or I'm leaving the room
Putting the 1st Amendment aside, whatever happened to the commission's policy on civility? ...or watching over the health and welfare of our city as a whole? What if it doesn't work and we end up with seven unfinished buildings of concrete there?
I contend that we have every right to ask questions when taxpayer money will be used to widen Boutwell Road and pay for infrastructure and services that will directly benefit this huge rental project. No commissioner has the right to get irritated with anyone from the public or a fellow commissioner. We get into trouble when we don't ask questions.
When McVoy got an opportunity to speak again he asked what the rental rates will be...they asked the contractor, Lopes, to come to the lectern to speak on rental rates. Then the city clerk, Pam Lopez, placed a document in front of the Vice Mayor. Maxwell glances at it and then states, "When he's done speaking (Mr. Lopes the contractor), I want to call the question" which is closing the debate. At that point he was totally tired of McVoy speaking to this affordable rental project in what he felt were "negative" terms. Commissioner McVoy then states that he had not finished speaking. The clerk then reminds the commission that the Vice Mayor had called the question. The vote was 4/1 to cease discussion. A new motion was made to approve the project. That vote ended 4/1 with McVoy again dissenting.
This Commission, as well as one Historical Planning board member who has been coming to meetings for 27 years, might feel it outrageous to ask questions of a contractor who wants to build a project of this magnitude in our city. However, when millions will be involved in developing the Park of Commerce as well as hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars spent directly on this property, we have not only the right but the responsibility to ask the questions, private equity used to develop private property or not. As Commissioner McVoy said, no questions were asked about this property below that was also approved by the Planning Department.
17th Avenue North and D Streets
approved by Planning & Zoning?
Does the P&Z make all the major decisions that affect our city and not the commission? The City of Lake Worth, especially the residents who have to look at this eyesore every day, did not benefit from the decision allowing this owner to take advantage of our city. And, let me repeat this, it doesn't matter the amount of money invested in the building, private property and private equity or not. Are we protected by the decisions that the planning board makes?
And since ad valorem is one of the driving factors for our commission on this affordable rental project, are protections in place to ensure that the developer can't flip it to some 501(c) or something...make sure deed restrictions are in place.
30 comments:
Dearest and most gentle fellow blogger, I hope that you are not referring to me as the member of the Historic Preservation Board who has been coming to meetings for 27 years. You are probably referring to Ms. Sharpe. I have only lived in the city 21 years. To my knowledge, Boutwell Road has already been widened independent of this residential project. And, furthermore, it was the staff of the Department of Community Sustainability that gave a permit to the owner of that property at North D and 17th. It did not go before the Planning and Zoning Board. I know you like to pile on the P&Z Board since its chairman is one of your favorite people, but they are innocent of this transgression. But, I agree, transgression it is and remains. The Code the way it is written and has been written and remains written during the eight year period the city has been in limbo without a functional zoning code is to blame for this one - and along with a poor staff interpretation. Just wanted to point these things out in continued service. Most humbly, I remain truly yours.
No doubt, a big bully. Power has gone to his head.
I need to clear something up here. First, the P & Z Board that I sit on did not approve that ugly garage. Second, our land use rules that were approved by previous commissions allowed that structure to be built without approval by P & Z. Third, our new rules when approved, will keep that from ever happening again. Because we spend so much time arguing over every little thing in this city, some of the big stuff that needs to get done takes years to happen. There is no reason that our land use rules could not have been completed years ago except for the fact that the political issues stopped everyone from doing what needed to be done. So we got the big garage because the land owner saw the loophole in our laws.
Commissioner McVoy knowing he was going to lose on this issue decided to do what he normally does when he knows he is going to lose on a vote. Talk and talk and talk. He has every right to do that but I have to wonder if the time would have been better served working to accomplish something on his agenda. There are times that you are better off compromising on an issue you are about to lose to gain support on another issue that means a lot to you. The questions that he had could have been addressed by McVoy in a private meeting with the owners. Did McVoy know that the builder of this project already has built and is operating a very successful rental project? Did McVoy know that we could not stop a rental complex from being built on this land as it was zoned for just that? If you can't stop it than at least get the owner to give the city as much community benefits as you can. I find this type of grandstanding totally unproductive and I hope that we can focus on the fact that after all these years someone wants to invest in our city. Now if we can only get businesses to invest on Dixie Highway. Let's get real here, we do not have the money ($24,000) to open our pool. That's a disgrace. We are hanging on by a thread and McVoy has offered not one solution in the past 3 years to change that. But boy can he talk. I suggest he come up with real ideas and get this commission to implement them as fast as he can. I suggest that all of our commissioners do the same thing because time is running out.
I am not referring to you, Wes--Mrs. Sharpe was the one who said that she has been coming to meetings for 27 years. And I certainly apologize if the garage did NOT come before the P&Z...that makes things even worse for our city.
