Pineapple Square - Obviously there's a great deal of interest in the city's decision to move this project forward. Rather than continue the thread on my previous post, I'll just put the heading up here. This is a very interesting project, to say the least, so let's talk about the issues, what you think, and why. As far as the politics go, and who should or shouldn't be elected or re-elected, my suggestion is that someone start a local political blog; I suspect it would be very popular!
posted by Michael McNees at 1:37 PM
39 Comments:
Mr. McNees:
I have some questions about the Pineapple Square development and the Commissioners quick approval.
With the appraisal for the State Street land showing far market rate per square foot, exactly how could the Isaac Group offer almost half per square foot for the 1st Street land?
Why would the Commissioner's consider giving up the 1st Street land, even if the Isaac's paid fair market value when so many businesses in that block rely on those parking spaces? Is this not like giving to the new shiny businessman while forgetting about those that have stuck in with things through the changes. It would seem the ones that have been in it for a long time have the most to loose from this deal.
Also, how can the developer and the commissioners act like this is no cost to the taxpayers? My calculation shows the city contributing about 16-17 million dollars (7-8 million in hard cash & the rest in their land) for only 350 parking spaces, is that correct? And then the developer stated the project will bring in how many million in tax dollars over the next ten years? Are we making any money in the next ten years?
Also, they want to bring in companies that are not based in Sarasota so the incomes for those businesses will not benefit Sarasota, is that somewhat correct?
All the businesses on State Street and many on Main Street use the State Street parking lot. Why are we not building on State Street so it is between Main Street, lower State Street and the Pineapple Square project?
Why did we not ask for the developer to put affordable housing on State Street. Also, why did we not ask for a percentage of the profits on the development of State Street?
I know many questions are not your call and the commissioners did not listen to the consultants, staff or anyone with some common sense but I would appreciate some answers.
I was very surprised to hear the city commission accepted the deal that was requested by the Isaac Group. There has been very little time for the public to digest the requests made and the incentives being given to the Isaac Group for the Pineapple project. What exactly was the rush to get this deal passed? They Isaac Group has been promoting this project for a year without giving too much information about their demands of the city. Then they act like it is a rush and has to be done now, very politically smart I might add, or else. Or else what? Does the public not get to know the "or else" that must have been held over our commissioners heads?
This is the first time I really have seen the commission act terrible irresponsible with our tax payers money and land. This is a big loss to our downtown, not the project but the inability for the commission to negotiate. I guess each commissioner felt they negotiated this deal themselves and did not need any professionals. This is becoming a scary city with these commissioners, especially since we are on the subject of accountability.
What do we do if we so dislike this decision. Do we have to become screaming citizens at public meetings throwing bananas? What would have helped? I did not see a group of commissioners that even listened, they just gave it to them.
Very disappointed.
I really like the idea of the project but it scares me somewhat. Did anyone read the article in the paper today by Michael Klauber? It makes you think about what we are creating and is this the best we can do?
The Commissioners even did an end around their own advisory group that would normally be consulted before reviewing decisons like those made. I think the writing was on the wall all the time. Four of the Commissioners sat stone faced when Commissioner Palmer commented about why they were not using the advisory board on this deal. Yep- it was preyty obvious this was a sham process and the fix was in- come hell or high water. Is it actually possible to recall Shelin? I'd be the first to sign the petition! That man is a disgrace- process and accountablity? Don't fool yourself he's a tool ad we have all been had by his bait and switch approach to politics. I'm serious about the recall thing.
It sounds like the vast majority of the writers commenting on this blog really never understood all of the facts. First, the project has been under review since April, 2005, second the Commissioners met in September , 2005 and heard facts presented by the Staff recommending the project and moving forward finish financial terms. Third, the developer presented the project to the CRA advisory board in late Sept. 2005, and lastly, four more months and two appraisals later, the staff still could not, and did not make any final recommendations and so the Commission simply had the insight to understand that conclusions, one way or another, had to be reached. This was never a rush to judgement. Many business and citizens' groups continue to support the project and the conclusion of the Commissioners. Of 20 signed up speakers, 17, from all walks of life, spoke in favor of the project. After she saw that 3 of 5 Commissioners,(Atkins, Shelin and Bilyu),Commissioner Palmer clearly was pandering to the staff, and no-growthers, when she implied falsely that no time has been allowed for answering questions or further study. She fooled no one except those who would take her words at face value or the casual observer of the meetings. It always looks good to be asking for more information and she clearly likes to "look" good, especially, it seems, when it is at the expense of the other Commissioners.
