Report from 9/18 Commission Meeting - Discussion of Charter Amendments

This is a re-post of an item related to two of the proposed charter amendments that will be on Tuesday's ballot. This contains an analysis of the positive effect of eliminating the run-off elections. Upon further thought and study, I am not for extending the terms of Commissioner and Mayor from two to three years. Not talked about here is the issue related to whether or not the Fire and Police Chiefs will be required to live within the City limits by ordinance. I choose "No" on this item, as I believe it is important for public safety officers of that rank to live in the City they serve - as currently required by the Charter.

So - my votes for the three municipal ballot measures will be NO to term extensions, YES to elimination of run-off elections and NO for requiring residency of the Fire and Polices Chiefs to be determined by ordinance.

After much emotional public comment, the Commission voted 3-2 to direct the City Attorney to prepare two ordinances - one to extend the future terms (not the existing Commission terms) to three years and one that would eliminate the run-off election. Commissioners Jennings and Golden were against. Commissioner Golden made a statement that she didn't understand why we went to November elections and didn't see the benefit in more people coming out to vote. She also didn't think Thanksgiving was a reason to not have a run-off, etc. Commissioner Jennings thought it was an abuse of their power that a majority of the Commission could put an item on the ballot. The citizens, however, had to go around door to door and gather signatures. She said that if this had been done through petitioning, then she might think differently.

This is what I said during public comment:

“Regarding the Charter Amendments relating to the term of office and run-off election, I am in favor of having the citizens vote on these items. I believe that three years makes sense. There is more continuity and gives Commissioners an extra twelve months to be productive and not be overly political. This will help tone down our current highly charged political atmosphere. If people complain about how bad things are now, I believe that they are a product of our two year term/run-off form of elections.

“I think it’s best to begin after the existing terms have expired – I am not extending the existing terms of any seated Commissioner or Mayor.”

As for the run-off, I am for the elimination of them. Turn out for municipal elections is low in relation to the total number of registered voters, so are we really getting the representation of the majority in a run-off? I don't think so.”

The ordinances will be coming back to the Commission for final approval and then they will have to approve the ballot language. The election for these would coincide with the January 29th Presidential Primary.

After the meeting, I had some of the following thoughts. I keep going back to the question "50 percent of what?” for run-off elections. We have 40,000 people in this city, of which about 15,000 are registered voters. In a good year for a presidential election we may get 7 or 8 thousand to turn out. For a municipal March election, it hovers between 3 and 4 thousand. The underlying principle is that our elected representatives should reflect the wishes of the majority of citizens. I would argue that the half of the 3 to 4 thousand does not represent a majority opinion and the 50% run-off threshold is an unachievable ideal. It does provide a ready tool for those motivated to elect a candidate.

Boiled down even farther, it's 50 percent of the people that come out to vote on that day. If the election were held a day before or after, the result could be different. That's why holding this precise 50 percent figure to who comes out on a particular day doesn't mean much, in my opinion.

Unfortunately, 50 percent appears, at first glance, to be a rational number that would represent the majority - as I pointed out, for a number of reasons, it doesn't achieve its intended goal. A better measure is really who gets the most votes. If you are really worried about someone getting into office with 7% of the vote - in a 13+ candidate field - then you could lower the threshold for a run-off to 35%. At least then you wouldn't be pretending that the winner of the election had a majority of voters.

Finally, three year terms are equal to the appointments on the majority of City representative boards. This would now parallel Commissioner terms of office if changed to three year from two year terms.

Valet Parking in Downtown

If you have been downtown recently on a Friday or Saturday night, you might have noticed a valet parking operation which sets up shop on South J Street in the first block south of Lake Avenue. As far as I am aware this has gone on for about year. Some people say that they operate on Thursday nights too, usually when there is something going on at the Playhouse.


The following e-mail to Paul Boyer, Laura Hannah and Sharon Jackson bears the date of October 2006. This was while I was still Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board and probably about the time the valet parking began.


I vaguely remember Laura Hannah acknowledging receipt of my e-mail, but really didn't offer any satisfactory explanation or response to the questions raised in it. Now and then I would ask Sharon Jackson to follow-up on it and we all know that Paul Boyer was about to leave around this time. I resigned from the Planning and Zoning Board mid-December to run for office. Season came and went and they ceased operating.

Well, the valet is back and many of my questions are still valid. Recently, I discovered some other anomalies that make one wonder who is sanctioning this and how.

