On nearly every vote at the City Commission it's 3-2 on the issue of more economic opportunity. Three vote "Yes" and two vote "No". |
If A = Homeless people are without a home/opportunity,
and B = Investment, money, and opportunity,
then A + a decrease in B (less investment, money, and opportunity), would necessarily not be advantageous for A (the homeless). Right?
Above is true, then if A + an increase in B (more investment, money, and opportunity) would create the environment for less A (more opportunity for the homeless). Correct?
Now here is C: There are two projects in Lake Worth that have the potential to bring millions of dollars into the City for many years to come. They are the Gulfstream hotel redevelopment and the Park of Commerce. These are huge opportunities for both the City and its residents.
So, if you support the Gulfstream hotel (C), for example, and you also concerned about the homeless (A) then B (investment, money) would be a solution. Correct?
But why would the Gulfstream hotel and the City's Park of Commerce (C) be objected to by both commissioners Ryan Maier and Chris McVoy? These two projects, all by themselves, have the potential to fill the coffers of the City so it can have money left over to help those such as the homeless. So why would Maier and McVoy object so strongly?
Do they have another plan they think will better help the homeless other than money and investment? If they have a theory better than B they should share it with all of us, don't you think?
Since we're on the issue of the homeless, below is a former Lake Worth commissioner. At the 40 second mark in the video she praises the City of West Palm Beach for all their incredible work to help the homeless there. Unfortunately, at the 1:15 mark she goes off the rails with a terribly unfair characterization of the caring and giving people of Lake Worth:
JoAnn Golden said of Lake Worth residents reacting to the homeless, "I'd be ashamed to say we'd probably take out guns and get rid of 'em".
Speak for yourself.