Mayor Bill Foster released some more "Pier Facts" today in his sometimes-weekly weekly forecast email, so we thought we would go through these and see if he was any more truthful on these new facts than he was on the "facts" he released last week in his shiny "facts" brochure. If you haven't read our post from Monday, please take a few minutes to read it, there is a lot of good background information in there. Now on to the new Foster pier "facts":
"The Pier Approach... and the Pier Head were built in 1926. According to engineering assessments, these portions of the Pier are continuing to diminish in their ability to bear weight, and will have to be closed within two years."
We haven't seen anyone anywhere debate you on this Mayor Foster, everyone agrees that the pier approach and head need to be replaced.
"Even if the city were to replace The Pier approach and Pier Head, we would be left with a 40-year-old building which drains city dollars through $1.5 million in annual subsidies and would require expensive renovations."
The Pier was built to be dependent on a subsidy, it is an "attraction", it is meant to attract people to it to spend time and money while out there looking at our beautiful city from an unparalleled vantage point. Nobody will spend time out on the Lens pier, there is nowhere to gather, sit or eat, and there is very little shade. There is nothing to do out there except stand and look around, so no time or money will be spent out there.
The Mayor also mentions the age of the pier building as a problem, maybe that means his next targets are the even-more-geriatric Coliseum and Sunken Gardens buildings, after all, they are both a lot older than 40.
"Floors 1, 2 and 3, due to their awkward size and layout, cannot command sufficient revenue to be self sustaining."
This is about as bad as saying that the entryway of Sunken Gardens(which the city has to subsidize by the way) does not generate enough money by itself through vending machines, so we should demolish the entire Sunken Gardens complex(because it is not self-sustaining) and fill it in to be a parking lot for Carrabba's Restaurant. Or maybe since the concession stand at the Mahaffey Theater(another city-subsidized structure) doesn't make enough money for the Mahaffey Theater to be self-sustaining we should just tear down the whole building to make a bigger parking lot for the Dali Museum. What about those Tea Dances at the Coliseum(another subsidized building), not enough old folks dancing like there use to be to pay for it, so we should just tear the Coliseum down too, maybe make room for a toll plaza complex to get money out of all of those freeloading drivers coming off of I-375 using our non-self-sustaining roads here in St. Petersburg.
Does Mayor Foster understand how ridiculous he sounds? Of course the first through third floors of the pier are not self-sustaining, but they shouldn't have to be, they were not built by themselves and they should not be singled out by themselves as a reason to demolish the entire pier. Is the gelato stand at the end of the Lens pier going to be profitable enough to sustain the 24-hour security and bird-dropping cleaning services that the Lens pier will require? Not a chance.
"And while we all enjoy dinner at the Columbia or Cha Cha Coconut's on floors 4 and 5, operating a restaurant 1/4 of a mile out into the water is not efficient. The Pier's new design calls for 6,000 sq. ft. of retail at the land's edge on The Hub, which is a more suitable place for a dining establishment."
So insead of over 52,000 sq. ft. of retail space currently in the pier, most with great views of the city or the bay, we will end up with only 6,000 sq. ft. for a single restaurant on land(or a couple small shops and a small restaurant) with a view not of the water, but of the sidewalk-to-nowhere, and we don't even know what it will look like from that vantage point because the architects won't release pictures of how the Lens pier will look from land. The pier task-force recommended "30,000 and 40,000 square feet of restaurant, bar, and banquet space." and less than one fifth of that is nowhere close to their recommendations.
"The Pier's electrical, fire, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and other systems do not meet current city codes. The exterior doors and windows do not meet current wind codes. Elevators and bathrooms do not meet federal ADA regulations."
OK Mayor Foster, but how much would it cost to make these repairs? You say it's expensive, but you never say how expensive it is. Give us some "facts" on the costs please.
"All HVAC systems require replacement."
It seems that the Mayor needs to read the 2010 PSI report, here is a quote from that report on the condition of the pier "The building has one (1) operational chiller system that was manufactured by Carrier. The unit was installed in 2005 and is in good condition." So it really isn't ALL HVAC systems that require replacement is it Mr. Mayor.
"After 40 years, all pipes need to be replaced, the observation deck needs to be re-roofed, and the building needs painting and waterproofing."
Again, please give us some costs on these items that need to be replaced, from third party independent companies, no more "internal estimates" please.
That is about it for the new "Foster Facts" on the pier. In his email, he goes on to talk about what TIF means and why we can't build a police station with pier money(even though we could if we moved it into the TIF area, but the Mayor doesn't mention that option for some reason).