To the blogger that complained that Ken Shelin didn't need to be there to hear public input, what you should know and would have if you asked me, was as soon as he joined the table I gave him a copy of every speaker card and their comments so he was up to date. The attacks and flagrant disregard for the truth on this blog is astonishing.
Bravo for you Mayor Servian,
I always knew how you would vote,
keep up the good work!
Dear Mayor Servian:
However you would like to defend yourself it remains a fact that you have dismissed the public input as trivial by your comments and actions and that you would let Ken know what he missed is not being a good steward of our city. Do you not find that irresponsible? What was the "rush" and inability to allow time for Commissioner Shelin? You obviously support the Pineapple project that has been too transparent with your actions. So you took the notes of the speakers for Ken? Do you know short hand? Did you write everything they had to say? Did you allow Ken time or call a recess so he could read the comments without having to pay attention to the next speaker?
Well, I guess those notes you took for Ken are public record, so it will be interesting to get a copy and see exactly what you wrote. Also, does that not touch on a problem with the Sunshine Law, passing notes without the other commissioners knowing what it said?
Also you comments about "it being just comment time and we will let you know what is said" and scheduling the meeting immediately the next day without giving the public sufficient time to reschedule themselves to attend this important decision, I think is not responsible of you. Also, as some pointed out it did not even air on TV for a lot of the meeting, so those at home could not even see what was happening. This was too important a decision to say, "oh, well, TV scheduling just could not give us the airing time".
What is with your defensive attitude about this. Is it possibly your brain telling you something what fishy about this and you should have slowed down the process some. The public has had very little time to understand the dynamics of this deal but they are not that happy. Everyone would like to see a quality developer do a project, that is not the issue, the issue is how you pushed for this to pass so quickly. Is it that you just want something to happen while you are Mayor?
You say the attacks on this blog are not accurate but you fail to say what is. It is accurate you just gave the biggest subsidy ever awarded in this city to this developer for 350 public parking spaces that the consultant showed they will just be used by the development. So acting like we are getting new parking spaces for the public is a joke per the consultants but you know better, right?
Also, did not the developer say the city will gain 10 million dollars of tax money in the next ten years? Well that does not even start to give us our money back, that is only about half of what you just gave him.
8/2/06 9:28 PM:
Okay so what commissioner wrote the last post?
You may have some of the dates accurate but what is not accurate is the details never became public until very recently, like in the last couple of months. So acting like this has been thing long drawn out public knowledge thing is just a lie. What was the long public knowledge was Mr. Simon running around town having meetings with all the "important" people and special interests in the neighborhoods selling his project and idea. He was not going around saying, "we want to pay on 1 million for State Street and then charge the city over 7 million dollars for 350 parking spaces" and "we also want to control other locations for parking for our own projects, like First Street and the Bus Station."
I can also see how many spoke in favor of the project, most people are not against the project, so you are confusing the two different subjects. People are upset that the commission did not try to negotiate a better deal with our tax money. This is just a fact. And to say staff did not recommend anything is a cheap way out. Staff, consultants and the appraisers had a lot to say but are not suppose to tell Commissioners what to do. They did say to work on the deal more but Commissioners already let Simon know that they were supporting his project. He had no reason to "work" or "negotiate" with staff, he won before he even stepped in the commission chambers.
Since when does Palmer pander to Staff? To make the other commissioners look bad? She had balls to stand up for what she felt was a little off for the taxpayers. But, the other four just had to finalize it and not send it to staff for more negotiating. This is a real show of what is wrong with the commissioners right now, you all think you "know" better or more than everyone else. Ms. Servian is not looking out for us.
Mrs. Servian: You are not serious are you? Do you really think we are that stupid? Do you really think you are that smart?
You already stated in the Monday meeting you "would give Ken and update on the comments" so you pointing it out again is common knowledge.
The public is saying just by you handling Ken's situation that way is a total disregard for your citizens and the process of this vote. Every Commissioner and every citizen should have had complete access to this meeting. You should have started the meeting later, then Ken would be present and it possible would have been on TV.