The first question in the e-mail asks who is running it. From the signs that I took pictures of last Saturday, it's a company (?) by the name of Valet Florida. The next question asks are they properly insured and bonded? We just don't know. The last statement/suggestion in the e-mail talks about a better location for it would be on the side streets, rather than on Lake Avenue. This was addressed, but there are still problems with the location and impact to traffic on Lake Avenue.

The fourth and fifth items in the e-mail require some exploration. This is what I was told by a gentleman involved with operating a business on South J.Street. Apparently, after the "early bird" crowd leaves L'Anjou - around 7 p.m., they leave open on-street parking spaces. As soon as the cars vacate the spaces, the valet operators put this sign up to block the public from parking in PUBLIC spaces.


Notice at the bottom of the sign there is a reference to City of Lake Worth Ordinance 21-33(I). I went to Municode.com and found that section of the Code. However, the list of regulations runs from "A" to"H" and does not include "I" as indicated on the sign. So, I penned the following e-mail query to Pam Lopez, City Clerk:


I asked her if this was the current 21-33 section of the code and if any amendments have been made recently related to valet parking or if any changes have been made to that section at all. Her response was that there has been no ordinance recently regarding valet parking and that Sec. 21-33 is the current code.

THERE IS NO "I" AS INDICATED ON THE SIGN! We have a situation where someone is preventing people from parking in otherwise public parking spaces and charging for the service to park their car in public spaces. And, they are citing a part of the City of Lake Worth Code of Ordinances that at worst doesn't exist and at best isn't available for the public to inspect.

Back to my story about what is happening on weekend nights on our downtown streets. After the barricades go up, the valet allows cars to park in those spaces when the occupants pay $5 . I understand that if people protest - and I hear that they do - they actually move the barricade and let them park in the space anyway. When asked by this person who operates a business on J Street why they are preventing people from parking in PUBLIC parking spaces, the valet pointed to the sign and the referenced ordinance. Then, he said that, "Don't you think it classes up the downtown to have valet parking?" and the business owner responded "No, what I see you doing is chasing people away from my business!"

Meanwhile, on Lake Avenue, traffic is backing up in the first block east of Dixie - not a welcoming image at the entrance to our downtown. Imagine waiting in a queue on Lake Avenue for a while, then being strong-armed to pay $5 for an otherwise PUBLIC space that you could have found yourself without a valet. Wouldn't your time be better spent looking for a FREE public space on your own anywhere in the downtown that is a legal parking space - without a valet "classing things up"? Besides the spaces on South J Street, they park cars here, there and everywhere - probably sometimes on private property. Do they have an arrangement with those property owners?

What should happen with a valet operation in our downtown is that the operator should lease an unencumbered parking lot in the general area (the parking lot of the First Baptist Church, between L and M Streets, comes to mind). The entire operation could then be moved to the middle of the downtown (L Street) and the valet could run back and forth to that parking lot. Then we would actually be adding to the supply of parking in the downtown - not taking away from it and suddenly making people pay for public parking spaces.

Here is an image of the valet stand with the sacred seal of the City of Lake Worth prominently displayed on it - where is the money going for this and how is the City sanctioning it? How is this helping our downtown businesses?

A view of J Street with the cones in front of public parking spaces:

Busy Week!!

(Click on the image above and you'll see something interesting)

Lots of work stuff going on, which is good! Had a great time at Karaoke Wednesday night, which helped to break up the week. But there wasn't much time to do anything else, including post on the blog. But, here we are at the threshold of a weekend and I should have time to devote to a backlog of ideas and thoughts about Lake Worth. In the meantime, have a nice night!

I plan on continuing a series on downtown issues. If you have any that you would like to chat about, let me know about them by posting under the comment tab at the bottom of this post.

Save Our Downtown!

Walking back from the Cultural Plaza on Monday night, I passed by this sad sight. Another retailer (a rare breed to start with) in our downtown is going out of business. Surely a sign of worsening economic times, but also symptomatic of a host of issues and problems in our downtown commercial area.


The following are "snippets" of e-mails that started out relating to the building just east of the Lucerne, at the corner of Lake Avenue and M Street. I am happy to report that it is now in the final stages of renovation and it is a great improvement from how the building looked at the time these e-mails were exchanged.

If you take a look at my e-mail (I have removed the e-mail addresses that this chain was circled amongst for privacy.) The message talks about the situation with the building I mentioned. At the end of the e-mail, I mention an idea and one of my campaign platforms. That was the idea of a "Downtown Summit" where all the stakeholders (property owners, business owners, employees, residents, etc.) would get together and focus on issues/strategies for improving our downtown - both physically and economically. If I had been elected last March, it would have been one of the first things I would have called for as a Commissioner.