Now we just want to mention one more fact that Mayor Foster hasn't put out there so far, there are currently between 300 to 500 people(depending on who's numbers you believe) that work out on the pier, those are permanent jobs that will not be there after the Lens is built. The gelato stand and 6,000 sq. ft. of retail on land will only employ 50 people at most, so there will be a minimum net loss of at least 250 jobs in total after the Lens is finished. With the city spending money and giving tax breaks to bring new companies to St Petersburg we thought this would be a great time to mention one of Bill Foster's great quotes: "Jobs is the biggest indicator of economic vitality and growth of a city. If you're not creating jobs, and growing, you're dying". Maybe we should start by not letting go of hundreds of jobs we already have here, right at the pier.
We look forward to debunking the next batch of "Foster Facts on the Pier", he seems to be on a roll now.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Monday, May 21, 2012
Fact-Checking Mayor Bill Foster's "Pier Facts"
Last Thursday, the St. Petersburg City Council voted to move forward with the Michael Maltzan Architecture "Lens" design plan to replace the current inverted pyramid pier. Most of the people speaking, before the item came up on the agenda, were against signing the contract. When the City Council members had their chance to speak, several had questions about the Lens plans and the process. Councilmen Kornell and Nurse seemed the most on the fence about the Lens contract, aside from Newton of course, who continued his one-councilman crusade to save the inverted pyramid pier. Several council members acknowledged the lack of resident enthusiasm for the Lens design, and the poor communication with the residents on the project. In the end, all but Newton voted to sign the contract.
So what does this have to do with Mayor Bill Foster? After all, he doesn't vote on council business, since this was council's job, but he certainly was pushing for the demolition of the inverted pyramid pier, and has been pushing for it for almost 2 years. While the council members were discussing whether to sign the Lens contract, Foster flashed his newly released brochure on "the facts" about the old pier. He condescendingly used the word "facts" at least a dozen times in an attempt to discredit everyone that was in favor of the preservation of the inverted pyramid structure, saying they didn't know what they were talking about, so he had the "facts" to educate everyone on why the current pier is doomed and should be torn down to make way for our glorious new 90-foot-tallbedpan, toilet-bowl, sidewalk-to-nowhere, tiara, lens walkway/pier.
As for us, other than being residents and voters in St. Petersburg, we don't really have a horse in this race. We are not in love with the inverted pyramid pier, although it is a nice place to take visitors or go for lunch or dinner with a great view. We don't particularly like the Lens design either(see list of unflattering crossed-out nicknames above). But when we see Mayor Foster start barking about "the facts" about the pier, we just know he had to have messed them up somehow. So being only casual observers of the pier project up to this point(other than the piece we wrote about "what we were promised and what we are getting with the new lens pier" a few months ago) we decided to immerse ourselves these last few days into all of the documents posted over the last few years by the pier task-force. In all, there are thousands of pages of documents, including meeting minutes, old newspaper clippings, new RFQs and several studies.
Before we get to the fact-checking of Foster's "facts", we wanted to share some of the details we learned after filling our brains with pier task-force information, and other related data on the pier:
- The $50 million that has been earmarked was intended to address the Pier approach and the Pier head, but the not the Pier building itself
(City Council instructed the pier task force in 2008 to consider all options, including demolishing the pier)
- "The Pier" would not be The Pier without a pier
(a bit obvious we thought, but it is mentioned in several of the documents)
- Original demolition cost estimates: $11 million(approach and collar) + $2.4 million(building and foundation)
(Maltzan Lens plans, old pier demolition costs: $4.5 million, no explanation as to why it's one third of the original quote)
- "a drop-off/front door style experience for optimizing accessibility by way of cars trolleys and/or other public transportation is important"
(They seem to have ignored this important recommendation in the case of the Lens design)
- "It is recommended that any reconfiguration of the existing Pier structure or new structure's on the Pier or upland be planned to accommodate between 30,000 and 40,000 square feet of restaurant, bar, and banquet space."
(The lens will only have 6,000 square feet of restaurant space on the upland "Hub" and only a few hundred square feet on the pier itself for a gelato stand)
- Performance venue like an amphitheater would only be used 12-24 days out of the year
(Amphitheater included in the Lens plan for Phase II, seems like it would not be used much, not much bang-for-the-buck)
- Any new pier "will continue to require some level of subsidy support from the city"
(to date, no estimate of the subsidy for the Lens Pier has been announced. But...)
- Closing the existing pier would still cost $650,000/year
(having the pier sit closed and unoccupied would still cost the city hundreds of thousands yearly, so a new pier can't be any cheaper than that to subsidize)
- Lambert Advisory: Our Goals... Mitigate future requirement for operating and capital subsidy
(we believe this was their number one goal overall, looking at all of the documents and minutes together)
- Council Member Leslie Curran raised concern that the proposed design alternatives need to be reflect what the citizens and taxpayers want.