But "why confuse the the issue with the facts"! I think I have heard that before, have you? Is that not what we just witnessed by the commission vote? Why confuse the deal with facts? Give Simon what he wants, oh but lets make it look good by having Simon give in on some really minor issues but not the millions of incentive.
I thought the project could not work unless they got State Street? Is there a clause stating they have to provide the profits information, just in case that does not prove to be the reality so maybe we could get some of our money back after they make hundreds of millions?
Dear Mr. McNees:
A poster (most likely a commissioner), several comments back stated: "1st, the project has been under review since April, 2005". Can you state what had been under review and if the details of the money and land exchanges were in those reviews?
Poster stated: "2nd the Commissioners met in Sept 05 & heard facts presented by the Staff recommending the project & moving forward finish financial terms". Did the city know the details of the money and land exchanges were available at this point?
Poster stated: "3rd the developer presented the project to the CRA advisory board in late Sept. 05". Again, did the develper present details of the money and land exchanges at that time?
Poster stated: "lastly, four more months and two appraisals later, the staff still could not, and did not make any final recommendations". At what time was the proposal by the Isaac Group presented to the city? Is it true that staff could not and did not make any final recommendations?
Poster stated: "so the Commission simply had the insight to understand that conclusions, one way or another, had to be reached". What "insight" did the commission have that was not public information? Could the commission concluded that more negotiation is needed to balance the scales a little?
I have a question about the Palm Avenue deal that just went sour several months ago. What was the deal with that developer? The land was appraised around 4.5 million and the developer in exchange for the land was going to build some public parking, is that correct? Or was the city going to have to pay additional cash into the Palm Ave project including the 4.5 million land? I know the figures are different now but the theory is the same. Please, I would like to understand the thinking here.
One of the problems of allowing anonymous postings is that cowards can hide in the dark and make abusive comments. It is fascinating to read complaints from anonymous bloggers concerning the lack of responsibility of others while they hide in anonymity. It is hollow and McNees should be smarter than allowing this false dialog. Perhaps it serves his purpose?
First it seems the public has had very little time to get to know this project. There still is very little press coverage that tells you really what the terms are. I am sure it is a complicated deal, nevertheless, the public deserves to know the details more.
like, was the property appraised for over 10 million and we are selling it to the Isaac Group for 1 million and the use of airspace to build an additional 200 parking spaces in their development between by Lemon & Pineapple?
Are we, the taxpayers going to have to pay for all 350 public parking spaces that will be owned by the city or are we paying for just the additional 200 spaces, because we alread had appx. 150 spaces already on State Street?
Did the Isaac Group only offer 100 sq ft for the 1st Street lot and is this not almost half of the appraised sq ft price of land downtown?
How much in tax money is estimated to be generated by this project?
What guarantees does the city have from the developer, like what tenants, date of opening, commitment to small establishments, commitment to not be completely vacant?
When was the first time the city had in writting the demands (wants, wish list, needs, requests) of the developer to move forward with this project?
Did the developer really imply that they would not do the project if they could not get the State Street lot for what they proposed?
I mean, does the commission really think they would just walk away after owning all this land?
Funny C. Johnson you do not put your first name or who you are, are you even listed in the phone book?
Interesting also, for those that have followed city politics and events, this blog has always allowed open conversation, anonymous or not.
Mr. McNees was not a coward hearing all the negative things people say about him. He seems to at least try to answer the questions and it is great to have a place to ask questions.
And what is Mr. McNees' purpose? Staff was honest with what they felt about his deal for the city and the citizens should be happy they are not pursuaded by politics.
Still, I am sorry to see, it appears Mr. McNees has had to be whipped into "believing in this deal" and he now has to deal with the mistakes made by Commission, again and act like it is a good thing for the city.
Again, everyone likes the car but the details are a tad shaddy.
10:30 wrote something about false dialogue.....a lot of misunderstandings get posted on this post but that is what is so wonderful about this service the City Manager has provided.
You can ask those questions and get some feedback, it is great. You can also see what others are thinking and get different views, that is great too.
