making an issue about this is the proposed "pay to play" ordinance, how if you have a contract (a lease) with the city then you and your relatives can't make a contribution. It really points out the flaws in the proposed law. Most of the tenants at the beach do not live in Lake Worth and have benefited from a de facto subsidy of below market rents for a very long time and are more prosperous for it. Our focus should be on what is good for the tax-paying residents of the city of Lake Worth - not cater to a handful of tenants that could easily do business elsewhere.

She should make the disclosure prior to any discussion related to the beach...period...whether she votes or not. Cara would not want it any other way, would she??

The Pay to Play Ordinance is only in discussion. Personally, I think the Commission got carried away and bogged down on stupidity at the commission meeting on Ethics. Commissioner Mulvehill is not negotiating their leases at the beach. The merchants there are a by-product of saving the casino. That is all that they are. Whether a new building is built or that one is restored, the merchants have the opportunity to lease space at the beach regardless of Commissioner Mulvehill's quest to save the casino.

Also, I don't know why people are against our merchants and the rents that they have been paying. The City has done nothing in ten years to that building and the tenants have had to work around squalor at the same time making repairs to a building that does not belong to them. Revolting.

Cara Jennings is one vote.

So I guess it's a good thing that it didn't pass in September, huh?

That what didn't pass in September?

The Pay to Play ordinance

Wes, some of these Commissioners took the Pay to Play discussion to a whole new level of paranoia.

I know, the whole Commissioner Lowe thing and then Commissioner Vespo not voting for it. You're right.

Wes--Lowe was found guilty. She will now be fined for what she did.

Everyone should have voted for an ethics policy. I just don't want to see them get carried away because of all the corruption happening here in PB County. They should vote in a reasonable ethics policy as other municipalities and cities have implemented instead of making ours so stringent to the point of being ridiculous.

Besides Lowe's violations, the whole P2P ordinance was based on preventing bundles of maximum contributions to campaigns from people doing business with the city. Yes, let's have a sound ethics and not a patch for just one problem and then call it an "Ethics Ordinance" as C. Jennings did often on the campaign trail. She then used it to beat D. Vespo over the head with it.

Ok--we are getting closer.

Have a good evening.

You too XXOO

(from today 2/23/09)

It is not a tenant at the beach who supports Commissioner Mulvehill who wants to preserve our history and refurbish the Casino. She is not directly benefiting from the outcome.

These are special interest contributions: Why did they support her campaign so heavily? To influence the decision making so that they keep their sweetheart deals at the beach. As Commissioner, she should represent the interests of all citizens - which would include waiting for an objective analysis of costs for the two alternatives - refurbish or build new. She is acting on the tenants behalf here, not the broad interests of Lake Worth residents.

It is not Wes Blackman who took a campaign contribution from Adam Schlesinger, owner of The Gulfstream Hotel, for $500.

Big waste of money that was, huh? If I had gotten elected, you might have had a point. But if I had been elected, you can bet your boots I would have declared this contribution before any discussion on the Gulfstream at the Commission. Commissioner Mulvehill hasn't mentioned these contributions once on the dais.

First of all, Wes, I don't agree with you on any issue where it pertains to our beach and Casino. You can believe what you want and there might be some people influenced by what you "believe" and what you write but I would imagine that most people understand what pay to play is and what special interests are.

As far as Schlesinger giving you a campaign contribution, you are joking, right? You were the Chair of the P&Z, the very Board (corrupt in the minds of a lot of residents here) that gave him exceptions and extensions. It does not matter that you lost the election. He was counting on you to win. And if you had won, great...DISCLOSURE is a must when it comes to the Commission voting, something Retha Lowe did NOT do. Just because you lost the election, the Gulfstream is a HOT issue in this city and one in which you are still involved. Right now you sit on a major Board and The Gulfstream is in your CRA District, is it not?

As far as Mulvehill, she is acting on my interests. The tenants just happen to be a handful of people who want to keep their businesses after having them there for over 30 years. She is acting on the interests of those who voted for her, campaigned for her and gave her money for her election...people who believe in her. She is acting on behalf of all those people who signed the petitions for We Love Lake Worth PAC who want to keep the beach in the same configuration as it is now and retain the PROS zoning. She is doing exactly what she promised to do, which is a hell of a lot better than most elected officials today.

Last I looked, the beach property had "Beach and Casino" Zoning and Land Use designations, not PROS.

Perhaps, perhaps not. The DCA has not approved it. There is still a cloud or two hanging over it. You and Rinaldi are barking up the wrong tree. The last you looked it was changed by the City to BAC and they have even paid money to put it on the official MAP, a little pre-mature of them. Right now the P&Z is trying to push forward all the zoning changes recommended by---YOU.

I seem to remember resigning from P&Z in December 2006 - that's about two and a half years ago. Lots of water under the bridge since then.

What issues are left at the DCA level? The only clouds I know of come from your close group of associates.