Design Guidelines Workshop - Transit Oriented Development -6/5

Historically Significant City Property in Limbo - 431 North L Street

This is a re-post in light of the previous comment.

You have seen this property before, from a previous post. You can do a search for 431 N L Street here and you can review it in more detail.

The essence of what is going on here is that this property is within a historic district. The building is a work of noted local architect G. Sherman Childs, dating from the late 1920s. Originally a four unit walk-up (rare), it contains many of its original interior features such as period built-ins. Unfortunately, time has not been kind to the structure. Most recently it was a Joe DiMauro property that was divided up into a total of 9 units. It was subject of a Nuisance Abatement Board meeting, where we effectively shut down the structure from operating as a rental. The City then acquired this property, along with 431 N. K Street - another DiMauro property through the exercise of its lien rights from Code Enforcement fines..

The building department wanted both the L and the K Street structures to come down. These requests came before us when I was on the Planning, Zoning, Historic Resource Preservation Board. We approved the demolition of the 431 N. K Street structure as its historic significance had been diminished by insensitive alterations and poor maintenance. That property is now completely vacant and still under City ownership.

The North L Street property was another matter. Darrin Engle made a strong case while he was here for preserving this structure and in his presentation he talked about the importance for the City to perform proper boarding and securing (mothballing) the building.

Well, my friends, that hasn't happened. The Board ended up not approving the demolition, but approved the demolition of the out buildings on the west side of the property - that building is still standing.

In these pictures, taken yesterday, you can see the further deterioration of conditions - more broken windows, no boarding up of the property - properly and it seems as if no one cares.

This is a building by the same architect that designed our current City Hall, formerly the Municipal Auditorium.

It is not on the City's surplus property list, so is there a City use for the building? If so, why isn't anyone talking about it.? If there isn't a reuse of the structure for the City's purposes, why can't we sell it someone who would be willing to restore it while it is still possible to restore?

This is an important piece of the City's history and a blighting influence on this neighborhood. Let's show some respect for our City's history before this building disappears at the hands of the elements.

Comment under Post re Rat/Roach Infestation - 431 North L Street

June 3, 2008,

The City of Lake Worth needs to look after its own property, specifically 431 North L Street. The city owns the apartment building and out buildings on this property and they have become a health and safety issue, not to mention an eyesore. The buildings are unsecured with broken windows and open windows and doors.

Yesterday police arrested someone living in one of the out buildings. That particular building is not secured in any way. The interior is packed full of filth and debris and undoubtedly vermin infested. Pigeons are roosting in the main building while debris is scattered about the property.

Steps must be taken immediately to correct this situation.

Beyond the obvious health and safety concerns this property puts the city at risk of being sued.

“Under the attractive nuisance doctrine of the law of torts, a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children, who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition. The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools. However, it can be applied to virtually anything on the property of the landowner.” From Wickapedia Wikipedia

I trust the City will take immediate steps to secure this property and protect the health and safety of its citizens.

Thomas McGow
423 North L. Street, Lake Worth

The Saga Continues: 431 N. L Street

Re-Post

My introduction to this property was when it appeared on a Nuisance Abatement Board agenda. At the same meeting, we also dealt with another property at 431 N. K Street which happened to occupy the exact same location on the block immediately to the west - the southwest corner of the intersection at 5th Avenue North. Both were owned by the notorious Joe DiMauro. We heard evidence of code enforcement issues while the properties were occupied. Apparently, these two properties acted in tandem to terrorize the Mango Groves neighborhood - both through their blighted conditions and the sorts of tenants housed on both properties. I remember hearing a series of frightening tales being told by responsible residents in the vicinity that helped us in our decision making.

Based in part to our action on the Nuisance Abatement Board, the City was able to eradicate the nuisance and obtained title to both properties. The property at 431 N. L Street became the City's responsibility (see PBC Property Appraisers card below) in July of 2006.

Upon inspection of both properties by officials in the Building Department once the City had possession, they determined that the best action was demolition of both structures due to unsafe conditions and in an attempt, I believe to eliminate the possibility of the same situation with tenants and the potential impact they would have on the neighborhood.

At the September 20, 2006 meeting of the PZHRPB, both items appeared on the HRPB agenda as requests from the City for demolition of all buildings on each property. Darrin Engle, the City's Urban Designer (who has since moved and no longer works for the City) prepared excellent staff reports on both properties. He concluded, and the board agreed, that the property on K Street, even though it was a contributing structure within the historic district, was in such bad condition structurally and experienced many historically insensitive changes over its lifetime, that it was worthy for demolition. The actual act of demolition occurred back in May of this year.

The building at 431 N. L. was another matter entirely. It is also a contributing building in the same historic district. Depending on the source, the property has either 10 units (City) or 9 units (County) - apparently all legal. However, it was originally designed as a 4 unit walk-up - you can check out the original blueprint above for the 1st floor plan. And guess who it was designed by - G, Sherman Childs.

