The Pier, The LENS, The People
It looks like the stage is being set for major confrontation on the Pier. If Vote On The Pier has enough verified petitions then what?
The safest approach for the Mayor would be to ask the Legal department to quickly draft an ordinance with ballot language and present it to City Council. If they vote it up the Mayor wins big time, if they vote it down the Mayor can just shrug his shoulders and blame it all on the City Council.
The key lies in how the ordinance, should we get to that point, is drafted and what the proposed ballot language is. Since the City attorney has already indicated he does not feel the petition drive is legally binding, he may not feel compelled to structure the proposed ballot language directly in line with the petition language. Then again he may.
If the language closely parallels the save the Pier petition, it gets voted down by City Council and the City is stuck with the LENS.
If the language is more along the lines "do you want to continue with the LENS or start over", then it will be a close vote with Nurse or Gerdes being the swing vote.
Will the Mayor give Legal any "direction" regarding the ballot language? Other than asking them to make it clear and legal, and adding in some sort of reasonable financial cap so the City doesn't get trapped into a voter mandate with no financial limit, probably not.
There will be the threat of lost sunk money and maybe even a thinly veiled threat of legal action from the current contractor.
Staff will go on and on about the Pier Visioning, the meetings ad-nausea while carefully avoiding talking about how they controlled citizen input.
All red herrings, but none the less effective.
All of this will get really confusing. if the Ordinance makes it to City Council.
Look for some double-entendre motions (those where when you vote yes, you are really voting no, or vice versa). Great whining and bleating from the arts segment on Council: Curran, Danner with some convoluted support from Kennedy.
Resolve from Nurse, firmness from Kornell and Newton and a worried and stressed Charlie Gerdes. Gerdes has done a great job so far, but if he bobbles this one it could be the end of what is turning out to be a great political career.
It will be great theater if it actually plays out.
Remember this, the Mayor can receive the petitions, have them verified and "take the whole thing under consideration" for future action since there is just not enough time to get the issue on the November ballot.
If that happens. Game over. LENS on.
email doc at: dr.webb@verizon.net or send me a Facebook Friend request.
Jeannie Cline
11:17 am on Sunday, July 8, 2012
Clearly, this is an issue of leadership, or lack thereof, by our elected representatives. As Doc Webb points out, there could be political games played (or shall I say....continued) and a denial that over 15,000 people have voiced their opinion and displeasure with the whole process, let alone with the "choice" of the Lens as the replacement. As stated, the process has been skewed, most represented by the lack of the choice of renewal of the present pier as an option in the finals. It just may be that most residents are not troubled by the subsidy for the pier and may want other subsidies removed from other attractions first. That has never been addressed. This is a real challenge for our leadership-challenged mayor.
CJ
1:33 pm on Sunday, July 8, 2012
We are new here and have not lived here very long yet. This is our new home and we just love it here. I have been following this ''Pier'' delima for some time now, 2-3 years, even from where we moved from in the Midwest..Kansas. Now that we have been to a large variety of the local sites a number of times we are starting to develope favorite things to do. Before we actually made ''the big move'' here, we definitely thought the Gulf beach area would be just about the only place we ever went for fun...but I fast discovered how wonderful the downtown St Pete area is. Especially since the sun goes down in the west, keeping the beaches hot until the day ends...the downtown area cools off rather nicely and and long before the Gulf beach areas do. Downtownin general, The Pier area, etrc...I think we favor that area now over the beach areas. It's wonderful down there, and so much fun and so many things to do. I already have a hard time imagining The Pier no longer being here.
CJ
1:39 pm on Sunday, July 8, 2012
(con't)
It seems such a mistake to get rid of it, or to even replace it.
Improve and update it?
Yes..
...but I fail to see the wisdom in getting rid of a landmark. Every tourist book ever written, ever article about St Pete, etc,etc...all make very large mention of The Pier. I think people here have started taking it for granted on how cool and famous it is. It seems there is adequate room for more things along that same bay shore area The Pier is??
Why can't ''The Pier'' remain..and spruced up? If they want to do this ''Lens'' thing...then put it along the shore in the same area. There seems to be ''plenty'' of room. I am curious if anyone has ever brought up this idea? over the last 2-3 years I have followed this story, I do think I have read where anyone suggested this. Afterall..if they are going to demolish The Pier and start over ''anyway''..then why can't it just be left in place and then build The Lens ''also''????
Then..they would have 2 things instead of just 1. Make them work together, but leave The Pier. anyone who thinks The Pier should be gone needs to sit on our favorite park bench in Demming Park and look at it from there. It's awesome!
Bill H.
9:02 pm on Sunday, July 8, 2012
Sorry CJ, but if you've followed this for a long time you would clearly know that there is not enough money to both things as you ask. The current pier if is decaying. In fact, part of the problem comes from the fact that there is not enough money to do either of these projects fully. The save the pier group say the current one can be refurbished for $50 million. The city says no. However, the city's plan(The Lens) is really just a part of a bigger $150 million dollar project. I just wish it was clearer whether the Archer plan to do the pier could be done for the money available.
