Beach Charter Amendment: Proposed Charter Language Next (8/4) City Commission Meeting

Click title for link to complete back-up material.

Why does this seem like an answer to a question that hasn't been asked? Its vagueness leaves more questions unanswered in the process. Let me explain.

First of all, this is put forth by Commissioner Jennings. She is the one that brought the so-called "Ethics Ordinance" before the City Commission right after the qualifying period for last year's election. She called it that on the campaign trail and liberally pointed out that then Commissioner Vespo didn't vote for it, which she thought was quite an indictment on him. People she talked to would usually gasp and hold their mouths shut with their hands in horror and say "Cara, say it isn't so." as they picked up her non-recyclable "Cara" lawn signs on their way out the door.

Never mind that it wasn't a complete "Ethics Ordinance" - something that then Commissioner Vespo called for. No, it was a prohibition from anyone making a contribution to a candidate that had, or might have in the future have, a contract with the City. Well, a lease is a contract. So, it turns out that Commissioner Jennings' favored candidate, the present Commissioner Mulvehill, sacked many $500 contributions from most of the tenants of the casino building. Had that "Ethics Ordinance" passed, she couldn't have accepted their contributions.

And, even with the celebrated "progressive" majority on the City Commission since November, we still do not have an ethics ordinance. This is also in lock step with the political history of Lake Worth - be sure to be on the "right" side of the beach issue and make sure to wheel it out prior to any election. This time it's a perfect distraction to the fact that nothing has happened at the beach and all appears to be in limbo - except for the continuing deterioration of the Casino building.

This proposed Charter amendment is offered in the same spirit. It's a not-so-subtle way to mobilize her voter I.D.'d base, get them to the poles and have them vote for "her" candidates. This is the way a political machine works.

This is how the acting City Attorney describes the "Program Impact" in the memo to the City Commission:This is how the proposed ballot language reads:

Let's analyze this. The use of the word "secure" here means to me that something will be locked away forever. There is no going back and that public recreation is somehow threatened at the beach. Public recreation as a "primary use." How is "public recreation" defined? At what point does it become "primary?" How is that quantified? How will this be enforced? Why is it needed? Most of the 19 acres consists of parking spaces and asphalt for automobiles? Is that the primary use? And what is the "beach?" Is it the entire 19 acre property or is it the strip of sand along the eastern side of the property?

The Charter of the City is like the Constitution to the United States. As such, you need to be cautious when you amend it. There is a reason that the Charter does not establish public recreation as a primary use - that's because it's addressed in the zoning code. Do we want to include zoning-types of regulations in the City Charter? Maybe some do, but the point needs to be made by someone. Here is the wording of the existing "Beach and Casino" zoning district:



Notice how recreation is a principle use in both the areas identified in the BAC zoning district. It even restricts retail square footage allowed to 7,200 s.f. - less than what is there now. The associated land use deisgnation restricts the square footage to 7.7% of the total square footage of the land area - I would say that is secondary to any public recreation space or parking lot by a long shot.

What are the "ancillary uses?" Are they buildings? See the phrase "currently constructed?" How is a "use" "constructed?" Answer: A "use" is not a physical thing, it's an activity. Does this mean we are protecting the current building east of the Coastal Construction Control Line? Does it mean that we are protecting and maintaining the existing building in the form that it is? Does the word "existing" as applied to "uses" refer to the current tenants of the building? Are we maintaining and protecting them and their operations by passing this ballot measure?

I think you could make a good argument for the importance of all these questions given the vagueness of the wording here. But, remember, if you ask questions you are against the environment, against preservation, against public recreation, for corporate greed, for tall buildings everywhere, for asphalt, against trees, against anything living, against John G's, etc, etc, etc.

Thanks Commissioner Jennings for the large helping of Motherhood and Apple Pie. Now, can we talk about what is really important?

It's too bad because this is a real fear that the community has and could be addressed in a responsible manner. This language just channels their fear into electing certain candidates.