Is it just me, or is it getting a little warm in here? First, I have to say we're getting pretty close to that civility line, attacks on employees or commissioners aren't really welcome. If there are personnel issues to be dealt with, I will certainly do so in the proper channels, of which a public blog is not one.
As for my "strengths and weaknesses" one poster continues to ask about, that person has missed the point of the entire exercise I attended. The idea is to identify your own behavioral preferences, and how they fit into the expectations of those around you and the needs of the organization. It's a very positive, productive and self-revealing exercise, and it's void of value judgements about who or what is "strong" or "weak." I know many like to make value and character judgements, but that wasn't the point. It's about self-improvement and organizational development.
So - as I told staff recently, I continue to seek the high road. Anyone else there with me?
As for my "strengths and weaknesses" one poster continues to ask about, that person has missed the point of the entire exercise I attended. The idea is to identify your own behavioral preferences, and how they fit into the expectations of those around you and the needs of the organization. It's a very positive, productive and self-revealing exercise, and it's void of value judgements about who or what is "strong" or "weak." I know many like to make value and character judgements, but that wasn't the point. It's about self-improvement and organizational development.
So - as I told staff recently, I continue to seek the high road. Anyone else there with me?
posted by Michael McNees at 5:07 PM
29 Comments:
amen!!
Yes, I think alot of people could learn from this post.
Mike, this is turning out to be quite a town meeting. Especially valuable are the comments of current and former city employees, and I hope their comments are indeed anonymous to avoid punishment for speaking frankly. In "stovepipe organizations," communication is seldom frank, and candor should be valued (and protected).
You have much on your plate, but I'd like to repeat an earlier request – average and/or mean city employee salary? You might surprise some folks by giving the total city employment as a fraction of city population, and city payroll as a fraction of the overall budget...since these numbers are soon up for final public comment at the budget adoption hearing (next week?).
As for the "heat," it's part of playing in the public policy kitchen...especially when you're working up a new recipe.
Maybe it is a bit warm....
Can you explain if it is merely coincidence that the Burns Court Zoning was amended to Downtown Core at the same time that the ill concieved Orange/Dolphin public parking garage that you have endorsed was shown to function only if the Development could be built to DTC height as the Mr. Christner's "Burns Court Tower" indicates? While you may not have brought this publicly in front of the Commissioners the night the Contract was retracted, copies were circulating in the chamber- and without a doubt you have had input/meetings on this proposed project. Any comments? Should we be looking forward to seeing the first "tower" in the neighborhood?
maybe it is a little warm.....
Could you speak to the coincidence between the Burns Court District being amended from DTE to DTC- allowing for 180' tall buildings, and the controversial Orange/Dolphin public parking garage project you were proposing? While the City Commission voted to cancel the contract at the time, there was a proposed solution of drawings that Mr. Christner had that evening titled "Burns Court Tower" that was circulating in the Chambers that evening. No doubt you had meetings on this developemnt proposal prior to that meeting- we all know getting the City's desired number of parking spaces on such a small site would not meet a Developer's pro forma without it. Any Commissioners sit in on this meeting? Now that the Zoning is being changed, are the residents of this City going to see the timely proposal for purchasing the Orange/Dolphin property again by the City Manager, and the subsequent unveiling of Burns Court's first "Tower"?
Did anyone consider that this is not a "walk to town" city or one geared to everyone walking. Look at our population. The population is mostly elderly. They cannot walk everywhere. Why is the city to wanting to be pedestrian friendly when the fact of the matter is that the City's population is elderly. Families and young people cannot afford to live here. We are not like Orlando or Tampa with lots of young adults, teenagers and families. Our population is elderly and cannot walk everywhere. They are physically unable to do so. Look around the grocery stores and restaurants and it is quite evident what makes up the City's population. Did Duany see any of that when he made the plan? Has the Planning Dept seen it? We are losing our tourism because of the red tide and no hotels - even fewer people who are able to walk. Maybe the plan needs to be looked at again.
Good question about the perceived connection between the City's proposed Orange-Dolphin acquisition and Mr. Christner's proposed tower. The fact is neither I, nor anyone else at the city I am aware of, had anything to do with that proposed tower. (Like a number of people, I was amazed at how quickly the drawings were generated, or more likely they had been working on them previously, the city wasn't the only bidder on that property!) I saw the drawings either the day before or the day of (don't remember exactly)the meeting you mentioned and didn't think anyone much would support it.