CJ
1:14 am on Monday, July 9, 2012
By who's view do you define ''clearly''? Yours? No need to be snippy about it, Bill. My wish to keep it match the majority. The ''decaying'' is exagerated to shove this project forward despite wishes of the public. I don't have to live here all my life to look at ''The Lens'' and see how easily that structure would be wind damaged even in the storm we just had, Debby. The Pier is much more solid that you try to make it out to be. Don't underestimate my understanding of this project. As far as your comment about how there is no money for both projects. Maybe you have not been doing the math quite the same as me. The plan is to first demolish the present "Pier''. Right? The same amount of money to ''demolish it'' could be used to ''renovate it''. Demolision is not cheap. One plus one always equals two, Bill. With me so far? That means so far, according to my explanation, the same amount of money has been spent...only with my way...we still have ''The Pier''. Next, they want to spend the money building ''The Lens'', from scratch. At this point in my suggestion..I am saying ''go ahead and build The Lens. Just do it in the same area of the shore. Virtually the same amount of money will be spent. Is this too hard for you to understand? Maybe somebody new in town, looking at it from an entirely new way, may have seen more about this than you give credit? I agree ''any''money right now is tight, especially when The Pier is still nice.
Jeannie Cline
10:29 pm on Sunday, July 8, 2012
Integrate a municipal transit station into this pier will open up transportation funds and increase the commercial venues there....thus filling more than the first floor for revenue (I know that Columbia and Cha Cha's are on the 4th and 5th!!!) Water taxi station on the east side and a real streetcar station on the west, even on a build-out at the lands' end area that is slated for retail for the Lens.....use the debris from the implosion of the approach for the build-out.....run the streetcar past BayWalk, Williams' Park and along Central to the main bus terminal at 31st and Central....shift the focus from an overemphasis on the waterfront to our much maligned and neglected centerpiece of soul and St Pete character, Central Ave. There are transpo grants specific to streetcars that many other regions are grabbing, big time.
CJ
1:38 am on Monday, July 9, 2012
Jeannie. I agree that trying to integrate the Downtown St Pete area with the Gulf side of town, using Central , is a good idea. Maybe they don't do that because the beach comunities are technically independant cities of thier own and not part of St Petersburg. It would still be nice, though..even if it was just one of the beach communities they would concentrate on..but how do you choose which one? Central heads right into Treasure Island, but i am not sure where you go with your idea after that. I wil say this...in the downtown St Pete area itself..it seems like they already do a pretty cool job of making Central nice. There ae some really fun things to do along Central in that area. There is a stretch of Central that does not seem very safe to travel along, just west of the downtown area. The same is true of the Pinellas Trail. they need to improve the curb appeal in that area, but that may be soemthing that is past the point of improving. I have tried to ride into downtown St Pete using Central and the Pinellas trail both...and it is pretty scary...''especially'' along Pinellas Trail. i don't feel safe in that area ''at all'.
Rob
9:27 am on Monday, July 9, 2012
The pier structure must be gutted. The plumbing and wiring are in disrepair. An open question to readers: Are funds allocate for this?
I also believe the approach when redone should have slips for taxis and boats to visit. A connection with Tampa will help both cities and the Trop!
Joshua Streeter
9:34 am on Monday, July 9, 2012
In plain English, the city charter says specifically that this petition is not legally valid.
Sec. 7.02. Referendum
In accordance with the procedures of this Article VII, the qualified voters of the City have the power to require reconsideration by the Council of any adopted ordinance and, if the Council fails to repeal an ordinance so reconsidered, to approve or reject it at a City Election provided that such power shall not extend to the budget or any emergency ordinance or ordinance relating to appropriation of money, levy of taxes or salaries of City officials or employees.
Joshua Streeter
9:37 am on Monday, July 9, 2012
Voting has been going on since 2009. LOTS of votes leading up to this. No one has come up with a real alternative plan. Nothing aside from ideas; no concrete plan.
It's over.
N.A.W.
10:54 am on Monday, July 9, 2012
That is incorrect. The ONLY outside bid done on this was done by Tom Lambdon, as you well know, the Archer Western proposal, which was scaled back from its original size to fit under the 50 million dollar tif financing. It's all there, gutting the building, reinforcing the caissons to last generations, a new approach, and a new pier head. ALL NEW, all under 50 million...and you're right, the city did NOT seel one outside marine contractor via RFP to see what could be done to cost effectively refurbish the existing building. The city engineer said that if he was told to refurbish, he would refurbish, if they say build the lens, then he builds the lens. Obviously he knows it can be refurbished, and is only following orders. St.Pete Preservation voted to keep The Pier. And you are wrong, there have been ZERO binding votes by registered voters on this issue. A bunch of visioning meetings where the public was absent(i was there). They just like to create a trail of what would appear, in hindsight, as due diligence, when in fact it was all kabuki theater to get to the desired outcome of demolishing The Pier. I remember a prominent businessman here locally, a member of the visioning committee, storming out of one of the final meetings saying that this was all a farce just to demolish The Pier. Ed Montinari is quoted as saying that a refurbishment option would always be an option all the way through this process. The city ignored ALL the task force recommendations. Interesting, LOL.