I would like to address c. Johnson's comments regarding the issue of anonimity and the reference to cowards. Does the fact that the City Commissioners are behaving in an irresponsible manner make the anonymous bloggers cowards? Politics being what they are in this town, I think it is alright for people to express their opinions and concerns in an anonymous manner as long as they do not threaten or slander anyone. I think what you are seeing here are the frustrations and disbelief in a system that is supposed to be based on process and facts has failed in, my opinion, a very big way. I believe Mayor Servian's intentions were evident from the very beginning how she felt and how she would vote- as evident from previous blog comments. As I'm certain the other 2 or 3 Commissioners had also made up their minds- even in the face of many experts expressing caution in this deal. The brow beating of the City's own paid independent consultants by the Commissioners- especially Mayor Servian- was writing on the wall as to what was going to transpire- that is not the way to be a leader.
Mayor Servian, if you are going to address comments made on this post, why not start your own? And, if you are going to address them anyway, why not answer some of the questions being asked? Like when was a real contract first given to the city by Isaac Group?
While we do not all agree with things the city does or does not do, the one thing that has been really great is having a place to voice your opinion and ask questions.
C. Johnson must be a commissioner posting because really, who would be sticking up for those decisions at this time. We all want the city to grow up with good projects and this is a big project but that is not the struggle so many are having, it is the cost to have this development.
Mr. McNees is there a way to give a full report on this blog of exactly what the city is being asked to do and when it was really asked for?
And why do they keep saying we are getting so many additional spaces? We had about 150 and are getting another 200 with the ability to use some of the developers spaces and charge a fee. I hope the city charges a fortune to park in that garage because their tenants are the only ones to benefit.
In response to 9:51's question about whether the CRA's Advisory Committee was awre of the specifics od the proposed deal at the time it was presented I can tell you they were not. The Advisory Committee was only given an overview of the project by Mr. Simon. There were no details financial or otherwise discussed. This happened only after Commissioner Palmer had asked the question in the September meeting on the project why the Advisory Committee was not being consulted- to which Commissioner Shelin indicated that he did not want them involved and no other Commissioners at the table supported Palmer's concerns- great process. Afterward, there was no opportunity for the members of the Committee to offer any input at all. So for the previous blogger who brought this up in their series of points, I would say they are misleading the readers.
I'm not sure if alot of you realize it or not but WE LIVE IN A CITY! CITIES GROW! THAT'S WHAT THEY DO FOR GOD'S SAKE! GROWTH IS INEVITABLE AND NECESSARY! Just think if no one died and it was the same old people people here year after year after year. BORING! IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE CHANGES MOVE TO IOWA! Thank you commissioners for moving the Pineapple Square project forward. We applaud your ability to take a stand and act on it!
I have been a supporter of Commissioner Servian, because she has been a supporter of my neighborhood. I am not sure why all of the blame is being put on her. What about Bilyeu, Atkins and Shelin (okay, he is getting some blame too). I think Servian is getting the most attacks because she is being disingenuous with the public. It is like the James Frey/Oprah scandal. Everyone knows that they are being mislead, but the person won't admit it. If Servian wants to get past this controversy, I think that she needs to admit that she made mistakes. Most people like the overall concept of Pineapple Square. Likewise, many people are concerned that it is costing the city too much and will add to our parking problems. I think the commissioner MUST address these concerns specifically and must reassure citizens that she will work on those issues in further discussions with the Isaac group. It is not too late to get more parking...
the trouble with letting inexperienced commisioners make decisssions- is that you end up with- poor decisions- It is time to get professionals to make decissions- unfortunately it is the same commisioners who chose their management team- they are as poor at making that decission as any other- what we end up with is a poorly managed city
Has anyone stated what the number of new parking spaces will be after this project is completed? I mean the net not including the existing parking spaces being included in the project.
• How many square feet of dining and retail space will there be?
• Does the City have any formula like the County does for parking based on square feet?
For a large restaurant, like a P.F. Chang, the County requires 1 space for every 50 square feet of dining and waiting area. There is a similar formula for retail in the County codes.
The following was sent to Mayor Servian with copies to the other Commissioners. While waiting for responses from them I would also request a response from Mr McNees. Thanks. Pam
Feb 12, 2006
Mayor Servian,
I am still very confused about how you can endorse a project such as Pineapple Square, even when you look at it as "the project that we need to accomplish our vision for this city" (your quote which appeared in the Herald Tribune Feb 10, 2006).
