Balance and Geographic Representation on Appointed Boards

This is an attempt to map out the locations of members of appointed boards in Lake Worth.  The red figures indicate careers related to the work of the advisory board; yellow figures indicate no relevant career related experience.  For the CRA, occupations were not given on the city's website, but there are also no professional requirements to be on the CRA.  There should be a preference for a resident or business owner to have an interest in property within the CRA district.The figures also indicate whether they are male or female.  For purposes of this post, I chose to look at the Planning and Zoning Board, the newly created Historic Preservation Board and the CRA since, in my opinion, the work they do is most dependent upon projects, their impacts and general location considerations.  It should go without saying that one would have a greater familiarity and sensitivity with the general area around where you live and, in the case of the CRA, where you work.

The decisions of all three of these boards can have multi-million dollar consequences - a little less likely with the Historic Preservation Board, but still possible.

2010 Planning and Zoning Board (*=Alternate)

One of the major weaknesses of the then Planning, Zoning and Historic Resource Preservation Board (PZHRPB) when I was on it was that we never had representation from west of Dixie Hwy.  This was true during my entire eight year tenure.  While it was something that I attempted to correct by recruiting through word-of-mouth, ultimately it was the City Commission's decision on who to appoint and re-appoint.  In dealing with the Planning and Zoning function, you also face the added challenge of finding people that have experience or are professionals in some area of land development.  In my opinion, you also need a good assortment of lay people that would likely come from neighborhood association recommendations.  During my tenure, most if not all of the people that we had on the board had experience or professional association with land development.  The important point here is to strike a balance geographically and professionally.  If the City Commission errs too much to one side or another, your board's action can be accused of bias or lack of sensitivity, whether that is the case or not.  Perception is many times reality.

It is clear looking at the above map the Planning and Zoning Board is under-represented in the entire District 4 area (southeast quadrant), the area between I-95 and Dixie Hwy south of Lake and Lucerne Avenues and the District 2 area north of 13th Avenue.  There is also a concentration of members south of 10th, east of Dixie Hwy and north of Lake Avenue.  I am glad that there is more representation west of Dixie Hwy. than when I was on the board, but it is still not enough in my opinion.

I am not sure about the stated professions listed on the newer members on the log for the Planning and Zoning Board.  I do know that Erin Fitzhugh, one of the alternates, is a planner in the Palm Beach County Planning Department.  It's important to realize that "taint" works both ways.  A member might be perceived to be "tainted" - a term that I have heard used a lot recently by multiple people - if they are over politically involved in campaigns or too close to certain Commissioners or the Mayor.  Likewise, if they are associated with the real estate industry, the "taint" that some people perceive from that association can easily be confused with experience that is needed on the board.  What I have the most concern about now is that we have balanced geographical representation and the ability to have honest debate.  In my opinion, a member can have an association with the real estate industry and not be "tainted."  Anyone does have to be aware of a potential conflict of interest if the result of their action would accrue a gain or a loss to the member personally, through business relationship or through immediate family.

2010 Historic Preservation Board (*=Alternate)

The map above shows where the appointees to the new Historic Preservation Board reside.  This is the new board that was carved from the former PZHRPB.  Three of the new members served previous terms on the other board, which is a plus for continuity.  One of them, Mrs. Mittner, was on the board briefly but then she assumed the preservation planner position with the city of Lake Worth.  She served in that position most of the time while I was on the board.  She now is on the planning staff in West Palm Beach serving the same basic function there.  Right now, we really don't have a historic preservation planner, so her addition on the board is key.  However, there is a danger that the board may rely more upon her acting "like" staff in the absence of anyone qualified in our planning department.  I don't think that she will fall prey to that but it does highlight the need to have that expertise on city staff.  Also, since many of the decisions of this board are based on context, it's best that members - especially of this separate board - live within historic districts.  All of the city's six historic districts are east of Dixie Hwy.  With the exception of one of the members, they all live in historic districts.  It is too bad not to have someone representing the College Park historic district - one of the two districts that are on the National Register.  The member that is not residing in a historic district is an attorney, but the same caution goes with this member - he should not be called on for legal advice.  That should be supplied by a paid member of city staff that is qualified to make legal interpretations, etc.

2010 CRA Board (no alternates)

The map above shows the location of the residences were the current CRA members live.  It appears that all but two live within the CRA boundaries.  When I have listened to meetings of this board over the Internet, I think they have the most foggy notion of their purpose.  Some people on this board believe that money should not go to commercial redevelopment - where the highest return to the CRA to fund additional residential programs is likely - and instead direct that money to residential properties since that is where most of the revenue for the agency comes from.  This is a distortion due to the lack of higher value improved commercial property in the district - something that needs to be the focus of the CRA.  I've also heard some board members complain about increasing property values - which is just the opposite of what people on this board should be concerned about.  The current board also leans toward providing all assistance and enticements to very low income persons/families.  This is the wrong direction based upon the city's already strapped resources and already having the highest concentration of at-risk youth factors of any Palm Beach County zip code (page 9).  It would be good have an owner of commercial property on this board - I don't think that is currently the case.  I am also concerned about some of the close relationships people on this board have with current and former City Commissioners.  This is the board charged with adminiistration of the $23 million grant from the federal government as part of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2.