CJ
4:27 pm on Monday, July 9, 2012
N.A.W.\
That was a very interesting and fine comment. I realize my suggestions are something that will never happen, but you caught and helped make my point...that thinking outside the box could help on this topic. I am not sure the city officials who are in on this can do that...they are in thier own little world..and it is definitly ''in a box'' they can't seem to get out of.
Bill H.
10:53 am on Monday, July 9, 2012
Hey CJ,
Yes, 1 plus 1 equals 2, but 15 does not equal 50 or 60. Even Archer Western says it will take 15 million alone to demolish the pier. The city I think says 12 or 13. Archer says a refurbished pier will cost 60 million, including the 15 to dmolish first the parts that need to be replaced, the city says even more. The current Lens proposal alone will cost at least 35. So, 35 plus 60 is 95 on a cap of a 50 million dollar budget. Do some homework please. How do you possibly think we could do both??? No, you're the one genious that thinks we could do both. As for the Central Ave. connection to the beaches, it already exists. Ever heard of the Looper Trolley??? The route:The Pier, Bay Walk, Williams Park (Downtown St. Petersburg), Central Avenue, Grand Central Station, Palms of Pasadena Hospital, 75 Ave & Gulf Way, St. Pete Beach, Pass-a-Grille. Maybe you should look at a bus schedule:http://www.psta.net/busschedules.php
N.A.W.
11:00 am on Monday, July 9, 2012
NOPE, sorry. Yes Archer Western said 11 to 12 million, not including "soft costs", which could make it up to 13 to 15 million. The city is now saying 4.5 million to demolish, which is WAY to low. They were saying 6 to 7 million for a while, then dropped it to 4.5 recently. The ORIGINAL Archer Western proposal was 59 million, but this included many items that were later dropped off the reduced pier redux proposal by Architectural Designs of Tampa. The pier redux done by ken Kroger is based of the original Archer Western proposal, using the same numbers quoted by them, only sheared down to fit under budget. This plan completely guts the building, new approach, new pier head, eliminated retail at the building, and also eliminates vehicular traffic.
N.A.W.
11:01 am on Monday, July 9, 2012
Those loopers are heavy, stinky, and a waste of resources. Get green St.pete! We are a green city, we should have green, electric trolleys, going back to our roots. the street car tracks are still under 2 ave n., buried under asphalt.
CJ
4:23 pm on Monday, July 9, 2012
No Bill...I only tried to debate your point that it would cost more to do both. I am not sure it ''would'' cost more to do both. My point was that the cost of demolishing it was money that could be spent remodeling it..and now that you have pointed out...there would even be money left over because of the high cost of demolision. You actually help make my point. Besides, I essentially agreed with what is obviously your main grip..and a legetimate one..that there really is no money right now to do ''anything''. Again, that also makes my point that as a newcomer...I assure you...The Pier is ''still'' a very cool attraction and even though I am new here...I will already miss it when it's gone. It seems pretty cut and dried that is going to happen...the peoples vote does not seem to matter much in regard to this matter. The real problem here does not seem to be that there is much wrong with The Pier..it seems it is simply this cities admirable desire to be a fine place to live and they simply want something new. Go ahead and build something new, but don't destroy something that is as wonderful as THe Pier. that will prove to be something the city will regret once the first big storm comes along and shreds ''The Lens''...a storm the Pier would have held up to. Frankly, I'd like to see ''The Lens'' built, but not at the cost of eliminating ''The Peir''. ''Both''..would be something to behold, especially if they were nest to each other.
CJ
4:29 pm on Monday, July 9, 2012
I want to apolgize, Bill. I don't think we are so far apart on this issue that it may appear...and I respect where your heart is at on this. You make some good points...we just do math differently...lol!
CJ
4:36 pm on Monday, July 9, 2012
How could we do both? I tried to explain that, but your mind is blocked. I think I would need to have visual aids to get you to see my point....but, again...based on the cost to demolish The Pier ''first'' in order to build ''The Lens'' (which is money that is goping to be spent ''anyway''...that demolition money could be used to remodel the Pier instead..and there would be money left over to help pay the cost to build The Lens. The result would be ''both'' , The Pier remaining...and The Lens also being built. Do I need to draw you a picture? I think the answer is yes. Sorry I don't have the writing ability to explain it better.