(interesting that at one point she was actually interested in what the citizens and taxpayers had to say about the pier)
- "there is little or no negative revenue consequence we believe in bringing development closer into the upland or placing the development on the upland."
(This appears to be one of their big cost-saving measures, less building over water = less money)
- It would be the goal to lessen the negative financial impact by ‘dumbing down’ the pier – reduce the size to where there is no economic impact.
(Again, another long-term cost savings measure is to shrink the pier so it costs less to maintain. It should be obvious though that this would also reduce the positive economic impact)
- The minutes from the last Design Subcommittee and the last two General Meetings are strangely missing
(no explanation for this, we would think those would be the most important ones to put up, since they would contain discussions about their conclusions)
- 6th floor could be used for retail/restaurant development.
(imagine the view from the 6th floor of the pier)
- 25% of the third floor is used for management offices.
(the contract with the management company requires that they have office space, but why does it have to be prime real-estate with a view?)
- The current pier has an economic impact of $74 million per year.
(mentioned several times in archival videos by Councilman Wengay Newton. With reduced size and retail capabilities, the new Lens pier will not have the same long-term year-by-year economic impact on the city)
- Yearly subsidy is $1.5 million per year
(that is the average, it goes up and down)
- Just in the last couple of months, the city has paid for brand new roofs on the pier outbuildings and a new ramp to the docks
(why would you build new things for a pier that is to be demolished in one year's time?)
- The new pier project design phase only allowed 6 weeks, when similar projects usually get one year of planning time
(no explanation was given for this, why the rush?)
- Councilman Newton said about the pier design process, "input" is different than "approval". There was no public hearing about condemning and demolishing the inverted pyramid pier.
(This is the part that bothers us the most)
- August 18, 2010 Pier Workshop: Mayor Foster would like to get a consensus of the Council on removal of the inverted pyramid. Council Member Dudley feels that they need to do something to enhance the current structure; and asked if anyone had done a survey as to whether or not to keep the Pier. The straw poll on Demolition of the entire Pier including the approach. Ayes. Curran, Danner, Polson, Kornell. & Nurse. No. Kennedy, Newton & Dudley. Motion passed.
(This meeting, with no public comment allowed, is where the current pier was condemned to destruction by a straw vote at the urging of Mayor Foster. It was non-binding, but it set the stage for the "official" vote which came later)
- Unsolicited bid from Archer Western(AW) and Architectural Design, Inc.(ADI) shows demolition of the pier approach, collar and gutting of the inverted pyramid to it's frame, encasing the pier head in a seawall and rebuilding a more narrow approach would cost $50 million.
(no response from the city on the details of this plan, it has effectively been ignored, even though it is on budget)
- "It is estimated that the MMA(Lens) concept is currently over budget by a range of 15% to 24%... Our current estimated overage for Maltzan and the “Lens” is approximately $10.9 million."
(Maltzan's response was to say they would shrink the lens pier concept and move it 100 feet closer to land to save money)
We know, that was a lot to wade through, but it is important to know how we got to where we are now, and the above facts do a pretty good job of summing it up. After taking in all of this information, it's pretty easy to see how we ended up as the Lens plan being the replacement for the inverted pyramid pier. The most important goal for the task-force was the reduction of the subsidy, which would necessitate the smallest footprint over the water, with almost all amenities on land, and the Lens is the only option that fit that bill, the others didn't stand a chance. That is also why renovating the existing pier was never really considered as a viable option.
Now on to Foster's "Get the Facts!" Pier Brochure:
click here to see the brochure
Pier Bridge and Head:
- Structural maintenance program no longer cost effective
- Structural elements continue to deteriorate
- Has exceeded useful service life
- Load carrying capacity continues to diminish
(no arguments here, in fact nobody we've heard has debated that the 90 year-old approach is going to last that much longer, this is what the $50 million was originally intended to be used for, this replacement is also addressed in the ADI proposal)
Inverted Pyramid Market Study & Logistical Facts:
- Inefficient floor plans
(imagine that, an upside-down pyramid has inefficient space planning, but it's a heck of a lot better than the floor planning on the Lens pier, just look at those elevations, it's even worse of a mess)
- 1st, 2nd, and 3rd floors unusable with limited potential to generate revenue
(they seem to be plenty usable to us, first and second floors are occupied, third is 25% full with management, and no efforts to lease it after Great Explorations moved out. We can't find anywhere in the pier task-force documentation that agrees with this "Foster Fact")
- Lacks of substantial entertainment program to activate the Pier
(well, that's what happens when you take away their marketing and event budget, the same thing as when you see a drop in attendance at city pools when you reduce their hours. In the past, there were major concerts with tens of thousands of people on the pier, but since there is no money for those events, they can't happen now. What do you expect Mr. Mayor?)
