Odds and Ends from last Friday's City Manager's Report (2/19)...

Just getting around to catching up on things - this report came out last Friday and there are some things that jumped off the page.  One is the above regarding the separation of the Planning and Zoning Board from the Historic Resources Preservation Board.  Against the recommendation from staff, the Commission directed them to prepare an ordinance to split the board into two functional areas.  This has been a "pet dream" of Annabeth Karson and regardless of the impact on staff workloads or budget considerations, it appears those that are supported by Ms. Karson are for this answer to a problem that doesn't exist.  The real issue should be to plan for a planning and zoning support staff that is adequate to support the needs of the city - in number of people, experience and talent.  This is going ahead even though the City Commission chose not to do a more major overhaul of the Historic Preservation ordinance and not create two more very large districts west of Dixie Hwy - even with a state grant that would have paid for half of the re-study of the area in question.  If this goes through, in the future look for in-fighting between the two boards and much confusion by the public about which process to follow if they live or have property in a historic district.  This will turn out to be another reason not to invest in Lake Worth and chase whatever remaining redevelopment possibilities out the door.  So goes it with the current regime.

Does anything seem backwards to you with the above items related to the Casino building?  Should the market analysis have come before the RFP for the leasing of the vacant units at the building?  Or was this just another fool's errand due to the coming uncertainty of how the building will be left open during its rehabilitation?  Or is this another example of getting someone we know will tell us what we want to know - lower rents for the Casino building tenants - and then have the ability to wave that in front of people who think that rates for the tenants are below market?  And, isn't this someways premature since we are not sure what is happening with the building and an open space may be a good thing to shuttle tenants to, on and off as the need arises during reconstruction?  And isn't it also premature since I am sure it does not include a "what-if" analysis of what the rents would be given a brand new building built to today's commercial standards?  Oh, and has anyone done a cost analysis of what a new building versus an new/old building will cost?  Wouldn't that be nice to know?