CJ
9:11 am on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
You need to go read the Dick and Jane books a little slower, because ''your'' 1 plus 1, is not the same most people use. You missed the point about how I was saying, like so many others have...that The Pier does not need near as much sprucing up as City officials want everyone to see. Frankly, even 1 million dollars ought do do a lot of what it needs. It ''is still'' a ''very nice and fun'' attraction ''just the way is sits right now''. Do you ever go down to it?!?? The place is awesome when you are on it...and it is awesome when you view it from a distance!! Excuse my, though...because I just happen to love my new home hwere. Sure..millions ''could'' be spent on it...but as a newcomer to this city...I don't see it needing hardly anything at all. Getting rid of ''The Pier'' would be like New York City demolishing the Statue of Liberty...and then replacing it with a big fancy dock..which all ''The Lens'' project is. It is one big fancy dock. I happen to own a dock, so I know. On a positive note, it could then be used to make a huge over-the-water Hooters....and that is about all it would be good for. Seriously, how does going out on something called ''The Lens'' make you feel in the hot sun we have around here? If makes me think of a 5 year old with a magnifying glass in his hands and some ants to mess with.
Joshua Streeter
11:21 am on Monday, July 9, 2012
Ken Kroger loses all credibility when he states the current Pier is worth $45 million, and spending $50 million on it will give us a $95 million dollar asset. It simply doesn't work that way.
N.A.W.
11:30 am on Monday, July 9, 2012
Tell his clients that he has no credibility Joshua. The "net zero" energy efficient schools he is designing and helping to build in Haiti would certainly disagree. When he says that it is worth 45 million, he is referring to construction costs to build it all over entirely. Caissons and building. Fixing a structurally sound building is the green way to go. It's what Leeds certified architects would do, as using existing buildings is one of the main tenets of Leeds certified architects. Fixing what we have indeed does add value to an already valuable asset. By demolishing it, you waste the demolition money, so the new project will have less funds for construction. The demolition would solely be for the approach and pier head, much of which would be left in place as a reef under the approach, one of the cost saving measures. They would remove only the pilings necessary to put the new supports in place, 60 feet apart.
So you see,it does work that way. Instead of demolishing your usable house, you gut it and improve it, thus saving the value in the original structure, not a very hard concept really.
Jeannie Cline
11:37 am on Monday, July 9, 2012
That looper trolley along Central is a temporary solution to a real need in the region.....and those buses can be used to get shuttle people from the western streetcar terminal that should go in at Central Ave and Pasadena.....and the looper trolleys can go to the various beach communities from there. Real streetcars get people talking and coming back......Charlotte, NC resurrected their authentic streetcar downtown and it paid for itself in 6 years due to the increased commerce along the route and it is sparked an interest in regional transit BEYOND buses!!!
Gene "Doc" Webb
11:59 am on Monday, July 9, 2012
Thanks for the great Comments.
I LOVE you guys.
How about some thoughts on this:
If the Mayor decides to go forward, City Legal will bring a recommended Ordinance to City Council. Then Council will discuss and amend the Ordinance. What do you think the ballot language should say.
Save the Pier, build the LENS, start over or something else?
N.A.W.
12:07 pm on Monday, July 9, 2012
Gene, thank you for this article. i would like to go back to the original vote to demolish, which is what prompted the petition campaign, as voters were simply left out of the decision to demolish The Pier. I think it should be as simple as possible:
---------------------------------------------------------
Refurbish The Pier(under 50 million)
Demolish the Pier and build the Lens(under 50 million)(the petition basically says that, but it could be massaged to add the Lens part)
-------------------------------
Basically, a vote in November would be starting the process over again, but with the people backing up whatever decision is being made.
Joshua Streeter
1:12 pm on Monday, July 9, 2012
First, who values the Pier at $45 million? Can we sell it for that much? Who's buying? Do the rents support that amount? Because right now, we're losing money every year.
Second, just throwing money into a property doesn't nessasarily increase value. If that was the case, Baywalk wouldn't have sold at a massive loss.
Please, someone give any sort of coroborating data that the fixed Pier is worth $95 million. If we put $150 Million towards it vs. $50 Million would it then be worth $195 Million?
So proposterous I cannot even believe I'm wasting time explaining. If you cannot accept basic market conditions and forces, I'm done.
N.A.W.
8:59 am on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Losing money? How is that? The Pier was never intended to make money, it is a municipal people's pier, an attraction designed to bring tourists into, and through the city, which it does. Someone recently tried to buy the pier for 30 million, and it was rejected. It was good that it was rejected, because a private enterprise should never own what has always belonged to the people. The subsidy people carp on and on about amounts to a little over 6 bucs a year, and that's with it inflated as much as the city can manage without being overly obvious, like the 25 year roofs they just installed on the two outbuildings that are supposed to be demolished in a year. The taxpayers "throw money" into The Pier because of the return to the region. The same as the coliseum, or sunken gardens, or Mahaffey, the Dali, all assets. Why not demolish the coliseum? When was the last time you went to the coliseum? And it is much older than the inverted pyramid. Corroborating data? It's simple. You have a 20k single bedroom house. It's worth 20k instead of 40k, because it is a fixer upper. You put 20k into the house, making it all new. Then you have a house worth 40k or more. You put 150k into the house, and wow! Amazing. You now have a 4 bedroom, 2 story house worth 170k. Added value. Say you have that same 20k to spend. You have your same house worth 20k, and you demolish it, costing say 5k, leaving you 15k to build a new house. Then you are stuck with a 15k house. Take what you have and use it.