- Restaurant space is the only retail oriented use, which might perform reasonably well on upland Pier
(It seems the Mayor is ignoring the retail-sales, boat-tours-and-day-trips, bike rentals and fishing that happens now at the pier. He is most likely referring to the task-force's conclusion that non-restaurant retail doesn't make enough money to reduce the subsidy, which is all the Mayor cares about)
- None of the existing ground floor retail will be added back to a renovated pier
(sounds like Mayor Foster already has plans for a renovated pier if he knows this, we sure would like to see his plans)
- Back-of-house spaces serving 4th floor tenant require demolition
(no mention of this in the CIP report or the PSI report, we can find no document that makes reference to this)
- Logistical complexity of reconstructing a new pier head, below overhang of the inverted pyramid, will increase cost of both the demolition and new construction
(this was one reason the ADI quote builds a seawall around the pier building. Yes, the demolition of less than half of the pier-head only would cost 40% more for that small section only, but all you need to do to cancel that out is find the demolition company that the Maltzan Lens group plan to use, and the total demolition cost will be one third of the Moffatt Nichol demolition quote, so you still save money, if the Maltzan demolition figure is real that is)
- Renovating the inverted pyramid does not solve the design inefficiencies requiring significant annual taxpayer subsidies
(as long as you have a pier, you will have a subsidy. The less impressive of a pier, the lower the subsidy. You get what you pay for Mr. Mayor. Is cutting the yearly subsidy in half for the Lens really worth losing more than ten times the retail space, the great restaurant views and the great economic impact that you have in the inverted pyramid?)
- All existing ground floor, retail and support spaces must be demolished
(this "fact" is a bit redundant, since he already mentions they won't be added back)
- Images show current state of concrete and re-bar deterioration underside of Pier
(this is for the approach and the collar again, not the five caisson supports for the pyramid building and elevator. Again, these are 90 years old and need to be replaced, nobody is debating you on that Mayor Foster)
Building Deficiencies:
(this is just a list of all of the things that do not meet codes on the existing pier buildings(windows, doors, alarm, plumbing, etc...). The inverted pyramid building needs to be gutted and refinished, and the ADI quote accounts for that within it's budget)
So there you have it, several of Foster's "facts" seem to have no factual support that we could find, big surprise, we know.
So what does this have to do with Mayor Bill Foster? After all, he doesn't vote on council business, since this was council's job, but he certainly was pushing for the demolition of the inverted pyramid pier, and has been pushing for it for almost 2 years. While the council members were discussing whether to sign the Lens contract, Foster flashed his newly released brochure on "the facts" about the old pier. He condescendingly used the word "facts" at least a dozen times in an attempt to discredit everyone that was in favor of the preservation of the inverted pyramid structure, saying they didn't know what they were talking about, so he had the "facts" to educate everyone on why the current pier is doomed and should be torn down to make way for our glorious new 90-foot-tall
As for us, other than being residents and voters in St. Petersburg, we don't really have a horse in this race. We are not in love with the inverted pyramid pier, although it is a nice place to take visitors or go for lunch or dinner with a great view. We don't particularly like the Lens design either(see list of unflattering crossed-out nicknames above). But when we see Mayor Foster start barking about "the facts" about the pier, we just know he had to have messed them up somehow. So being only casual observers of the pier project up to this point(other than the piece we wrote about "what we were promised and what we are getting with the new lens pier" a few months ago) we decided to immerse ourselves these last few days into all of the documents posted over the last few years by the pier task-force. In all, there are thousands of pages of documents, including meeting minutes, old newspaper clippings, new RFQs and several studies.
Before we get to the fact-checking of Foster's "facts", we wanted to share some of the details we learned after filling our brains with pier task-force information, and other related data on the pier:
- The $50 million that has been earmarked was intended to address the Pier approach and the Pier head, but the not the Pier building itself
(City Council instructed the pier task force in 2008 to consider all options, including demolishing the pier)
- "The Pier" would not be The Pier without a pier
(a bit obvious we thought, but it is mentioned in several of the documents)
- Original demolition cost estimates: $11 million(approach and collar) + $2.4 million(building and foundation)
(Maltzan Lens plans, old pier demolition costs: $4.5 million, no explanation as to why it's one third of the original quote)
- "a drop-off/front door style experience for optimizing accessibility by way of cars trolleys and/or other public transportation is important"
(They seem to have ignored this important recommendation in the case of the Lens design)
- "It is recommended that any reconfiguration of the existing Pier structure or new structure's on the Pier or upland be planned to accommodate between 30,000 and 40,000 square feet of restaurant, bar, and banquet space."
