Doing a slow burn...

Mulling over the arrogance of anyone in city government that would put words on paper that contemplated a $75,000 groundbreaking party for the casino rehabilitation, resuscitation, recapitulation, reconfiguration and/or regurgitation.  Whatever it ends up being.

First of all, here we are a city that has declared "financial urgency."  We are screaming "poor" to whoever will listen with the main purpose being to wrestle concessions from our unions with existing contracts negotiated in good faith, from PBSO for our stellar law enforcement services and to the County for our fire service.  One might question why we are even pursuing the prospect of re-doing the building given our "urgency."  But we are not supposed to question, we are to hail Caesar and follow.  Why the city has a bulging "cash portfolio" which will finance the project - we are being silly if we ask what that means.

Second, then we get rid of the leasing agent for the property that was going to pursue national, credit-worthy tenants in order to go with one that will pursue regional and local tenants, with preference to those that are current tenants.  Commissioner Mulvehill reminded all at the last Commission meeting these tenants have been there for 30 years and we owe them first right of refusal.  Just think, if all take the city up on its offer, how different will the project be after it is finished?  How big of an economic boon to the city will it be?  Will the project be able to pay for itself?  What about those parking projections again?  And there is this ethics ordinance that was passed late last year.  It states as follows:

• "An elected official of the City of Lake Worth, who is a current sitting member of the City Commission and has accepted an election campaign contribution in an amount that is more than $100 from an individual or a business entity having an interest in a matter before the City Commission in which the City Commission will take action, must publicly disclose, both verbally and in writing, such contribution prior to any discussion or vote on the matter.  The written disclosure must be submitted to the City Clerk."

Clearly, this decision and others related to the beach project have been made since the adoption of this ethics ordinance.  These actions clearly benefited the existing tenants at the Casino building.  We haven't heard any disclosures by those elected officials that received significant contributions from these tenants and individuals related to those businesses.  Do we just enact ordinances for appearances only and when it comes to abide by them, look the other way?

Third, there is a lot of work that has to be done before we are clinking any champagne glasses.  How is the permitting coming along?  Will the State of Florida agree with the city's interpretation of the percent of reconstruction that is going to take place - given now that the building is essentially being demolished?  Instead of "golden shovels," can we employ a "golden wrecking ball?"

Fourth, would such a groundbreaking party lead those to proclaim themselves, falsely, as "saviors" of the building - continuing the ruse that this is somehow a restoration of the 1922 Casino building?  I think there are those that couldn't resist - how it was the "circle of light" that convinced the city to "save" the building.  We would hear that somehow this project is furthering the cause for historic preservation, which it doesn't.  All these pronouncements would further polarize the community which has been polarized long enough by the beach and the notion that it would see a new day by being reborn in some way, some day.

Fifth, we have a current law suit related to the former redevelopment plan for the beach that has yet to be adjudicated.  In fact, it is still in the "discovery" period and the city has spent around $250,000 up to this point in time.  This is without taking depositions or really spending any time in a courtroom.  What is the city projecting our total legal costs to defend the city's position?  Perhaps the city better save the $75,000 as a down payment for the rest of the legal work - a judicious choice.  What if the city loses and owes the other party a multi-million dollar judgement?  Will that come from the same "cash portfolio?"  Is there any prospect of the city settling given the steep legal fees the city is incurring?

Let's put off any celebration until we have a finished project, the tenants are moved in and paying their rents and the entire site is "improved" with the County's money.  Anything else reeks of political self-promotion and wastes precious money that the city, apparently, can't do without.  Somehow, this proposal reminds me of the awarding the Census Total Count duties to certain political operatives.  How much did we spend on that again?  People have asked but no one is getting an answer.

This is to be discussed at the City Commission work session this coming Tuesday - 3/8.  They can't take action on the item at this meeting.  Public comment is also not permitted this Tuesday.