From the Palm Beach Post on Gulf Stream Hotel project zoning change: Vote was split and also unanimous? How could that happen?

There is no "pitch" in the Post article today (12/9) on last nights City Commission vote on the Gulf Stream hotel project's rezoning request, not even by Bonnie Miskel, Esq., who gave another sterling presentation. However, there were a few curious items reported by the Post reporter Kevin Thompson. Here is the first one, what will confuse many readers in this article that also appears in today's print edition:

     After a two-hour discussion, the City Commission by a 3-2 vote [emphasis added] on first reading Tuesday night approved a key zoning change that will allow developer Hudson Holdings to move forward with its $60 million plan to restore the historic hotel and the surrounding site.

[and 2 paragraphs later. . .]

     The commission unanimously approved rezoning the seven-parcel site, now split between downtown mixed-use and multi-family residential, to downtown mixed use.

To eliminate any confusion, the City Commission vote was 3-2 with commissioners McVoy and Maier voting to not save our historic, iconic Gulf Stream hotel. And then later there's this from "One woman":

     One woman said residents should have more of a voice on the project.
     “If you think this is the right thing to do, put it up to a vote and let the residents decide,” she said.

Would "One woman" be The Obtuse Blogger (TOB) again? A "vote" is a clear reference to Amendment 4 which went down ingloriously to defeat in 2010. If Amendment 4 passed city's would need votes by "the people" on what kind of pens/pencils the city should buy, etc. You'll enjoy the video in the link above where TOB makes a cameo with Mr. Peter Tsolkas, former Lake Worth Commissioner Cara Jennings, et al.

TOB (on left) at an Amendment 4 rally in 2010. The voters rejected Amendment 4 by nearly 70%. A rejection of epic proportions.

And then there's these two items:

     Bonnie Miskel, a land-use and zoning attorney working with Hudson Holdings, said that as planned, the project should not conflict with the buildings in the historic district.
     “We’re going from six to five to two,” Miskel said, referring to the building’s heights. “We want to be compatible with our neighbors.”
     The goal, Miskel said, is to allow the city to get a piece of the state’s $67 billion tourism pie.

The reporter breezes over this important point and will create more public confusion: there is no final site plan as yet and the Historic Resource Preservation Board (HRPB) will be an integral part of the process going forward in review(s) to resolve any "conflict". So the question(s) of "conflict" is pointless. Reading this you think there are conflicts with a plan. That is not the case at all.

And, for some reason, the Post is fixated on the tourism dollars. It is indeed an important aspect but again, this was a very small part of the presentation by Bonnie Miskel. Most of the presentation was about matters concerning zoning, community impacts, etc.

Check back to this blog later for the video of Bonnie Miskel's presentation and other videos from this crucial vote. In the meantime, if you're interested, here is her presentation before the HRPB on November 18th.