(The lens will only have 6,000 square feet of restaurant space on the upland "Hub" and only a few hundred square feet on the pier itself for a gelato stand)
- Performance venue like an amphitheater would only be used 12-24 days out of the year
(Amphitheater included in the Lens plan for Phase II, seems like it would not be used much, not much bang-for-the-buck)
- Any new pier "will continue to require some level of subsidy support from the city"
(to date, no estimate of the subsidy for the Lens Pier has been announced. But...)
- Closing the existing pier would still cost $650,000/year
(having the pier sit closed and unoccupied would still cost the city hundreds of thousands yearly, so a new pier can't be any cheaper than that to subsidize)
- Lambert Advisory: Our Goals... Mitigate future requirement for operating and capital subsidy
(we believe this was their number one goal overall, looking at all of the documents and minutes together)
- Council Member Leslie Curran raised concern that the proposed design alternatives need to be reflect what the citizens and taxpayers want.
(interesting that at one point she was actually interested in what the citizens and taxpayers had to say about the pier)
- "there is little or no negative revenue consequence we believe in bringing development closer into the upland or placing the development on the upland."
(This appears to be one of their big cost-saving measures, less building over water = less money)
- It would be the goal to lessen the negative financial impact by ‘dumbing down’ the pier – reduce the size to where there is no economic impact.
(Again, another long-term cost savings measure is to shrink the pier so it costs less to maintain. It should be obvious though that this would also reduce the positive economic impact)
- The minutes from the last Design Subcommittee and the last two General Meetings are strangely missing
(no explanation for this, we would think those would be the most important ones to put up, since they would contain discussions about their conclusions)
- 6th floor could be used for retail/restaurant development.
(imagine the view from the 6th floor of the pier)
- 25% of the third floor is used for management offices.
(the contract with the management company requires that they have office space, but why does it have to be prime real-estate with a view?)
- The current pier has an economic impact of $74 million per year.
(mentioned several times in archival videos by Councilman Wengay Newton. With reduced size and retail capabilities, the new Lens pier will not have the same long-term year-by-year economic impact on the city)
- Yearly subsidy is $1.5 million per year
(that is the average, it goes up and down)
- Just in the last couple of months, the city has paid for brand new roofs on the pier outbuildings and a new ramp to the docks
(why would you build new things for a pier that is to be demolished in one year's time?)
- The new pier project design phase only allowed 6 weeks, when similar projects usually get one year of planning time
(no explanation was given for this, why the rush?)
- Councilman Newton said about the pier design process, "input" is different than "approval". There was no public hearing about condemning and demolishing the inverted pyramid pier.
(This is the part that bothers us the most)
- August 18, 2010 Pier Workshop: Mayor Foster would like to get a consensus of the Council on removal of the inverted pyramid. Council Member Dudley feels that they need to do something to enhance the current structure; and asked if anyone had done a survey as to whether or not to keep the Pier. The straw poll on Demolition of the entire Pier including the approach. Ayes. Curran, Danner, Polson, Kornell. & Nurse. No. Kennedy, Newton & Dudley. Motion passed.
(This meeting, with no public comment allowed, is where the current pier was condemned to destruction by a straw vote at the urging of Mayor Foster. It was non-binding, but it set the stage for the "official" vote which came later)
- Unsolicited bid from Archer Western(AW) and Architectural Design, Inc.(ADI) shows demolition of the pier approach, collar and gutting of the inverted pyramid to it's frame, encasing the pier head in a seawall and rebuilding a more narrow approach would cost $50 million.
(no response from the city on the details of this plan, it has effectively been ignored, even though it is on budget)
- "It is estimated that the MMA(Lens) concept is currently over budget by a range of 15% to 24%... Our current estimated overage for Maltzan and the “Lens” is approximately $10.9 million."
(Maltzan's response was to say they would shrink the lens pier concept and move it 100 feet closer to land to save money)
We know, that was a lot to wade through, but it is important to know how we got to where we are now, and the above facts do a pretty good job of summing it up. After taking in all of this information, it's pretty easy to see how we ended up as the Lens plan being the replacement for the inverted pyramid pier. The most important goal for the task-force was the reduction of the subsidy, which would necessitate the smallest footprint over the water, with almost all amenities on land, and the Lens is the only option that fit that bill, the others didn't stand a chance. That is also why renovating the existing pier was never really considered as a viable option.