Since that time, the Commission and Mayor have spoken very little about the downtown. They did vote to lower the parking space fee from $15,000 per required parking space to $7,000 per space - a good thing. But there is so much more to talk about our downtown. By not seriously inventorying and working on issues impacting downtown, we run the risk of more sad sights like the two pictures above.

The Mayor happened to be copied on this e-mail chain. Notice the date of the e-mail below - July 7th. Notice also that in the e-mail he says that he will be hosting (?) a Downtown Summit this fall after the City gets through the budget process. That was in September 2007.

We are still waiting Mayor.


I urge you to contact your favorite Commissioner(s) and Mayor. Remind them of the importance of a healthy downtown commercial area and request that the Mayor follow through on his promise.

Truth Matters Returns Tonight @ 8 p.m.

Join me and Greg Vannier as we host another Truth Matters show. Click here for the live feed of the show. You can also find it on the Utalk.com homepage. Questions and comments for and about the topics we will be covering can be found on the Utalk.com message board.

It'll be nice to get back on the area and review the many things that have gone on in our community since the last show back in November.

Things I thought about discussing: the idea of the day laborer center on the shuffleboard court property, the status of the Sunset law suit, the economic conditions generally and the economic condition of our downtown specifically, valet parking in the downtown and a whole bunch of loose ends that no one seems to care about (beach, casino building structural report, 431 N. L Street, crime, etc.)

Hope you can make it!

Oh, oh! Dancing might lead to...?

Martin the Mailman Benefit - South Shores Tavern

It was still a little early when I got there. Great band playing and had a nice lunch. It's still going on. Plan on dropping by sometime this afternoon.
They are having a raffle with a lot of nice prizes and things!
I am sure you join me in wishing Martin good luck in a speedy and complete recovery.

In Honor of Martin Luther King, Jr....

Shuffleboard Courts as Day Laborer Center??

The big item on the agenda last Tuesday was the issue about using the building at the shuffleboard court property as a "Resource Center" or, better put a Day Laborer Center. The following is the back-up provided for the discussion under the New Business portion of the agenda:



I attended the meeting and spoke asking questions about the prospect of this. More on that later on.

Before leaving to go the meeting, I happened to see Commissioner Jennings on Channel 5 News talking about the issue. She was at the shuffleboard courts. They interviewed her and many of the shuffleboard players that were present. It's funny, but in my 15 years of being a resident of Lake Worth, I never saw the shuffleboard courts being used. But, apparently there is an active group that uses the facility. The players that were interviewed seemed to keep things in perspective - the underlying theme seemed to be: "The times, they are a changin'." None seemed to make to the meeting. Maybe some did, but they at least they didn't speak during public comment.

But there is a reason they may have become "numb" to the environment found on Lake and Lucerne Avenues, west of the FEC railroad tracks. That is because in December, the City Commission made it illegal (a word that was used a lot Tuesday night in many contexts) to pick up laborers and essentially directed them to the shuffleboard court property. The City Commission has "directed" these individuals to this area. I am guessing that some of them might feel a sense of relief that at least now they would congregate in the building there. Just conjecture on my part.

Public comment on the topic was decidedly against moving forward with negotiating a lease of the property to these non-profit organizations. There were people with strong thoughts on immigration and the fumbling of the issue by our federal government. Those same people believed it was wrong for a branch of government (a municipality) to essentially sanction and facilitate the hiring of these workers. Others were concerned about the proximity of this location to our downtown and the negative influence in might have on adjacent buildings and commerce.

My comments were along these lines. During the interview I witnessed on Channel 5, Commissioner Jennings talked about how this would "formalize" and already existing situation and that if the Commission decided to move forward, the group's operation could start in a couple of months. I commented that this made it seem that the key could be given over without much trouble or impact or respect for other laws/codes. One set of rules that is near and dear to my heart is zoning. No surprise here.

You see, the property happens to be zoned "Public Recreation and Open Space" (PROS) and has a similar future land use designation. Guess what! That happens to the same zoning designation as our beach property and any other park within the City of Lake Worth. The beach would be something different by now in anticipation of the long awaited redevelopment project, but for the lawsuits and the bungling of the future land use change issue. I digress.