And from the looks of it, Boutwell Road will be widened even further in the proposed plan.
How in the world is that garage legal if it did not come before P&Z for approval? That is a strange response from Wes, and if that is how our City is being run then we do, indeed, have come very serious problems. But there are tons of bad projects that have come before P&Z, have been approved and then negatively impacted the community. There is one near my home, horrible double stacked town home project with not enough onsite parking or green space, as a result there are cars all over the place such that you can't even drive on a two way street in my neighborhood.
" Second, our land use rules that were approved by previous commissions allowed that structure to be built without approval by P & Z."
Was that when Wes Blackman waz chair?
John, No matter whether you like the fact that McVoy asks questions and they irritate some, he has every right and a responsibility to do so. It is NOT grandstanding...that is an offensive opinion. And no, he shouldn't have to ask the contractor out of the sunshine these questions. The public deserves to hear it all. Good for McVoy for standing up knowing he was on the opposite side of the vote and asking questions that the commission should have asked. He is an elected official and should be treated much, much better than he is being treated by some on the dais and the Realtor in the 1st row.
You think that easily approving this affordable rental project was actually accomplishing something from this rubber stamp development at any cost commission. There were NO photos or information of any other projects this developer has built. Perhaps your board got them but they were NOT in the back-up to the commission. The commission wasn't even curious about it at all.
Oh, does Pam Lopez work directly for Mxwell now? It's bad when a city employee is political.
McVoy could have questioned the owner for hours out of the sunshine and than reported back to the commission. This is done all the time and it allows the time needed to fully understand a project. All I am saying is that you need to get answers before you vote. If McVoy did not like this owner he needed evidence before the meeting to justify that position. A commission meeting is no time to go fishing as you can be cut off at any time by a call of the question. So a smart commissioner who is against a project does his homework and comes to a meeting ready to present his case. You don't go to trial unless you are prepared with the evidence needed to support your position. He lost this vote and he knew he would lose it. He was simply making a political statement. Lake Worth needs better.
I AGREE--LAKE WORTH NEEDS BETTER THAN THIS COMMISSION.
@anon 9:29 a.m. I was chair of the PZHRPB from 2001 through 2006. The code was broken then and continues to be broken. Current projects are being reviewed as if we are working with the new LDRs, but that puts the city on flimsy legal ground if there is a challenge. Staff struggled to keep up with anything during that period and there were really no significant changes to the code during that time - other than a zoning-in-progress designation that was designed to curtail the proliferation of townhouses. Then the real estate economy went bust. Much of what is currently in the zoning code predates anyone currently associated with the city. That will change soon when we have the new LDRs in place.
No way was Chris McVoy being political...quite the contrary. This was a public hearing and as such, it all should have been discussed...not just what Maxwell wanted to tell us. I believe it was only the mayor who even remembered what the rental rates would be. Talk about being prepared?!!!! It was not about McVoy not liking this owner...getting cut off by calling the question was Pam Lopez helping out the vice mayor..that WAS probably political. I wish someone had asked about one on ones with Lopes or anyone on his staff and how much time was spent by each commissioner out of the sunshine.
A commissioner should not have to put up with the BS from this commission.
Question 11:
Must debate on a motion stop immediately as soon as any member calls the question?
Answer:
It is a fairly common misconception that, after debate has continued for some time, if any member shouts out “Question!” or “I call the question!” debate must immediately cease and the chair must put the pending question to a vote. This is simply not the case. Any member who wishes to force an end to debate must first obtain the floor by being duly recognized to speak by the chair, and must then move the Previous Question. Such a motion must be seconded, and then adopted by a two-thirds vote, or by unanimous consent. It is not in order to interrupt a speaker with cries of “Question” or “Call the Question,” and even if no one is speaking, it is still necessary to seek recognition. [RONR (11th ed.), p. 202; see also pp. 35-37 of RONRIB.]
http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html
Scott Maxwell has always been a bully. He seems to get worse with time and a lot more arrogant. He's now going to solve all our slum and blight problems he says. it is no wonder that people can't stand politicians.
Wes @ 10:38--and it was this commission and Michael Bornstein who STOPPED the zoning in progress.
Right, I predict Scott the fowl mouth man go down in history along side Bo Allen, they are both the same arrogant and big bullies. Scott still has done nothing about blight, slum, and crime although he contends it is a problem and spoke so passionately about it when he took office this time. He is another huge phony, big mouth bully incompetent in his role as comm. Vote him out too like we did Bo.
"Scott Maxwell has always been a bully. He seems to get worse with time and a lot more arrogant. He's now going to solve all our slum and blight problems he says. it is no wonder that people can't stand politicians."