Now on to Foster's "Get the Facts!" Pier Brochure:
click here to see the brochure
Pier Bridge and Head:
- Structural maintenance program no longer cost effective
- Structural elements continue to deteriorate
- Has exceeded useful service life
- Load carrying capacity continues to diminish
(no arguments here, in fact nobody we've heard has debated that the 90 year-old approach is going to last that much longer, this is what the $50 million was originally intended to be used for, this replacement is also addressed in the ADI proposal)
Inverted Pyramid Market Study & Logistical Facts:
- Inefficient floor plans
(imagine that, an upside-down pyramid has inefficient space planning, but it's a heck of a lot better than the floor planning on the Lens pier, just look at those elevations, it's even worse of a mess)
- 1st, 2nd, and 3rd floors unusable with limited potential to generate revenue
(they seem to be plenty usable to us, first and second floors are occupied, third is 25% full with management, and no efforts to lease it after Great Explorations moved out. We can't find anywhere in the pier task-force documentation that agrees with this "Foster Fact")
- Lacks of substantial entertainment program to activate the Pier
(well, that's what happens when you take away their marketing and event budget, the same thing as when you see a drop in attendance at city pools when you reduce their hours. In the past, there were major concerts with tens of thousands of people on the pier, but since there is no money for those events, they can't happen now. What do you expect Mr. Mayor?)
- Restaurant space is the only retail oriented use, which might perform reasonably well on upland Pier
(It seems the Mayor is ignoring the retail-sales, boat-tours-and-day-trips, bike rentals and fishing that happens now at the pier. He is most likely referring to the task-force's conclusion that non-restaurant retail doesn't make enough money to reduce the subsidy, which is all the Mayor cares about)
- None of the existing ground floor retail will be added back to a renovated pier
(sounds like Mayor Foster already has plans for a renovated pier if he knows this, we sure would like to see his plans)
- Back-of-house spaces serving 4th floor tenant require demolition
(no mention of this in the CIP report or the PSI report, we can find no document that makes reference to this)
- Logistical complexity of reconstructing a new pier head, below overhang of the inverted pyramid, will increase cost of both the demolition and new construction
(this was one reason the ADI quote builds a seawall around the pier building. Yes, the demolition of less than half of the pier-head only would cost 40% more for that small section only, but all you need to do to cancel that out is find the demolition company that the Maltzan Lens group plan to use, and the total demolition cost will be one third of the Moffatt Nichol demolition quote, so you still save money, if the Maltzan demolition figure is real that is)
- Renovating the inverted pyramid does not solve the design inefficiencies requiring significant annual taxpayer subsidies
(as long as you have a pier, you will have a subsidy. The less impressive of a pier, the lower the subsidy. You get what you pay for Mr. Mayor. Is cutting the yearly subsidy in half for the Lens really worth losing more than ten times the retail space, the great restaurant views and the great economic impact that you have in the inverted pyramid?)
- All existing ground floor, retail and support spaces must be demolished
(this "fact" is a bit redundant, since he already mentions they won't be added back)
- Images show current state of concrete and re-bar deterioration underside of Pier
(this is for the approach and the collar again, not the five caisson supports for the pyramid building and elevator. Again, these are 90 years old and need to be replaced, nobody is debating you on that Mayor Foster)
Building Deficiencies:
(this is just a list of all of the things that do not meet codes on the existing pier buildings(windows, doors, alarm, plumbing, etc...). The inverted pyramid building needs to be gutted and refinished, and the ADI quote accounts for that within it's budget)
So there you have it, several of Foster's "facts" seem to have no factual support that we could find, big surprise, we know.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Mayor Bill Foster, Investing Our Money For Us
After reading the "unwitting pitchman" article from last week again, one of Mayor Bill Foster's quotes really stuck with us, in part because of how false what he said was. Here's the quote:
"There's no way in the world I would ask people to invest in a for-profit company"
It's not that we have a problem with him saying it, but if you are going to say something like that, shouldn't it be true? The fact is that he has pushed for the use of taxpayer money and tax credits to invest in private for-profit companies many times. One glaring example is the lackluster "rock and roll half marathon" that we have covered before where the city gave $30,000 in services for free to a private for-profit company, and more recently there is the nameless for-profit company that the city is planning to spend money and offer tax credits to in an effort to lure them St Petersburg, then there is the latest example of Wal-Mart, asking for a special designation so it can get $240,000 in tax credits for it's new Sam's Club on 34th St.
So the Mayor is in effect saying that he wouldn't possibly be a pitch-man for a company that rehabs houses in questionable neighborhoods of the city and tries to sell them for a profit, letting you the investor make the decision to put money in the venture or not, he would rather take you the taxpayer out of the decision-making loop entirely and just take your money and use it to enhance larger for-profit corporations that he likes.