So, I pointed out that there is no allowance for a day laborer center in any zoning district within the City of Lake Worth. If the existing zoning is kept intact, then that "use" could be added to the list of permitted uses or uses allowed through special use permit approval. But, adding that to the PROS district where now you can only have "open air recreation" or "essential services", would allow that use in ANY park throughout the City. I don't think we would like to see a day laborer center in Bryant Park, for example. And if it was allowed, but limited to this property? It would be called "spot zoning". Something we heard as a rallying cry regarding the beach.

At this point, my "irony meter" was in the red zone. As we all know, Commissioner Jennings is an ardent guardian of keeping the beach as a "park" and doesn't like the redevelopment project's proposed "intensification" of that park. HELLO - the shuffleboard court property is a PARK and this proposal would bring another use that is not allowed anywhere in the City and establish it here. Besides the City has probably turned away numerous day laborer centers by citing zoning laws in the past - now it would be sanctioning one in its own urban park.

I actually did offer the Commission a way out. That would be to rezone the property to "Public" - (P) and change the land use the same way. It is the same zoning of the City Hall property, allows recreation and many other uses - administrative offices, etc. But it still doesn't permit day laborer centers and that use would have to be added somewhere in the regs.

Regardless of the process used to rectify the zoning and land use situation if this were to go forward, it would take time to properly re-zone the property and go through the amendments to the comprehensive plan. And, the process would open up the opportunity for those not in favor of the other aspects of such a center to block that process. Again, the beach is a good or bad example of this, depending on your point of view.

I also brought up the concern if we end up with the center operating out of a City building, what if someone gets seriously injured while on a job they got by being there in OUR building? We are also not going to solve the problem of people working and not being paid at all or adequately for their labors.

Where do I stand on the issue? During the campaign, I thought that we should follow the Town of Jupiter model for their center - meaning a non-profit organization would run the center ina City building. However, the shuffleboard court property is not the place for that. It may seem to some like this is the easy answer, but I think that easy answer would have a lot of unintended consequences.

By the way, Commissioners Jennings, Golden and Mayor Clemens voted yes to have staff work on a lease for the property. It also sounded like staff was going to create a list of issues for the Commission to review. The Mayor made it seem like this was the next logical step after the Commission's action in December and he wanted to deal with one non-profit, not two. Commissioner Golden referred to the 1954 coup in Guatemala that overthrew a democratically elected government and that this was the consequence of that act.

Things that make you go hmmm.

Ants as Urban Planners

Benefit Concert for our Mailman John "Martin" Saarino Sunday 1/20

This was sent out by Maura Hennesey today:

Re-post

City of Boca Raton to File Amicus Brief re Sunset Lawsuit

Here we have the City of Boca Raton filing an amicus brief in support of the City of Lake Worth appeal. A similar premise is made in this filing as the Palm Beach County League of Cities filing.

It is my understanding that similar filings are forthcoming from other municipalities. It's good to know that the City of Lake Worth is not alone in this effort.

League of Cities to File Amicus Brief re Sunset Lawsuit

I thought you might be interested in seeing this filing made by the Palm Beach County League of Cities - which represents all 38 municipalities in Palm Beach County. If you have attended some City Commission meetings, you have certainly heard references to the group.

This amicus brief is where someone or entity with a similar interest joins in on one side of the law suit. In this case it is the League of Cities standing along side, in a manner of speaking, the City of Lake Worth as it appeals Judge Fine's original ruling. It is interesting that this document stresses (on page 2) that there is a potential to expose all municipalities to potential referenda on comprehensive plan amendments that affect five (5) or fewer parcels and that is opposite what the state law particularly mandates. Why, you ask? I am convinced the original legislation intent was only to include the SUBJECT property - not those around it. With any other interpretation (such as Judge Fine's), objectivity is impossible and those subject properties that are only made up of one "parcel", might be subject to a politically based (as opposed to one that is factually based) decision made by an elected body. That would happen if the elected body makes a "finding of fact" that the future land use change on one parcel affects six or more parcels.

It's also interesting to note that filing these amicus briefs can definitely influence the ultimate decision by the court.

(Link provided by clicking on the term which provides additional detail on what an amicus brief is and the process surrounding it. Remember, I am not an attorney)

Lake Worth Kiwanis Up-Coming Event

What is going on here?

Each week on Monday, the Palm Beach Post has a list of public meetings on the second page of the local section. For at least 5 weeks out of the past 8 weeks, it shows the City of Lake Worth as having NO meetings. We have a City Commission meeting tomorrow night and it's not listed here.

Something is broken and does anyone care?