N.A.W.
9:00 am on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
*6 bucs per resident of st.pete, per year
Jeannie Cline
2:27 pm on Monday, July 9, 2012
we LOVE ya too, Doc Webb!!! The referendum should read.....something to the effect.....should the present pier be refurbished?......no one is asking if the citizens believe that this annual subsidy is what we want.........there are many other venues in the city that are subsidized.....what is the desire of us taxpayers? I'm sure that other similar attractions in other cities are subsidized....like Central Park! (ever heard of it?!!!!)....besides, with a vital transit station integrated into this pier and a marketplace like Pike St Market on Puget Sound in Seattle could end all subsidies...and transportation funds can assist the operating funds of the Pier Transit Station......The Lens Is Dead! Nobody wants that walkway to nowhere!....the mayor and council should not disregard over 15,000 residents signing the petition. My gosh, what do we have to do in order to be taken seriously in this town?....storm the Bastille?!!!! Come on, mayor and council.....join the effort and open your minds. That is why we elected you to represent us.
N.A.W.
4:02 pm on Monday, July 9, 2012
The Pier was originally completely 100%subsidized. retail was brought in to lower the subsidy,which it did,and still does at the tune of 1.3 to 1.5 million a year. The economic impact on the county is why the subsidy is paid,which is around 74 million a year,read the Klager report if you are interested.The subsidy is paid to maintain an attraction that benefits our city and county,it was never designed to turn a profit itself, although I am a firm believer that the subsidy can be eliminated, and The Pier turn a profit.But only if the city administration,which ever it may be, would simply take some interest in revitalizing our history instead of knocking it down.For your information, a private company offered close to 30 million for the pier,and the city turned them down,so YES it is worth quite a lot of money. Instead of this "controlled demise" orchestrated by the city, they could do the opposite and have a "controlled revitalization".The city has done absolutely zero when it comes to thinking outside the box to make The Pier work.They want it gone, because a few people think it needs to go.Democracy doesn't work that way. Where are the legions of Lens supporters?Where is their counter petition, or counter movement? How about some kind of Lens promotion party? Anything?That isn't happening because very very few people want the Lens design. I have yet met a person that has told me that they want the Lens.Not really a smart move to fundamentally mess with generational tourism.
CJ
4:40 pm on Monday, July 9, 2012
NAW...oops...I put this reply to you in the wrong place before: N.A.W.
That was a very interesting and fine comment. I realize my suggestions are something that will never happen, but you caught and helped make my point...that thinking outside the box could help on this topic. I am not sure the city officials who are in on this can do that...they are in thier own little world..and it is definitly ''in a box'' they can't seem to get out of.
Bill H.
8:55 pm on Monday, July 9, 2012
CJ,
Let me put it this way, we have 50 million. It will cost, at least 50 million to demolish the pier and build the Lens. It will cost, at least 50 million to renovate the current pier. 50 plus 50 is 100, right? Agian, we have only 50 million, so how do we do both??? Maybe you can paint a picture in your imagination that has both, but it is not based in reality.
I am for a vote. I believe the vote would be to save the current pier, If there are only two options. If more than that, I don't know that anything gets over 50%. I also don't mind the subsidy. Some things need to be and I understand the money multiplier. I also wouldn't be opposed to selling the pier to a private investor.
CJ
9:32 am on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Yes...just to clarify...I am for saving the current Pier. Any lavish project, such as The Lens, should be tabled for a while until the economy is in a more solid positive direction. When that time comes, any new project that is considered should be a stand alone project that does not depend on the present Pier being destroyed. All projects done in the downtown area should be done to enhance all the ''existing'' venues already down there. ''Add'' things...but don't take away things that are already in place...especially something that is such a city landmark as The Pier is. For now, the city should just do some modest repair work on ''The Pier''. The city needs to continue and build on the present ongoing feeling of safety in the area...and maitain it at this level and above. Never let is go back to where people are afraid to come down there. If they can't do that, then nothing else matters. The present views of the improvement in the Baywalk thing is encouraging. I would like to suggest more lighting in the park areas and all the dark areas in general. Brighten it up down there at night! That single improvement would greatly further improve the ''perception'' of safety...and even go beyond that..it would actually truly be real. Crime does not like light. yeah...the lights may detroy the ''ambience'' down there...but something has to give somewhere...and lights would only make more things still be fun to do once it gets dark.