Maybe what he said in the quote is true after all, he wouldn't "ask" people to invest in for-profit companies, he would just do the investing without asking the people who are paying for it.
"There's no way in the world I would ask people to invest in a for-profit company"
It's not that we have a problem with him saying it, but if you are going to say something like that, shouldn't it be true? The fact is that he has pushed for the use of taxpayer money and tax credits to invest in private for-profit companies many times. One glaring example is the lackluster "rock and roll half marathon" that we have covered before where the city gave $30,000 in services for free to a private for-profit company, and more recently there is the nameless for-profit company that the city is planning to spend money and offer tax credits to in an effort to lure them St Petersburg, then there is the latest example of Wal-Mart, asking for a special designation so it can get $240,000 in tax credits for it's new Sam's Club on 34th St.
So the Mayor is in effect saying that he wouldn't possibly be a pitch-man for a company that rehabs houses in questionable neighborhoods of the city and tries to sell them for a profit, letting you the investor make the decision to put money in the venture or not, he would rather take you the taxpayer out of the decision-making loop entirely and just take your money and use it to enhance larger for-profit corporations that he likes.
Maybe what he said in the quote is true after all, he wouldn't "ask" people to invest in for-profit companies, he would just do the investing without asking the people who are paying for it.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Mayor Bill Foster Does Something Right For Once
As the old saying goes, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day", and even our stumbling Mayor Bill Foster can manage to do the right thing once in a while. Today we felt the need to praise Bill Foster for his approval of domestic benefits for all city employees. Of course the Tampa Bay Times article mentions several times how he downplayed the significance of his decision, perhaps in an attempt to offer an excuse to his conservative base for his straying from the party line. It also might have been simply a calculated decision on Foster's part to help him gain favor in the gay community ahead of next year's race for Mayor. But don't think that this changes our mind about Mayor Foster over all, he has a long way to go to undo all of the stumbles, incompetence and lack of leadership that he has shown for the last two years he's been in office.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Mayor Bill Foster, The Unwitting Pitch-Man
Michael Van Sickler from the Tampa Bay Times posted this humorous article on how Mayor Bill Foster's image is being used by a house-flipper in a local magazine ad, and they even have a video testimonial with Foster himself giving a glowing account of one of the house-flipper's rehabs, it's not even taken out of context. The Mayor responds in his usual legal-speak, "I didn't authorize the use of my name for marketing purposes,", and "I'll take a look at this... If we have to take action, we will". Watch out Joe Cavaleri, you've slightly annoyed Mayor Bill Foster, man of mystery!
Monday, May 7, 2012
A Tale Of Two St Petersburgs, Mayor Bill Foster Style
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times... financially speaking at least.
On the one hand you have the Mayor Bill Foster that is looking to raise taxes and cut the city budget to make up for a $13 million drop in property tax revenues, and he is looking for as much public input as possible for justification to raise taxes in some way.
On the other hand you have Mayor Bill Foster and City Council that are looking to spend $50 million on the new "Lens Pier" that the public doesn't want, and Mayor Foster doesn't want to hear any public input on that project(the last several "public" meetings about the new Pier banned all public comment).
What we are REALLY hearing from Foster is, "I need 'public' input to justify a $13 million tax increase, but I don't really care what you have to say about the new $50 million Pier, just go sit down, be quiet and let the grown-ups decide that one for you."
The Mayor and City Council will soon be voting on whether to move forward with the Lens Pier design, committing to spending $4.69 million, and if the past votes are any indication, they will approve it. This is an extremely irresponsible commitment considering that the vote-on-the-pier group is almost 90% of their way to getting the signatures needed to submit their petition for a vote on whether to demolish the current pier or not. What happens to that $4.69 million if the petition gets on the ballot, and the voters decide to save the current pier? It's just gone, no refunds, and with the budget shortfalls of the last 5 years, our city leaders should be ashamed for gambling with millions our tax dollars like that.
So in a time when one St Petersburg is spending several months and three well publicized public budget summits debating how to raise and/or cut $13 million for one year's budget shortfall, the other St Petersburg will hold no referendums or public summits on the unelected-committee-chosen design for a $50 million project that will dramatically alter our treasured waterfront, and have a major effect on our city for decades. The differences between these two St Petersburgs are startling and worthy of outrage.
On the one hand you have the Mayor Bill Foster that is looking to raise taxes and cut the city budget to make up for a $13 million drop in property tax revenues, and he is looking for as much public input as possible for justification to raise taxes in some way.