We have all heard over and over that there is a tremendous problem downtown due to a lack of public parking spaces. This project was touted as being one of the answers to that problem. But a city consultant, traffic and parking expert Tindale Oliver and Associates Inc., said the number of parking spaces in Pineapple Square wouldn't cover the total need or demand.
"We believe this project would create a net deficit of 217 spaces," the consultant said. "So you would not be picking up any additional parking to help in the immediate area."
City planners have also questioned the "apparent unevenness" of the deal with Isaac.
So the Isaac deal would take an already serious downtown parking problem, make it far worse by increasing the parking deficit by 217 spaces, and cost the City taxpayers millions of dollars in developer subsidies and land contributions to boot.
Here is a suggested simple mathematics formula you might consider.
1. 350 parking spaces to help alleviate current parking problem - City pays for
2. ??? parking spaces required to replace lost parking from surface parking lot and street parking which taxpayers have already paid for - developer pays for
3. ??? parking spaces required for condominium development - developer pays for
4. ??? parking spaces required to accommodate demand of Pineapple Square merchants and restaurants - developer pays for
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = total number of parking spaces required to be in the Pineapple Square plan before City goes any further.
Any overlapping of the numbers will result in the parking problem not being solved.
This is just one of the major issues that needs to be dealt with regarding the Pineapple Square project. I would appreciate your input on this before bringing forth other concerns.
Sincerely,
Pam Bournival
Amonymous 9:29 (now deleted), you're off on some of what you're remembering, and I would ask that if you want to share your opinion here you separate it from the personal attack. All 5 City Commissioners do what they believe is best for the city, and are certain to be criticized by someone for almost every decision they make. If you want to disagree with them on this blog that is fine, just show them some respect.
There are some basic questions that I would like answered about the Pineapple Square project and other projects the city has contributed to.
How long did the negotiations with Whole Foods take?
How long did the negotiations with the Herald Tribune take?
How much was given to the Whole Foods project? Values at the time of the project and appraisals? For what?
How much was given to the Herald Tribune? For what?
Did not Ms. Servian say "she wished the she got more information on the projects we have done" before she approved them?
From: Jack Wagner, Sarasota
According to the Tribune article* the developer will realize a $50 million profit on a $200 Million investment while the city is contributing $7.6 million. Of course, the first thought is what's Issac going to do if he does not get his 'subsidy'? Not build? Doubtful.
Hmmm, perhaps that $7.6 million should be an equity position in the project for all of the taxpayers. You do the math.
* Reading the Tribune's editorials should be compulsory for the commissioners and a reply mandatory.
From: Marcella Levin
Thank you for this blog site and the opportunity to expand on comments I made at the Public Hearing on Pineapple Square. The Pineapple Square concept is good; however, the financial arrangements do not seem to be as favorable for the City as they are, for example, for Simon or for the Methodist Church. Maybe the City should have had the team of lawyers that negotiated for the Meth Ch negotiate for us.
As I understand the project, the Meth Ch will lease its parking lot to P.Sq. developers for 80 years. The Church does not have to pay Simon any money to develop parking spaces on the land; they get the use of the parking spaces for church purposes; and the whole project reverts to the Meth Ch at the end of 80 years (incl the parking spaces that the city will have to pay $7.6 million to construct).
In contrast, the city will have to surrender the State St parking lot valued at $10.9 million plus pay $7.6 million ($17,000+ per parking space)to construct 350 parking spaces. The developer has determined that the value of the State St lot is $1 million - despite the recent evaluation of $10.9 million by a consultant paid by the city and, altho I don't have the figures, a comparable evaluation of the same property when the bonds were re-issued in 2002. So the developer will magnanimously give the city $1 million for the State St lot and $800,000 for First St parking spaces lost by the city to this development but which space is desperately needed by Simon to complete the project as currently designed.
Two things come to mind: 1)if the State St property is currently worth only $1 million (according to Simon)can current bond holders accuse the city of fraud, i.e., of deliberately inflating the land value in order to obtain more money and thereby rendering the bonds to be worth less than their current face value? 2) If Simon can independently declare how much a property is worth, can I do the same with my property, i.e., can I dismiss the city's appraised evaluation of my condo for a value that is more favorable to my pocketbook? At this point in time, my condo in this 30-yr old building plus my next door neighbor's condo equal the $1 million valuation that Simon has put on the State St land. Maybe city taxpayers would want Simon to do the appraisal of all our properties.