Bill H.
12:51 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
CJ, you can't just do modest repairs on the pier. It's almost all or nothing. Do a little studying please. The pilings that are holding it up are crumbling. The entire approach needs to be rebuilt so cars and trucks can safely go out there. The $50 million is there. You can't stop building until the economy comes around , because that is exactly what spurs it on.
They did add lights to the trees and it does help.
Joshua Streeter
3:03 am on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
There have been votes by elected officials. That IS how democracy in this country works; it's a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.
If you'd like to see how nothing gets done in a more direct democracy, study California's ballot initiatives.
N.A.W.
8:10 am on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Our representatives should know better than to vote on huge waterfront expenditures without the support of the people backing them up. The waterfront is sacrosanct. If you know anything about this city, and it's history, the founding fathers of St.Pete deemed the waterfront the people's waterfront, and they deemed it should always remain so. There have been multiple attempts over the years, with different administrations, to "knock the door down" to developing the waterfront. That's why this is such an issue. The city had to have a referendum just to spruce the pier up back in the 80's, yet needs no referendum to demolish it, and severely affect the waterfront? The Pier is a municipal pier, with a subsidy paid for by the taxpayers, and taxpayers should have a vote on this important, historic, iconic, stand alone feat of engineering. No representative voted in by the people, should ignore the very people that voted them into office. If the petition campaign only collected 5,000 signatures, well, then you would wisely come to the conclusion that it wasn't very successful, however, that isn't the case. About 75% of the petitions were collected by volunteers citizens, handed in two at a time, 6 at a time, 20 at a time. A non funded(until the last week or so) campaign. That speaks volumes...anyone with money can pay to have signatures collected, but for it to come freely for the most part, represents a true consensus from the population.
Joshua Streeter
9:32 am on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
So tell me how this plays out, and the costs/timeline involved.
N.A.W.
10:20 am on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
If I had a crystal ball, I would be glad to oblige an answer to your question Joshua.
N.A.W.
7:50 am on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
I have decided to become a total political robot yes man. No matter what the "leaders" decide, I will never have an issue with it because we live in a representative democracy. Whatever decision the "leaders" make, I am good with. My brain has now been programmed to accept with joy, and decision they make. No, I will never use my brain again. I am turning it off, and letting them do the thinking for me, because, after all, once one is elected into office, a transformation occurs, rendering the once citizen into an omnipotent, all knowing force of nature... infallible, inscrutable. Citizens should never have any say in what our esteemed elected officials say or do while in office, how dare the people even think for one second that they know better, after all, they are simply the droning masses. I am happy, once the citizen has been elected, to follow every direction or order they hand out, never once analyzing it in any fashion. If I ever get it into my stupid drone brain that they are doing something they shouldn't, or making a huge mistake in policy, I will keep my mouth shut and let it continue, for my only recourse is to vote them out, and vote someone in that will not make mistakes. So I wait four years, keeping my mouth shut, and then somehow,all by myself, I will vote that new person into office and then turn my brain off again as they make all the decisions for my life for me. Again,if they ever make mistakes,or use bad judgement,I only have 4 yrs to keep my brain off.
CJ
8:52 am on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
...uh...sounds good..just don't call me Surely...but if you are going to do all that, you better learn to keep your shoes tied...ha ha...made you look...
Joshua Streeter
9:49 am on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
N.A.W. You provide no data on the cost of restarting this project, but you did provide take up a lot of space with a rant. Cute. You're the reason why I would trust those in office vs. the general public with this decision.
CJ
10:18 am on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Joshua, you must make so much money that taxes and money spent are non issues with you. You should move to Dubia, where they spent money like water. I don't fault your successs...and ''good for you''. If I had a lot of money, I would probably think just like you...afterall...any taxes, etc, that spur from this or any project are just petty expenses for you. Nothing wrong with that. I think an important point here is that even though succesful people may not be effected one way or another by much of ''anything''...becasue they are so secure finacially and nothing is going to tip that boat....others don't have it that easy. With all the news stories about the terrible financial conditions of many American ciies ..and how these cities are bankrupt....it is not prudent or wise of The City of St Petersburg to pursue this project right now. A lot of people's jobs depend on our city not going bankrupt. Our city is holding it's head above water, so lets not destroy our cushion with a controversial project like ''The Lens''. Let's wait until city finances remain stable for a longer period of time. Then...let the city official play with the money, as you suggest, and build more toys. NAW (forget those annoying periods) has made excellent points.
N.A.W.
1:05 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
And what makes you think I have the data to give to you? I would think you would have better luck first asking a city official these questions. I'm glad you thought my rant was cute, it was to the point I think. What makes someone in office more qualified than anyone else? Because they got elected? They were citizens once don't forget.
Bill H.
12:52 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
CJ,
The city won't go broke unless the whole country collapses. They have to submit a balanced budget each year. That keeps them from going to far a field.