On the other hand you have Mayor Bill Foster and City Council that are looking to spend $50 million on the new "Lens Pier" that the public doesn't want, and Mayor Foster doesn't want to hear any public input on that project(the last several "public" meetings about the new Pier banned all public comment).
What we are REALLY hearing from Foster is, "I need 'public' input to justify a $13 million tax increase, but I don't really care what you have to say about the new $50 million Pier, just go sit down, be quiet and let the grown-ups decide that one for you."
The Mayor and City Council will soon be voting on whether to move forward with the Lens Pier design, committing to spending $4.69 million, and if the past votes are any indication, they will approve it. This is an extremely irresponsible commitment considering that the vote-on-the-pier group is almost 90% of their way to getting the signatures needed to submit their petition for a vote on whether to demolish the current pier or not. What happens to that $4.69 million if the petition gets on the ballot, and the voters decide to save the current pier? It's just gone, no refunds, and with the budget shortfalls of the last 5 years, our city leaders should be ashamed for gambling with millions our tax dollars like that.
So in a time when one St Petersburg is spending several months and three well publicized public budget summits debating how to raise and/or cut $13 million for one year's budget shortfall, the other St Petersburg will hold no referendums or public summits on the unelected-committee-chosen design for a $50 million project that will dramatically alter our treasured waterfront, and have a major effect on our city for decades. The differences between these two St Petersburgs are startling and worthy of outrage.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Mayor Bill Foster Spreads "Doom And Gloom" About The Budget Shortfall, Ignores His Budgetary Leadership Role and Prepares To Deflect Blame For A Tax Increase
Mayor Bill Foster seems to have been prepping for a tax increase for several months behind the scenes, and now he is talking about all of the things that will happen if the city doesn't find new revenue streams, from laying off "200 to 300 employees" to saying "Some departments might be eliminated entirely" and then there's this horrible Foster gem, "We're in the cremation phase". As Doc Webb points out on SaintPetersBlog, the Mayor knew about the revenue shortfall problem over a year ago, and admits he should have done something about it then. St Petersburg's Procrastinator-in-Chief strikes again.
Council Chair Leslie Curran says "Foster is almost a non-entity," and Councilman Charlie Gerdes says "The mayor needs to be a leader and say, 'This is what I think is the right thing to do'... And he hasn't done that yet.". In fact, Mayor Foster is withholding all recommendations until after the third budget summit in mid-June, leaving a glaring budgetary leadership void at city hall for the next two months. There has been no mention of where the $3 million in budget savings he's talked about will come from, or anything else budget related. He's clammed up and won't say anything specific at all.
He has distanced himself even more from his own budget by saying that it is his goal this year to get as much public input and participation in the budget process as he can, and that "This will indeed be the people’s budget". So let's get this straight Mr. Mayor, the last two budgets you had public forums AFTER you already drafted your budget, and you took almost none of the suggestions offered in the public forums, and now after you have cut the city budget the last two years, as well as raising all sorts of fees to avoid the dreaded "raising taxes", it's not even going to be "your" budget anymore now that you have finally accepted the fact that you HAVE TO raise taxes? So now, when he runs for reelection next year he can say "I didn't raise taxes last year, that was the people's budget, they said they wanted higher taxes, so I just let them have what they wanted", which is a slimy politician kind of thing to do, not something a true leader does, making it exactly what we have come to expect from our stumbling Mayor Bill Foster.
Council Chair Leslie Curran says "Foster is almost a non-entity," and Councilman Charlie Gerdes says "The mayor needs to be a leader and say, 'This is what I think is the right thing to do'... And he hasn't done that yet.". In fact, Mayor Foster is withholding all recommendations until after the third budget summit in mid-June, leaving a glaring budgetary leadership void at city hall for the next two months. There has been no mention of where the $3 million in budget savings he's talked about will come from, or anything else budget related. He's clammed up and won't say anything specific at all.
He has distanced himself even more from his own budget by saying that it is his goal this year to get as much public input and participation in the budget process as he can, and that "This will indeed be the people’s budget". So let's get this straight Mr. Mayor, the last two budgets you had public forums AFTER you already drafted your budget, and you took almost none of the suggestions offered in the public forums, and now after you have cut the city budget the last two years, as well as raising all sorts of fees to avoid the dreaded "raising taxes", it's not even going to be "your" budget anymore now that you have finally accepted the fact that you HAVE TO raise taxes? So now, when he runs for reelection next year he can say "I didn't raise taxes last year, that was the people's budget, they said they wanted higher taxes, so I just let them have what they wanted", which is a slimy politician kind of thing to do, not something a true leader does, making it exactly what we have come to expect from our stumbling Mayor Bill Foster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)