Some things that are still concerning include the permitting for a building seaward of the coastal construction line, unforeseen budget implications, slippage already present in the schedule, permanent financing of the improved building and relocation details related to existing tenants that are interested in being part of the project. The budget assumes a contingency of $500,000 for pilings - structural supports under the existing slab which will likely be required due to the building's location east of the coastal construction line. What is not explored are the time implications if such an eventuality ends up being part of the project. Another $500,000 of the $6.5 million projection is a pile of other possible changes. No where have we seen what the budget will be for tenant relocation during construction.
Interesting that the opinion piece mentions an early 2013 opening for the finished project. Here is what the business plan for the project completed just last month says:
So it looks like we have had a six month extension of the project schedule already. While there are three different financial projections based on worst, better and best - all of them assumed the same time schedule. Time is money and not looking honestly at the time variable is troubling. The building will be delivered as a shell, with tenants responsible for finishing the space. This time is not part of the timeline.
Also concerning is what I am hearing from two candidates' camps that are running, ones that I will not be voting for, that think a vote for the other candidates is a vote against doing the beach. Here we go with the age old strategy of making the beach a pivotal political issue and putting words in the mouths of opposing candidates since it will motivate people to get the polls. I don't want to put words in the mouths of the candidates that I am supporting, but it is my impression that they are not against this project, they are simply concerned about certain important issues are not being addressed and swept under the rug for purposes of the election.
That is the problem with our polarized political spectrum in this city - honest debate is discouraged and villainization is encouraged. I am also deeply disturbed that an official city document - the RFQ for the construction manager at risk - contains a fabrication that previous projects involved the selling of the building to a developer. A 20 year lease is not selling the building to a developer. And don't forget we have the unresolved legal issue in the form of a multi-million lawsuit that has yet to be resolved. Where does that fit into the financial projections?
Can someone explain how this "bank loan" is going to work? What is the security for the loan? If it involves the good faith and credit of the city-at-large, why is this not a general obligation and subject to referendum?
And I am beginning to wonder if the small scale nature of this project will have this massive economic catalytic effect that the PB Post, Commissioner Mulvehill and most of the Commission think that it will have. The ocean isn't going anyway and is a constant draw regardless of what sort of building is there. Will this project be "iconic enough" to send 500,000 people a year to the beach? What will be the real economic benefit to the city? Yeah for doing something, but are we again underachieving our potential?
The headline of the opinion piece is also wrong due to the word "restore" being used. Yes we are planning to re-establish a tower at the northeast corner of the building - but this is new construction. The same can be said for the entire second floor over the northern half of the building - it's also new construction. How can that be restoring anything, really?
If you attended the charrette and want to add your commentary, please do so through the comments tab below.
![Dr. W. H. Cotton’s ode: “Oh, My Lake Worth, Florida!” [circa 1920].](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yhHyCn84ZIQ/WezjlEL-0tI/AAAAAAAAPZ4/CzkhriK6zpEJJ3d9Je1495d49gIhnMlxACK4BGAYYCw/s1600/LakeWorthPioneers.JPG)