CJ
4:12 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
I agree that our city seems relatively stable compared to many cities, but you are exageratting how well things are going in St Petersburg. I am just saying that ''now'' seems like a bad time to be doing a venture like this...but I can see that things are looking encouraging also. it's a hard call, but it is obvious many citizens are leery of proceeding..especially at the consequence of losing The Pier. This problem would be so much easier if the city would back off getting rid of the inverted pyramid. It is funny how you ealier were so vehement about how there is no money to do both projects, but now you brag about how well the finances are for the city. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing and it appears as if few people here stand by you and your opinions on this matter. You are all over the place, and not listening to anything anyone else is trying to tell you. It sure sounds like you are one of the city officials directly behind and in support of this project...but are here to simply play both sides towards the middle.
N.A.W.
2:37 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Why do people ignore that fact that the 2005 agreement put together by Rick Baker for the 50 million in TIF financing was for REFURBISHMENT? Why do people act like this funding was for any pier idea? Most people don't even know that there isn't 50 mil in a vault somewhere, that the money doesn't exist, much less knowing what it was originally intended for. Why would the ex mayor set up a refurbishment agreement in 2005? Is it because he knows full well it can be refurbished for that amount, and that's why it's 50 million in the first place, and not 100 million, as would be needed for demolition and building new? Why go for years letting people believe it will be refurbished, only to flip at the last second? Mayor Foster has said on camera that the money "set aside"(as he says), was for "A" pier, and not "this" pier? The agreement clearly states that 4.3 million dollars would be used to "refurbish the inverted pyramid". How does one infer that the agreement is for "A" pier? Some fancy legal speak is what it looks like to me. Confuse the public and they won't know which way is up, while you continue to "move forward" to a point where it becomes very difficult to untangle. Not a new, or unknown practice in politics. I have been following this fiasco from the start and I am amazed at the kabuki theater. These guys made a costly mistake by disregarding the public on this very important asset. Ignoring a large portion of the registered voters in this city is not a wise move.
Bill H.
4:56 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
CJ,
You write:''now'' seems like a bad time to be doing a venture like this...but I can see that things are looking encouraging also." So who is all over the place??? There is 50 million set aside for this. That is all they are willing to spend. There is not enough for both whether the city is strong or weak. Can't you see that? It is you seems not to do any research or to listen to those who have. I am hardly in the city's pocket. I signed the petition and wish for a vote as i believe we should refurbish what is there. If not, i don't want the lens.
N.A.W.
5:21 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
I agree with you Bill, I also signed the petition, and also favor a refurbishment option. However, I would like to correct one point you wrote, that "There is 50 million set aside for this."
I wish that were true, unfortunately the 50 million is a bond issue, with interest. The 50 million is not set aside, it is basically a loan to be paid back over 25 years. By that time it would be about 80 million paid back. If only there was 50 million in a vault somewhere, at least we wouldn't have to pay interest on it. And if that 80 million only gets us the walkway to nowhere, with nothing to do, closed most of the rainy summer afternoons, what a travesty it would be, and is, should it be forced on St.Pete.
CJ
12:25 am on Friday, July 13, 2012
Frankly, Bill, it does not seem like you read anything that anyone else writes here. Of all the people here to try and engae in a civil disussion with here, you seem about the hardest one to make any sense with. I ''see'' just fine, but you need to read more of what people are saying here. You simply don't ''get'' the main thing that has people riled up on this topic. It's not so much the ''money'' with most of us...it's the elimination of The Pier. People don't want to see it go..and that is a very valid wish. It really pains me to visualize it being gone. Why even bother getting deep with you on this..you are not listening. Now days, in any big city...if a large project get approved...mpost people know the cost will probalby de double what they say...or more. Shut up about the 50 million already. You sound like you are in a loop.
Bill H.
8:40 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
N.A.W.
"n 2005, the City Council and County Commission agreed that $50 million in TIF funding would be used to build the new Pier, which sits in a TIF district running roughly from Fifth Avenue N to Fifth Avenue S and from the water to 16th Street.
Almost $69 million in TIF funding is available for capital improvements in the area. Besides the Pier, $14 million has been designated for construction of a garage and transportation hub and $2.5 million for waterfront park improvements."
In 2009. the City and County have identified Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds for the future renovation or replacement of the Pier. The amount of TIF funding earmarked for the Pier project was $50M. Of that amount, $5M is now available for the design phase of the project, including funds to support the visioning phase of the project. The remaining $45M will be available in 2012 for the construction phase of the project.
I thought/believe the money has been collecting since then to be used now.
N.A.W.
