Have you heard "The Trick" yet?: "I'm for the Gulfstream hotel reopening but against THIS development"—If you fall for this, folks, you'll fall for anything.

There's an age-old tactic to try and stop a development proposal, so old and ubiquitous there are many who take a humorous angle about it on blogs and other places. Anyone who's attended more that a few planning and/or zoning meetings knows exactly what I'm talking about:

I’M NOT OPPOSED TO ALL DEVELOPMENT. JUST THIS DEVELOPMENT.

You can read more of these "things people always say at zoning hearings, illustrated by cats" using this link. It's outrageously funny stuff because it's so true.

The facts of the matter are this: The three or so people who spoke during public comment at the last Historic Resource Preservation Board (HRPB) meeting on February 17th against the Gulfstream hotel redevelopment ARE DISINGENUOUS (being polite) and it's easy to prove (NOTE: The next HRPB meeting on the historic hotel redevelopment is Wednesday, 3/9). Here's what they are trying to claim: They, coincidentally the same who filed a lawsuit to stop the development project, say they want the Gulfstream hotel open once again but are just opposed to the rest of the project.

The facts as presented over many months are this: For the Gulftream hotel to be restored and functional once again it needs the amenities, additional hotel rooms, parking, and the retail component to make it happen. Period. So to say you are FOR the hotel reopening but AGAINST the tools to make it happen is a false choice (again, being polite).

Interestingly, those opposed to the development proposal are also opposed to the hotel being used as an assisted-living facility or any other use other than a hotel. In effect, they are affirming the outcome if they prevail: the hotel will be condemned and torn down. Which makes one wonder if that has been the true motivation all along, to have the hotel demolished.

The clues to what has been happening go back many years. The 'heights vote' in 2013 was a big part of that by limiting the possibilities so narrowly the hotel would have no chance to compete in the modern marketplace. Even The Palm Beach Post understood this back in 2013 when they opposed the height limitations (link to the editorial in this post):

Opponents of the height limit make the further point that restricting building heights unnecessarily in that area could frustrate efforts to revive the hotel, which is in foreclosure and has sat empty for years. The ability to build a parking garage and additional rooms on an empty lot next to the hotel is seen as important to attracting an investor to reopen the Gulf Stream, and further height limits could dissuade interest. Preserving the city’s small-town feel is important, but existing height limits already accomplish that. We recommend a NO vote on Question 2.

You can read how that 'heights vote' turned out here. In the March, 2013 Post editorial they refer to the "confusion" that voters had about that vote and here is a big reason why:

The public was shown images like this "at the door": Big white box 'buildings' where Lake Worth neighborhoods are located.

So the claim that some make, "I'm for the Gulfstream hotel reopening but against THIS development" is just another in a long line of clever tricks and deceptive tactics.

That's not to say everyone will be happy with each element of the proposed Gulfstream hotel redevelopment; anyone who examines the project will have his or her critique or criticism be it traffic or an architectural element but that's not a reason in itself to scuttle the project, is it?

Keep that in mind the next time you hear someone say they SUPPORT the Gulfstream hotel but DON'T SUPPORT the efforts and economic realities to make it happen. It's a false choice.

This false choice is a big part of Frank McAlonan's campaign platform. McAlonan is challenging Commissioner Andy Amoroso for the District 3 seat. Note that the last two endorsements made by The Palm Beach Post were for the two "No" votes against the Gulfstream hotel project moving forward:

Mayor Triolo, Vice Mayor Maxwell, and Commissioner Amoroso voted in favor of the Gulfstream hotel renovation/redevelopment. Note the two that voted "No".

A vote for McAlonan is another nail in the coffin of the Gulfstream hotel. I've stated that already on this blog. And it's also more than a little disingenuous for him to compare our Gulfstream hotel to hotels in Delray Beach that are no way near the historical and community significance the Gulfstream is. It will be very interesting to see how the Post editorial board falls on one of the most important topics in the City of Lake Worth, a City "that has so much potential".