The simple design concept our engineer did of a stand-alone garage was drawn assuming DTE zoning. In my conversations with Mr. Brown and Mr. Christner about a potential mixed use project on the TWO properties, they made it clear that one more story would be necessary from their point of view, but I didn't know if that was achievable. I did think about the "bonus floor" concept that's been talked about for public parking.
It's true DTC opens up more options, but even under that I'd be surprised if the Commission would ever agree to be a partner on 10 stories there. Of course that's academic at this point, at least it seems. Thanks for the chance to clear that up!
Stan, we'll get you that number this week.
You say that you doubt the City would want to be a partner on a ten story solution to the Orange/Dolphin property. I'm curious as to why- do you believe the City shouldn't be involved in the development of a 180' tall tower because of the height? And if so, then why did the majority of the Commissioners- vote to go along with DTC zoning? Are you planning on revisiting the aquisition of this property for a public parking garage? If so, then it seems obvious that Mr. Christner's property will come into play as well, and I've already seen what he is proposing. You say it is academic at this point- I suspect it is not mere coincidence. Could you speak to these issues please?
In your response to the other writers questions on the Orange and Dolphin property the City had under contract, you mentioned there were other bidders on the property. Now that the City has backed away from the contract- where are the other bidders? You made it sound like they were waiting in the wings to snatch it away.
To 2:45 - I didn't say anything about what the city "should" do. I said that I would be surprised if the city would approve a tower there they were partners in, based on what I know about the commissioners' feelings about that area. It's just my opinion, I may be right, may be wrong. I said it's academic because that also is my opinion, that doesn't mean the city won't make a counter offer in the future. And why did 3 commissioners vote for DTC? I know what they said, which was that the change from CCBD to DTE, to borrow from the legalese, "disproportianately burdened" those properties, which were the only ones seeing that dramatic a downzone, with the effects of the overall density reduction downtown. That hasn't been explained very well in the press.
And there were other bidders on Orange-Dolphin, I'll be happy to introduce you to them if you wish. I think what happened with the leases had everyone take a step back, as well as the zoning being somewhat uncertain, though the zoning wasn't an issue for us as far as parking went. We'll all see what happens next...
Here's a question from me - almost everything I do and say is played out in public - including who I meet with and when. I've always completely answered every question about what we're thinking as well (as I try to do here). So why are some so quick to believe there's something nefarious going on?
Mr City Manager,
My partners and I want some City land, and from what we've seen of a process, it seems rather straight forward. If we promise to construct some parking spaces for public use- and say things like our project will be a "catalyst" for more walkability- should we just come down and bring our check book with us?
In addition to the two goals of the Downtown Master plan, If you bring your proforma with you and can demonstrate the economic benefit to the City, I'm sure you can.
To 11:03 PM - It also helps to be able to deliver something like the Whole Foods Market, which was a key component of the Downtown Master Plan. Other than that I'm not aware of city land that has been handed over to anyone so far, though there could be a project I'm not thinking about at the moment. There has been a lot of conversation and negotiation, but the fact that no land has changed hands would seem to me to be pretty good evidence that it's not quite that easy. Do you think Ersa Grae Corp. would say it's as easy as you make it sound?
How about the property Mr. Franklin has been lobbying for over in the Rosemary District? Seems like 11:03 has a point- seems as if the land rush is on. Why does it seem the City is so anxious to dispose of their valuable property? As far as I can tell, the City is capable of developing their own property for parking instaed of paying inflated costs to a developer.......
Dear 11:03 - that was an obnoxious blog just to poke at someone. IF you really had money and had an idea you would not post behind anonymous or be that rude.
In response to the City Manager's response to 2:45- as you have said that everything is public and in the open- are you currently having meetings with Mr Christner or his representatives on a proposed 180 tall building to be located on the two properties running from Pineapple to Orange and fronting on Dolphin Street? Do these conversations (if they are happening) include discussions as to the City participating in the form of land purchases or City subsidies? Finally, are there any of the Commissioners involved in these meetings (if they are occuring)?
No.