Mr. Childs worked as an architect for Addison Mizner and did a lot of of designs for buildings in Lake Worth. He was the architect for the Muncipal Auditorium that we now use as City Hall, the Casino building, City Hall Annex, the Birthday Cake house, etc. Mr. and Mrs. G. S. Childs are listed as Lake Worth pioneers (that can be found in the City Hall conference room. And, after World War II, Edgar Wortmann, who redesigned the Casino building and was architect for the City Library, did the work to make the original four units into eight (the other units are in the out buildings to the west of the main structure).

So, the building has a pedigree. When it came before the PZHRPB, we decided to allow for the demolition of the out buildings which were too far gone and not that architecturally significant. This will eventually open up more yard area for a flexible future plan for the property. The PZHRPB deferred action on the requested demolition. At the 9/20/06 meeting, we asked that if be brought back at the first meeting November. After looking on line at minutes and agendas today, I don't think it was ever brought back for formal action. My last meeting on the Board was 12/20/06 so that I could run for office. It might have appeared on a subsequent agenda. I'll check with the Planning Department tomorrow as they were closed today.

The source of most of our discussion at that meeting was finding a suitable use for the property. Since it is already owned by the City, we thought of a recreation center of some sort. That would also be a nice tie-in with the building's architect as he designed many City buildings. Or, the City could find someone to turn it back into its original design of four units - in a condominium arrangement of some sort. The thought is that it is fine to save the building by not demolishing it, but what is going to save it in the long run is finding an economic supportive use for it.

Right now, the job is only half done. The human nuisance factor is gone, but we still have a derelict, vacant building that rehabbed would make a nice addition to the neighborhood. The point was made by Darrin Engle during the meeting, and I have also highlighted those sections in the staff report, that it is important to professionally "mothball' this building until the City identifies an appropriate use for it, or find another private party to buy it. I have reason to be more than a little concerned - one need only look at the building at the A Street round-about - the reportedly oldest building in Lake Worth - to see what happens when the City controls the destiny of a historic structure. More on that one later...

I think the point here is that we are either going to take historic preservation seriously and walk-the-walk or we might as well not have the infrastructure to support a historic preservation program. Right now, Darrin Engle's position has not been filled and there is a gentleman working 20 hours a week at $100 an hour that has NO BACKGROUND in historic preservation (his background is in Comprehensive Planning). He is attempting to do a job for which he does not have the adequate education and experience to do. In a City with so many demands of a critical nature, who is there to carry the torch for this building?

The opposition during my campaign like to hang a necklace on me of the demolitions we approved during my period as Chairman of the PZHRPB. Where are they now when the fate of this building hangs in the balance?

And, the frustrating part for me is that I have a friend who lives in Lake Worth that rehabs houses. He did a major project in South Beach. He is bored right now and would like to dig into this building. But how do we, as a City, get out of our own way and allow that to happen?

Your thoughts on this are appreciated.

From PowerPoint presentation made at 9/20/06 PZHRPB meeting:

G. Sherman Childs

Staff Report Excerpts

Photos Taken 11/10/07

Front of building showing central "walk-up" entrance.

Corner of 5th Avenue North and L Street.

Example of inadequate protection of the structure - open windows, partially boarded. North facade.

No trespassing sign identifying City as owner.

Another example of inadequate protection of the structure - open windows, partially boarded.

Rear view of building, western elevation.

Northwest corner of main building, characteristic Lake Worth gable over door.

Out-buildings approved for demolition - alley to the west.

View looking southeast at alley. Main building shown in background.

No trespassing sign identifying City as owner, along with miscellaneous trash.

Close up of south elevation, second floor non-weather,bird and vermin proof securing of windows.

South yard area, with southern facade showing shed for water heater and hardscape area. This area was formerly used for parking under the previous owner - see aerial.

To get fired up for the Commission Meeting...

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Snook Islands Natural Area - Design Concepts

Tomorrow Night's City Commission Meeting - Agenda Highlights

Some of the items of interest on the City Commission agenda are highlighted below. Click here for direct access to agenda on City's website. The City's website has been slow all day, so you might have to be patient while the .pdfs load.



On the Consent agenda, Item F is a conceptual design of the Snook Islands Public Use Facilities and authorization of the City to execute County permit applications. I'll post the design concepts in the next post.

Consent Item J is the creation of a Centennial Steering Committee to develop and plan for the City's 100th Anniversary celebration. This is a great idea, but I am asking myself why you have to be a graduate of the Lake Worth Municipal Institute to be appointed to that Committee. The program hasn't been in existence for at least two years. By limiting membership on the Committee to that group, they exclude a pool of people that have a lot of knowledge about things Lake Worth. For example, I never went through the program. Unless that is the intent, to exclude and not include people.

Under Unfinished Business, big item in reaction to the crime wave we are perceiving - a transfer of $100,000 to the Police Overtime account to expand police presence and address hot spots. This would be to the end of the current fiscal year. I'm not sure how much that amount is going to help. I wonder if we will find out about the status of the Sheriff's negotiations? The jury is still out with me whether or not that is a good idea or not, but we need to have some way to objectively assess the pluses and minuses.