I gained enormous respect for Lou Ann Palmer as a result of her vote. She clearly stated that she had read the papers which were delivered to the Commissioners on February 3rd (the weekend before the vote) and she had 3 pages of questions which Mayor Servian said there was not time enough to pursue. With so many questions and the financial issues that were raised at literally the last minute, the vote should have been delayed.
I understand that there will be another hearing on Tuesday at 2 p.m. to review the Terms paper. I hope that citizens with questions appear and voice their opinions before this project becomes a financial nightmare.
I don't think the commissioners would be able to pass a FCAT test.
Only the former teacher, who appreciates facts and wants to understand them, wanted to pause.
I don't believe anyone thinks the project Mr. Simon is presenting is an unattractive project, or that he won't do all in his power to make it a success.The problem was in the negotiation--the giveaways.
Just to respond to some statements.
There was a 157+ page packet given to commissioners, and
the planning staff made recommendations; the parking people made observation of a deficit of parking places; the consultant questioned the developers line of reasoning and made recommendations that could have been followed. This was presented on Friday to be studied and voted on by Monday afternoon.
The vote with little discussion except to challenge their consultants leads much of the public to believe we need more responsibility in our government.
It's quite frightening.
Why is it the Commissioners did not discuss all the questions that speakers, comments on this blog and inquaries made during the Pineapple Square meeting last night? Who is working for who? You would think the Commissioners worked for Pineapple Square and not the best interests of our city and the people who live here. I am for the first time really shaking my head on this one.
The Commission seems to be voting all over the map and terribly conflicted. Vote yes for Pineapple Square without any financial information but Ms. Servian wished she slowed down and studied Whole Foods more. They approve Pineapple Square that will be building next to one story buildings but do not allow the building density next to the Library - that the developer will now just build more expensive large units that is less needed in our city. They approve all these projects but do not approve the 17th Street road improvement that is badly needed for the "larger good" of the city. The Walmart people are paying 4+ million for a site appraised at 4+ million in a less desirable location than Pineapple Square who is paying 1 million plus "air space", whatever that is worth for a 11 million dollar property.
Do any of them realize how silly this all seems.
In response to some of the questions that have been asked, what I can say is this; the commissioners vote according to what they believe, in their best judgement, is best for the city, consistent with our rules and laws as they see them. That is what they are elected to do, and it is staff's responsibility to implement those decisions.
If you have questions regarding specific votes, I am sure the commissioners would be happy to discuss them with you, as a rule they are quite accessable.
We write on this blog because the commissioners do read it which is obvious when they respond to issues they do not like people posting. It is also true that people should be speaking directly to the City Commissioners and ask them why they did what they did. It just appears that many have done that and they do not care to address the questions being asked. Particularly Ms. Servian has started acting like she is smarter than any one else on this deal and is going to do what she wants. It is just upsetting to the people that we pay consultants, appraisers and our city staff to do meaningful work to look out for everyones best interest and the commissioners just ignored it all. How do you speak to them about that? They should be recalled.
Where are 40 or so restaurants going to find the resources for employees?
The industry is taxed enough on finding suitable staff (ask any restauranteur).
Do they intend to "steal" from existing businesses...This is not my idea of healthy competition.
Jeff C. - If you're talking about Pineapple Square, I believe 40 is the total number of proposed retail spaces, with only a few of those being restaurants and the rest stores of one sort or another.
What will happen if the City sells 3000 squre feet of deparatly needed parking to the Isac group to expand their building for a major chain reastaurant and then exclusivly leases the 1st street lot to the Isac group for their operation. What will happen to the exising businesses that so desparatly depend on that parking. What will happen to the businesses that put their heart and sole into Sarasota. The businesses that contributed to all the new development wanting to come to Sarasota.
What will happen if the City consumates its deal with the Isac group for the first street parking lot and the State street psrking lot giving them exclusive use of all the public parking and they don't build their project. the Pinapple Square project with all the parking should be built first. Please use caution in this deal
Staff has argued strongly that the State Street lot should remain open as it is until the new public spaces in Pineapple Square are constructed, and that the 1st Street lot should not be leased to any private party to the exclusion of other users in that area, for the reasons you have stated, among others.
Post a Comment
<< Home