8:18 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
The remaining 45 will be a bond with interest. I am definitely not a financial expert, or politician, but I have seen the 2005 agreement that states "4.3 million to refurbish the inverted pyramid", it was not to build a new pier. I'm not sure what kind of political maneuvering was done since then to set the stage for changing the use of the funding. I do know that the agreement also stated that any changes to the agreement had to go to the county commissioners for approval, in conjunction with a county wide public hearing. Changing the agreement from refurbishing to demolishing is quite a change, and I think foster quietly got permission from the commissioners, and held a public hearing to satisfy the stipulations in the agreement, but I'm not positive. Do you know that The Pier had record sales in all of its history in 2005? People think it's dying, but that is simply the perception the city, and the St.Pete times would like you to have. 65 million people have been through the doors of The Pier since 1973....and those visitors left money behind in St.Pete one way or another. I speak to people from all around the world that are amazed our city wants to get rid of it. Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, England, Russia, Colombia, Ukraine, Poland, Korea, China, Japan, Greece, Spain...these are just a few of the international visitors I see regularly, and all come from places with amazing architecture, but nothing like The Pier. Let's help people to stop taking it for granted. :-)
Bill H.
3:26 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
N.A.W., you are right. Only 4 or 5 million is ready now. The rest must be borrowed, so the bill goes up either way. Still favor refurbishing if it can be done, compared to doing the Lens.
S. Ripley
8:58 am on Friday, July 13, 2012
If only people got so interested, vocal, and involved about this 7 years ago- when it would have made a difference. Let this be lesson to all of us- if you wake up in the final quarter of the game, your chances of wining are extremely poor.
N.A.W.
1:16 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
S.Ripley the decision to demolish The Pier was only made in August of 2010, so how could people have acted any sooner than that? The option to refurbish was promised to be a part of the process all the way through, and it was not. Ed Montinari was quoted as saying a refurb option would always be an option. Let this be a lesson to all of us- if you stand up when you see something wrong in official policy, immediately stand up and do something about it. That's why the petition drive started, the decision to demolish The Pier was made without the consent of the voting, tax paying residents of St.Pete. Part of the lack of interest you speak of is a direct result of city planning. Do you seriously think they want the p[ublic involved in decisions they make? The demolition of The Pier was a forgone conclusion long ago in some people's minds. The backlash they are receiving is a direct result of going at this the completely wrong way. Ask the residents FIRST, then make a decision based on that. Do you want to refurbish what we have, or demolish and start new(lens)? Do you want to demolish and have nothing? These questions were never asked, and all of the recommendations of the Pier Advisory task force?All those years of meetings?The city totally disregarded their findings. Yes this has been a waste of money, close to 2 mil so far, and it is councils fault for not going about this the right way from the start.Lesson learned-always ask the public on giant, regional life changing ideas
S. Ripley
3:03 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
Perhaps the formal decision was made in 2010, but the wheels where set in motion long before then. As soon as large chunks of money are involved, screwy things start happening. Local politics rarely attract society’s best & brightest, but once those folks get into office, they figure pretty quickly how to get what they want. It takes a very keen eye foresee potential problems before they become obvious- and this is a great example. I recall when pier redevelpment got some coverage back in 2005- a real estate developer acquaintance of mine remarked “this will get awfully ugly before it gets done”.
HANI F MATTA
9:26 pm on Sunday, July 15, 2012
first principle in architecture is " form follows function "......the lens has no function , just a lifeless form ...it is therefore a sculpture, a long track for the daring athletes who will dare to walk, run and sweat exposed to our hot , humid and stormy weather.
what people need is functions that bring life to a climate controlled building.........we need restaurants , food, drinks, beer, cafes, shopping ....etc. same as in the existing pier.
so stop. cut our losses and go back to serious programming effort based on residents desires and input
once we have a mature program , advertise for an open competition to remodel/expand the existing building or to build a new facility, whichever will satisfy our approved program
an open competition will bring the talents of many florida and national architects so we can have on hand tens of ideas to chose from........only then we will be certain we made the right and wisest choice
otherwise we will end up with this dead elephant they call the lens ,
a $ 70000000 useless sculpture that we will visit probably twice in a life time
Hani f Matta
architect
elmasry73@aol.com
CJ
9:49 pm on Sunday, July 15, 2012
The more I read on this, the more it seems clear that obviously the main reason people have against demolishing The Pier is the destruction of the beloved Inverted Pyramid design. It is what put The Pier on the map. Every travel/tourist book, etc, written on St Petersrburg since 1972 features The Pier and it's Inverted Pyramid. Why have I not read much about simply building a new, improved , more awesome version of the same thing? Isn't this a no brainer idea? I don't get it..why don't the city people see that ''if'' they are going to do this big expense...then the way to win the hearts over of vitually everyone..is to simply do a ''better'' one. This would take care of most arguments from practically every opposing party here. It would appease those who think the old one is structurally falling apart. It addresses the people who want something new and excitingly different, but the same. And... it pleases those who absolutely don't want the REALLY COOL Inverted Pyramid gone forever. I have sort of changed direction on my thoughts on this...but I think this idea is one that would satisfy more people. Then all that is left is the other issue. The money.