It is most disturbing the Pam didn't correct this. Even worse she FED INFO to ONLY 1 REP and OBVIOUSLY motivated him to NOT FOLLOW THE RULES but MAKE THEM UP AS WE GO ALONG - It is NO WONDER to me why the citizens don't obey the laws when OUR REPS and CLERK don't even know them!!!
"Acts of Pretended Legislation"
or
Do as I say and not as I do!
The teeth that are intended to BITE the people will probably BITE the hand that dealt it!
Dern those
Unintended Consequences!
...and the 1st ZIP Vote the Mayor Voted AGAINST her own house - if she didn't "get" her house was in peril - how pray tell would she protect our homes??? This was just before Hurricane Season!
NONE of them Regularly read the back up!It is obvious to anyone who actually READS THE BACK UP!
The land is zoned Mixed Use it is not zoned rental. It did not have to be rental residential.
If anyone has watched the P&Z Board meeting it is obvious they do not look at the backup before the meeting.
The chair does not even have a laptop. The backup must be printed out for him each time.
Back up Printed at WHAT COST?
I pay out the nose to print everything they drown US with!
I heard LAST round of LDR's was $200
Wassup W/that for a free people?
Didn't like it when Bush said he was the decider and sure as heck don't like the unelected unaccountable deciding for me either! (FYI: Our Entire US was decided - Constitution - in 18 pages!)
Property Rights and Property Relationships are are REPLACED
with "Utopian Ideology" that
lacks the MATH to back it up!
I am close to this situation. Mr. McVoy had since November 2012 to voice his concerns over this project and he did not. In fact thru all these months that this project worked its way thru our outdated system Mr. McVoy was kept apprised of its status. He at every turn was silent until it was to late. His counter productive comments came after He knew the vote was lost, and made simply to pander to his base. Lynn, if you are mad be mad at him for not being prepared. He has done some good things during his years on the commission, but not this time. You can argue with John, but people familiar with this know the truth.
am shocked that dear old helen and diplomat katie have not graced us with their words of wisdom. oh well i guess the city will survive another day.
Hi anony @ 5:37--I'm not mad about anything. Just trying to point out things that bug me. As said, he was not playing politics, IMO. In fact, you say he pandered to his base...what base? I would think his base would be to EMBRACE AFFORDABLE RENTALS, no? At least that's what you guys keep tellin me...he loves all these people who want no progress for the city other than catering to the poor and downtrodden. :)
Sorry, you misinterpreted his intentions. I am happy he asked the questions as I had not talked to him prior to the meeting and obviously he doesn't read what I write over here. I have not been happy with some decisions of late from any commissioner. As far as this affordable rental housing project, I am hoping that it won't turn into a full-fledged "project" but I wouldn't put money on it. We have had quiet enjoyment over here and want to keep it that way. This was for approval of a MAJOR AMENDMENT and worthy of any and all discussion.
I am in no way an enemy of yours. I took the time out to give you the facts and you blew me off. You did not respond with a nay or yay about the timing of his remarks nor that he was totally unfamiliar with the principals. If he did not speak up for 7 months when it would have counted, what then was his point last night.
sorry--I don't understand why you are insisting he knew all about this for 7 months when he said last night the first time he learned about it was on the first public hearing...that was what, 2 weeks ago?
So, how can I answer that. You seem to know something that McVoy does not know. McVoy doesn't lie. I blew you off? How so? I said it was NOT political and timing had NOTHING to do with anything in that regard. You believe the opposite. What more can I say?
I did not say he lied. I do think he is honorable but sometimes impractical. One true thing you said was he only learned about this project recently. That means he did not read what was sent to him for near 7 months. I think a part of it was embarrassed at lack of knowledge on the project. Ireally am giving you the facts. I cannot out people, but you really donot know the facts. You like him, so do I, but do not be clouded and make him a superstar
One other thing. To be fair frequently other commissioners are not prepared to make decisions and do anyway.
For a Commissioner to meet with an applicant to gain information so that he or she can make an informed decision, is a private meeting and possibly be disclosed, but is in no way covered by the sunshine laws.
It is actually due diligence. He should also contact members of the planning department with questions before the meeting for a vote.
All of this banter just shows AGAIN, that it is ANY development that you are against. If not, which private development in the past ten years have you been a PROPONENT of?
Whatever, anonymous. We just keep beating this dead horse--
As far as your question, name some developments that have been successful...have not brought affordable housing to our city...have helped raise us from the slum and blight...not foreclosed upon, etc. and that will be the project I like.
It is your opinion how a commissioner should conduct himself. That is why we have elections. That is why he won with 56% of the vote. I don't agree with "him" on many issues but one thing that I do know is--he is not corrupt.
I was surprised Scott said he would leave the room and did not want to hear any more about certain issues, strange point of view for a commissioner who pledged to serve all residents.
Post a Comment