The very next item relates to public comment and revisions to the current policy. Here is wording from a portion of the back-up related to this item:

On May 20, 2008, the City Commission rescheduled discussion of the
procedure, placement and order of public comment concerning agenda items
and the minute allowance for public input on all items. Comments made by the
City Commission during the discussion included the following:

place public comments after Commission comments;

limit public comments to two minutes; and

allow public comments only during Public Participation on Non-
Agendaed Items, Public Hearings, and New Business.

In addition to the comments already made, below are additional items for
discussion:

limit each Commissioners comment on agenda items, including
Presentations, to 10 minutes;

create a procedure to bring back an agenda item at a future meeting by
the prevailing side;

Presentations items be placed on an agenda only at the request of a
member of the Commission; and

accept public comment cards until the Commission meeting begins.

I have a real problem with the last one as that would be tought for anyone who comes late for a meeting. Couldn't we get rid of the cards altogether?

The Mid year budget review should be interesting - note that there is no public comment allowed under City Manager's report.

Slideshow: Twilight Intracoastal/Lake Worth Lagoon Cruise

Last Saturday, I had the pleasure of accompanying the Stafford family on their recently acquired pontoon boat. We charted a course north from Lake Worth and we out for about 3 hours or so. It had been long time since I had been out on the Intracoastal and couldn't remember ever being out while the sun was setting. We great time and managed to get some good pics, which I'll share with you here.

It reminded me how much beauty there is the world and how much we take for granted. We are situated along a very unique body of water - the Lake Worth Lagoon. Enjoy!


Click picture for full screen slideshow.

Lake Worth seeks hearing to fumigate rat-invested home

Click title for link to PB Post article.

Lake Worth Bike Ride

Florida Red and Blue - No on 2

Subject: FACT CHECK: John Stemberger

Well, they are at it again.

The main sponsor of Amendment 2, John Stemberger, graced readers of yesterday's South Florida Sun-Sentinel with another tired and misleading opinion article about Amendment 2.

If you have the stomach for it, you can read his latest diatribe here, but here are a few highlights:

What he said:

“Our campaign opponents are trying to cover up their real motive — to advance special rights for gay-identified persons by dishonestly scaring senior citizens using tortured arguments that ‘benefits’ will be taken away.”

The truth:

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled this month that their “marriage protection” amendment does take away shared health benefits from unmarried couples.

The Michigan language is similar to Florida’s – both have vague and undefined language such as “substantial equivalent” of marriage, “treated as marriage” or “similar to” marriage. These ambiguous phrases have already blocked rights in Michigan and Kentucky and it could very easily happen here.

To see how Amendment 2 could hurt seniors, read about Wayne and Helene – unmarried seniors in Broward County by clicking here.

What he says:

Gay activists “want to redefine marriage and then force that definition upon the rest of society largely through unelected, unaccountable activist judges acting outside the scope of their limited role. This is precisely what occurred in California.”

The truth:

What happened in California has no impact at all on Florida. To illustrate that point, we’d like to quote Mr. Stemberger to Mr. Stemberger.

When the Michigan court used a “marriage amendment” to take away rights and benefits (as we mentioned above), Mr. Stemberger issued a press release saying “Michigan is not Florida – and any state law decision it makes will have absolutely no effect upon Florida law.” Read his press release here.

As Mr. Stemberger neglects to tell readers in his column, “same-sex marriage” is already prohibited in Florida. Because it’s already the law in Florida, neither California courts nor Amendment 2 will change that.

Even the conservative Florida Times-Union editorialized against Amendment 2 just yesterday and noted that, “…Florida is not California…” and “Frankly, marriage does not appear all that threatened in this state.”

We could go on with this forever, but we think it’s more important for you to be armed with truth in this debate. Here’s what we know:

· The question isn’t, “Will Florida follow California?” The question is, “Will Florida follow Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky?” Those states passed marriage amendments which, like Amendment 2, were vague and unrestricted. The results: a real loss of protections, rights and benefits.

· The language of Amendment 2 doesn’t “protect marriage.” It blocks our state from recognizing any relationship that is not marriage – putting at risk any rights, benefits and protections for every unmarried Floridian. Read the whole amendment here.

· Amendment sponsors in Michigan insisted their amendment would not take away benefits – just as Mr. Stemberger and the Florida sponsors are doing now. Here’s a great article on the Michigan bait and switch.

· Every major newspaper in Florida is opposed to Amendment 2, including the most conservative papers in the state – the Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville), the Northwest Florida Daily Times (Fort Walton Beach) and the Tampa Tribune.

More information on Amendment 2 is on our website, www.SayNo2.com.

To stop the backers of Amendment 2 from changing the subject and spreading their nonsense, forward this email to friend using the button at the bottom, join the fight, or make a contribution today.

The SayNo2/Florida Red and Blue Team

Public transportation use goes up; driving vehicles down

Click title for PB Post article.

More Future Visions from the past...

Another re-post, this time it seems that Mr. Disney was drinking from the same GM well.

This is from 1958, Disney's "Magic Highway USA"



And also from 1958. This exerpt is from the well known educational documentary "Unchained Goddess" produced by Frank Capra for Bell Labs for their television program "The Bell Telephone Hour."



Hmmmmm.

Lake Worth Shooting Update

Click title for link.

Classic Supremes from 1965