Some things can't go unchallenged...Part II

RE-POSTED from September 3, 2012 in advance of the City Commission meeting(s) regarding the Greater Bay lawsuit. 

Before we discuss the situation surrounding the casino building in more detail, it is important to give a little more information on two points made in the previous post.  One is that the other blogger's reference to the "insurrection on the dais" refers to the fact that then Mayor Drautz refused to initial each page the final document regarding Greater Bay - after the City Commission already approved the agreement.  The insurrection was his refusal to initial each page; it was not then Commissioner Lowe "grabbing the contract out of Drautz's hands."  Lowe was Vice-Mayor at the time, so the majority of the City Commission transferred the "initialing duties" up to her.  Mind you, this all played out in typical "high drama" fashion by those that did not want to go forward with the agreement.

Another point worth clarifying is that McVoy's petition drive to repeal the Beach and Casino land use and zoning designation (and map change, too) was useless.  Those zoning and land use designations were all eventually needed for the city to do what it eventually did there.  The former zoning allowed no commercial business - just open-air recreation space.  The lawsuit against "Lake Worth citizens" was soon dropped after the breaking of the agreement with Greater Bay.  So the petition drive ended up being a meaningless waste of energy and served more to energize the base for the next election cycle than "prevent over-commercialization of the beach."  And, as was stated in the previous post, it introduced a person to the community that would be a future City Commissioner.

Commissioner Mulvehill, through her own admission - see video -  used John G's to "lobby" there for her first campaign.  As the video shows, the building official at the time - after reviewing 10 or more years worth of structural studies on the condition of the casino building, condemned the building and tenants were given a deadline to get out.  During the campaign, this is when "Straticon" appeared on the scene.  This was a contractor that was doing work on the former Hilton hotel further north on A1A.  Approached by those around our future Commissioner, suddenly it was possible to SAVE the building from demolition, with the promise that all the existing tenants could stay during reconstruction.  The "rehabilitation" myth continued through the architect selection process, with each saying that they could save the building.

Picture that appeared in Morganti issued progress report dated 8/19/11

Above is what actually saved after all of the b.s. was cleared away, along with demolition debris.  The city and the "team"  worked the calculation to determine whether this project represented a "substantial improvement"  and came up with a valuation scheme that put the "new building" below 50% - the threshold after which the building would have to meet current code standards.  You can read about the implications here in a recent post.

The long and short of this is that since the city chose to build in exactly the same spot as the original building to give the perception that it was a "rehabilitation" now calls in to question whether the $6 million investment is adequately protected by the existing seawall or "armoring device" as the Florida Building Code refers to it.  This likely means that the city will undergo the time and expense to do an exhaustive study by a certified engineer that actually evaluates whether or not the seawall qualifies as that "armoring device."  Also by shutting down creativity and problem-solving made possible by looking at other building locations on the site, we end up with a site plan that may not be functional.  This is what is being heard now - complaints about adequate parking for delivery and emergency vehicles, the two way pattern of traffic in the upper parking area, among other issues...

Greater Bay always proposed a site plan - never approved or officially reviewed - that had the building in the center of the property along with a parking deck.  Think of the unobstructed view of the Atlantic Ocean as you crest the bridge.  Unfortunately, we have walled off a rare view of the ocean to accommodate political "agendas."  A parking deck would provide needed shade for beach-goers and consolidate asphalt/concrete to allow for more green space.  Instead of hearing of the benefits of this project, all we were treated to was how this was "giving away our precious land" and that it was "over-commercialization" of the beach.

Well, now we may have to add to the project cost such things as the reconstruction of the seawall and a judgement in favor a Greater Bay that the city acted in bad faith by breaking the development agreement.  Where will those be that were responsible for such oversights and procedural snafus come home to roost?

Commissioner Mulvehill will be furthering her business and professional interests.  She won't be on the dais.  Perhaps she will become an expatriate in Sopot, Poland or South-End-on-Sea, Great Britain?

And, for the record, I was not in favor of either of the original presenters that responded to the RFP to develop the beach.  I would have told them both to go home, adjust the RFP and re-advertise the project.