Reading between the lines: The Policy of "No"

Looking back over the last few years, a pattern emerges in the outcome or response to major issues in the city of Lake Worth. I'd like to share of couple of items with you and I think you'll come to a similar conclusion: That the majority of the current Commission and their supporters find it easier to say "no" than to find ways to creatively say "yes" to change, to investment and to a better quality of life for Lake Worth residents.

Back when Mayor Marc Drautz was elected, I was sitting as chairman of the Planning and Zoning, Historic Resources Preservation Board (PZHRPB). That was March of 2005. It happened to coincide with the time when the economy was fundamentally different than it is now. As we now know, billions and billions of dollars were available in the credit markets for the purchase and development of residential housing units. The "boom" in south Florida started in Miami and crept up the coast and found its way to Lake Worth. This phenomenon was a global, national, regional and eventually local event.

Nothing of any major consequence had been built in Lake Worth for years. Suddenly, we found ourselves with PZHRPB agendas full of requests for townhouses. Many of these projects were proposed along major corridors in the city and usually involved the demolition or relocation of sometimes historic structures in order to accommodate the new housing units, the additional tax base, creating a buffer for the interior neighborhoods and attracting people with disposable incomes that could help support our local economy. When proposals started coming in for our historic residential areas already zoned 20 and 30 units to the acre north and south of our historic downtown, many people - especially those that supported Mayor Drautz - called for a "moratorium" on development. Period - end of story. Here we saw the Policy of "No" first come into play. (Some might argue that was back when the beach bond issue failed in 2002, but that's for another discussion.)

If you recall, at the time we were well into our Master Plan leading to Comprehensive Plan and new Zoning Code process. We had been through much of the solicitation of public input and had a bevy of consultants handy that were involved in the process. We - the PZHRPB - came up with a way to protect the most historically sensitive areas of the city. I remember saying many times that we had to "preserve what makes Lake Worth, Lake Worth." That way was a series of "zoning in progress" measures that could be implemented right away and not have to wait for the ultimate approval of a Comprehensive Plan or change in the Zoning Code. That ultimate change has yet to happen, by the way.

It was difficult to put together this "zoning in progress" and it took no less than about ten (10) public meetings before the Stakeholders Advisory Committee, the PZHRPB and the City Commission. But it passed and, generally speaking, everyone walked away satisfied that our most precious historic assets were protected from speculation and that redevelopment was left to areas where the city needed it the most. This was courtesy of heavy lifting by a lot of people. It represented a Policy of Creative "Yes" - where there was a win-win and where there was compromise.

Our current Policy of "No" offers no compromise and usually results in a lose-lose result. Allow me to illustrate.

The basis for our re-make of the Comprehensive Plan (once the new one gets adopted) was to make sure we transitioned between residential and commercial properties when they redeveloped. It also was to lay the basis for bonuses in height and density if there were other public goals being met by the project - like affordable/workforce housing, a mix of uses, green building techniques, promotion of biking or mass transit etc. In order to get the private sector to perform the way the city wanted them to, they would have to do what we wanted as part of their project. But they also would get to benefit through additional return on investment in the form of more square footage and/or additional units. But, the benefit had to outweigh the cost - from an investment point of view.

Under Commissioner Jennings' proposal, where is the incentive for the private sector to help achieve public sector goals by limiting height to 25' and giving just one floor as an incentive? We actually don't event know exactly what the Commissioner's proposal is since it hasn't been in writing or distributed. I understand that the current PZHRPB chairman doesn't have a copy either. Is this going to be offered to the PZHRPB to review even? From what I have heard about the changes, and already touched on in this forum, is that they are right in line with the Policy of "No" - no investment, no redevelopment, no jobs, no public benefit - just continued conditions of slum and blight.

Let's move on to the water issue which is another example of the Policy of "No" in action. Quick time line: We studied whether to do our own Reverse Osmosis plant or go with Palm Beach County, we chose to be a "full service city" had have our own RO plant, we started to build the plant but were stalled when the disposal method (ocean outfall) couldn't get permitted, SFWMD limited the amount of water we could draw from the existing aquifer and we had a projected shortfall without the RO plant coming on line. We were then forced to negotiate with the County for water with no other alternative. That would have provided more water than we need. According to the current city commission, the agreement is terrible from the city's point of view. So we're not abiding by it. We stiffed the County on a $6 million payment and we are still waiting for the County's response. We are now going forward with another RO plant - funding through our water rates that will increase from last years' over 86% in five years. Our current water rates are already higher than most Palm Beach County communities.

What is the sum total effect of another action based on the Policy of "No?" Our water system may not serve our needs during the heaviest need times of the year - making a "no water in the pipes" scenario a possibility, if not a probability. This could go on for two or three or more years until our own new RO plant in on line. Commissioner Jennings wants big signs at the city limits now saying, in essence, "Go Away - Water Crisis in Lake Worth." If that doesn't do it, then a quick analysis of new residents' and potential investor's water cost in relation to other area communities will make their decision whether to invest in Lake Worth or not for them...and us.

Now, granted water is a very real resource issue that we all have to grapple with and the sooner the better. But how is leaving the city without any options other than draconian water conservation measures - or (and you bet your boots this is coming) a moratorium on development. Wouldn't we then have come full circle and then between the way redevelopment is regulated and the way the city's water situation, we have what supporters of the Policy of "No" wanted all along - nothing to happen. Period.

This Policy of "No" extends into city staff. I have always said during my career in both the private and public sectors that the easiest answer a bureaucrat can give is "no." Nothing to justify, don't need to stick your head out, just say "no." Well, the Policy of "No" ends up doing nothing about the log jams in the building department, code enforcement or utilities customer service. Getting to Creative "Yes" solutions would mean being held accountable, opening the door to change and subjecting yourself to those that don't want to talk about all the potential of Lake Worth. Many would like to throw a little more dirt on the city's sign, just to make sure someone wouldn't make the decision to move or invest - actually wanting to improve the quality of life here.

Yes, we have potential, but that doesn't mean much if we let it sit on the shelf and collect dust. Other municipalities are all about positioning themselves strategically for a better future in a wildly dynamic environment. The days of looking the other way and "lose-lose" solutions must come to an end. We need leadership that can lead us to a Creative "Yes" where compromise is not a dirty word and everyone goes away with something.