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

RE-POSTED from  September 3, 2012 in advance of today's City Commission meetings re Great Bay lawsuit.

There is another blogger in town.  I gave up regularly visiting her blog for Lent this year and never returned as a regular visitor.  From time to time, people forward me links to what is going on over there.  There was something posted yesterday about the history of the current beach project, Greater Bay, the Greater Bay lawsuit and Commissioner Mulvehill that distorted reality so much that certain facts need to be pointed out.

The city never "turned over our valuable land to a contractor" by executing "Agreed Upon Business Terms" or the eventual private/public partnership agreement.  First of all, the agreement was for a 20 year minus one day lease of the 19 acre property.  If the project proceeded that way, the city would retain ownership of the property - never relinquishing it - and let a developer (in this case Greater Bay) build and lease out a new building and return that building to the city after the expiration of the lease.  The developer, in turn, would pay the city $500,000 a year in lease payments.  They would select and collect rent from tenants, manage the ballroom space and collect parking revenue.  The City would pay for the lifeguards, as I recall.

The city couldn't turn over "our valuable land to a contractor" since it never could provide clear title.  There was a lawsuit filed by private citizens  related to whether or not this development agreement violated the City Charter since it may allow for an extension of the lease term for some tenants beyond 20 years - given renewals that may be built into their leases.  Whether or not that had merit, the fact that it existed prevented anyone, other than the city, to do anything to the property.  And you also had a petition that had been circulated looking to repeal the Beach and Casino land use and zoning designation that had been passed by the City Commission.  This effort was led by no other than then private citizen Christopher McVoy - giving him visibility which aided his run for elected office.  The city actually had to sue McVoy and others associated with the petition drive effort.  With the land use and zoning designation, which were being changed to allow limited commercial uses on the beach property where none were allowed before (the existing businesses there were non-conforming or "grandfathered in"), in potential limbo, this created another impediment to the project going forward.  Clean title and a land use/zoning designation that would allow the project to proceed were more the province of the City - not Greater Bay.  This is part of the basis for Greater Bay lawsuit against the city - they say they couldn't perform due to non-performance on the part of the city.

Despite this, the Commission, made up of Jennings, Golden, Mulvehill, Clemens and Lowe decided 4-1 to break the agreement with Greater Bay.

Just before that, Greater Bay, as part of the agreement, had to use a state recreation grant that was about to expire - some $400,000 that the city would lose if they didn't improve the pool.  They did work as directed by the city and its representatives at the time - and were specifically told not to do things - one was not to improve the pump house for the pool.  The point here is that the city was able to keep the grant money and the pool was improved to city expectations at the time.  Greater Bay performed.

Then you have the whole issue of the building.  THE BUILDING WAS NOT SAVED.  THE "CIRCLE OF LIGHT" PUT ON BY COMMISSIONER MULVEHILL WAS MORE ABOUT SELF-PROMOTION.  In order for the public to sort-of, kind-of believe that the city "restored" or "rebuilt" the casino building, the Commission chose to build in the exact same location as the existing building - which had historic merit of its own.

More to come in Part II