To respond to the city manager at 9:28
I guess we will see just how easy it is. Let's think about this- Mr. Fanklin et al wants City land in Rosemary district. Mr Fanklin et al wants city owned land on St. Armands Circle. Mr Fanklin (as part of the Ersa Grae team) wants the City owned property on Palm Avenue and the Isaacs want City owned land on State Street. None of which want to see the City go through the proper process on an RFP and competitive bid- which is the way most municipalities handle such issues. Do you think it is appropriate and in the public's best interest not to pursue a formal process (RFP) and see what others may have to offer the City?
Dear 10:12,
I wasn't rude- I was serious, and who would I actually being "poking" at? Your new to the Blog thing aren't you?
Dear 5:12, 10:12 and 11:03: I agree with 10:12. 5:12 & 11:03 comments were just childish rants. Someone capable of bringing a viable project to the city commission and has the money to do the project is not blogging anonymously. And that person is not stupid enough to speak as if those projects are easy.
To 4:37 - Much of what you say is true - but who said the city was going to dispose of any of those properties without some competitive process? People want things all the time, that doesn't mean they get them. The only time that is even considered, as far as I know is when a neighboring property can be joined with the city property, but even in that case, as in the Whole Foods project, an opportunity was given for others to submit proposals.
While there are some who think we don't respect those processes, the opposite is true. We are very concerned that the disposition of city land happen in a competitive and correct way, so my answer to your closing question is emphatically "no!".
I was familiar with the way the City handled the "RFP" process for the Whole Foods Site. The City issued an abreviated (30 days if I'm not mistaken) legal announcement in the local paper. Already knowing that the developer for the Whole Foods had the job- in short it was simply going through with a legal requirement- much like the advise the City Attorney recently counciled to the Commission regarding the prospect of allowing the Palm Avenue property to be disposed of to the Ersa Grae group. An abreviated 30 day notice, if I remember correctly would satisfy the "legal" aspect of the disposal. Hardly what I would consider a fair and equitable process in the publics best interest.
I get your point, but how does anyone compete with someone who can offer to aggregate a huge piece of neighboring property? Isn't there public benfit in joining those properties together, which allowed for example something like Whole Foods to happen, to achieve that outcome?
So your saying big is better?
A 30 day notice is good. The groups that do these types of deals are always on top of what is going on around town and usually know about them prior to being listed in the paper because, just like the State St. property, there is tons and tons of press coverage and speculation - so if when the 30 day process comes and you are the group that all of a sudden sais "gee I didn't know that was an option" you probably are not business smart to do the deal in the first place. If you want the State Street deal or all the other deals you spoke of start putting your money were your mouth is and get some of those "closed door" meetings that you feel you are left out of.
I do not think he said big is better but I am one that is happy to have Whole Foods right next to work. Oh, my god, did I just uncover a conflict of interest? A Whole Foods close to city workers, a benefit to the job, Conspiracy police!!
McNees 6:00
So you seem to be admitting that these projects are already in the pipeline, and that your legal notices are a mere formality to making the selection legitimate. "How one competes" as you have stated is that the City actually behave in a forthright manner and insure that a fair and equitable competitive bid take place. As to 6:21's comment- you're right as far as a lot of the groups being in the loop, and in some cases actually proposing deals for City land. This does not preclude the responsibilities of a municipality of following the competitive selection process that serves to assure any member of the public that a fair and equitable process has in deed taken place. I am not in the business to submit for such things, so your snipe that I too jump in your pool is irrelevant. Mr. McNees has acknowledged that such practices do take place (Whole Foods is the example). The point is this: If the City continues to subrogate its responsibilities in this matter to those that have "the most toys", then the legitimacy of process is defeated.
As I said before, I get your point, but to suggest that the City's negotiation and proposed deal with Casto Southeast, which brought the Whole Foods Market, was anything but forthright and open is just not supported by the facts. Every decision along the way was made at public meetings and open to public scrutiny. You seem to take the position that it is unfair that a neighboring landowner is in a competitively stronger position because he can aggregate land. If that's true, it's just a dynamic of the situation, not something the city causes. Is the commission supposed to disallow great ideas that involve neighboring property because not every potential player has an equal opportunity to propose something similar?
What involvement past, present, or future does (will) the City have with the downtown wireless project?
Post a Comment
<< Home