Jump to content


Photo

Coconut Grove Waterfront Master Plan


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 JKing

JKing

    Advanced Member

  • WAB
  • PipPipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 01:10 PM

Is the latest Coconut Grove Waterfront Master Plan alive and well? Who knows? The last meetings were in December and to say the least there were problems abounding in every direction. First there was the city staff's direcive (verbal of course) whatever was done with master plan it had to be self sustaining financially. This is city code that it must make money because the city doesn't want to committ any general revenue tax monies for recreational facilities. That philosoply hasn't flown well with the electorate, especially in light of the fact that the city hasn't used the same parameters for Bicentennial Park, now renamed Museum Park, where the dollar giveaway is in full swing. Maybe we should make all city departments self sufficient, starting with the administration. What a concept!

With no action in the past six weeks, the city is now swinging into action and the final meeting with community will be in the west Grove. Now don't get me wrong. I think these processes should be very inclusive, but the west Grove? No one has asked the south Grove, or Silver Bluff, or Bay Heights, or Wynnwood what they think of the plans. The city has danced around the neighborhoods looking for the paths of least resistance, lest this whole thing blows up in their collective faces. They have already dragged the process out to nearly 2 1/2 years.

My best guess is that nothing will come out of this study, which will put the costs of this and the past plans over the $4 million mark. That's a lot of money for nothing, but then small potatoes in light of the fire fee.

Jack King

#2 vstroleny

vstroleny

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 06 April 2006 - 08:28 AM

In the March 29th community meeting the Sasaki team had a nice presentation. I was just wondering why their financial analysis had some errors in it. I liked the way they combined Grove Harbor and the new Market under one heading, with a $2.4M income from the property. I think the Cities income from Grove Harbor averaged out is about $500,000 per year (minus the cost of docks, building and some payments to the state) and so that would leave the Market with a payment due to the City of about $1,900,000 (this would have to be an estimate since the business just opened).
They stated that the City wants to fiscally justify the use of the land. But when it came to the convention center (which according to them is losing money), an attendee asked why do we not get rid of the convention center. The Sasaki team leader replied that some people want it to stay. I would like to know who these people are that have this kind of power. I think the shrimpers and the people in the anchorage would also like to have this type of influence.

#3 dinnerkeyadmin

dinnerkeyadmin

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 264 posts

Posted 06 April 2006 - 09:18 PM

The problem is that the City views the finances from a standpoint of whether their business operations are profitable. Add Fort Lauderdale's 9 billion dollar annual marine industry revenue to the potential of additional billions that could come from hosting major Ocean races and then subtract the City's $2.4 million to calculate the lost opportunity for the people. If the City raised revenues from taxes and then created opportunities for privately owned businesses, everyone would win.

Brick

#4 Mel Miller

Mel Miller

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

Posted 04 May 2006 - 03:58 PM

QUOTE(dinnerkeyadmin @ Apr 7 2006, 02:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The problem is that the City views the finances from a standpoint of whether their business operations are profitable. Add Fort Lauderdale's 9 billion dollar annual marine industry revenue to the potential of additional billions that could come from hosting major Ocean races and then subtract the City's $2.4 million to calculate the lost opportunity for the people. If the City raised revenues from taxes and then created opportunities for privately owned businesses, everyone would win.

Brick


As noted previously, the city's method of determining profitability does not include all costs, so the requrement in the present study is not onerous. This would be important if the present study enjoyed a high probability of iplementation, but the process thus far has demonstrated the usual seperate reality. In the interim, the study has met its baseline objectives: the ultimately inevitable fate of the anchorage and existing moorings has been delayed until the responsibility is passed on to new elected officials.

#5 dinnerkeyadmin

dinnerkeyadmin

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 264 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 07:19 AM

The ultimate, inevitable fate of the anchorage continues to seek refuge behind a fog of questions nobody wants to answer. Tragically, the fate of the anchorage may be that it never does get properly managed or regularly cleaned, regardless of whether or not the floating parking meters get installed.

For starters, you may notice that every mooring on the plan is in 6 feet of water or more. The deed 19488 boundary specifies an outer limit of the City's land at a depth of "consistently six feet at mean low water." If we use an entire mooring field as a gauge of reasonable consistency, it's likely that the City's submerged lands MIGHT extend out to teh spoil islands assuming that historical, pre-dredging soundings were used to determine the depth. Likely, the property boundary would fall under the marina somewhere. It's also hard to determine if Dinner Key marina violates the deed's clause abouut building structures. Clauses about public and municipal use are also in need of interpretation because the definition of a municipality ( a municipal corporation ) was quite different when the land was deeded to the City.

I have asked at least four different departments at DEP and also the City to provide some basis for their boundary claims and have nothing but "I'll get back to you." There are no documents - only somebody's supposition on a chart that are clearly contradicted by the soundings (unless, there's a special, legal definition of the number six).

At the end of the day, the City doesn't want the anchorage so they'll try to change it into something else that produces money. The State doesn't want to find out that the City's mess actually belongs to them. If the State does have to take it over, at least their strategy is to set up mooring fields that operate at cost and they''re open to mixed anchoring / mooring facilities. While I'm disappointed in recent DEP politics that mimic the City's, if forced to rent a mooring, I'd prefer to have the State as my landlord. We could have a professionally managed field and the real money from boaters who might actually want to use Biscayne Bay would go into our community - not the City General's fund.

I think the anchorage potato is not cooling down at all and will likely get tossed back and forth for a long time between players who would likely fumble it if they could catch it at all.

Brick

#6 Mel Miller

Mel Miller

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

Posted 29 July 2006 - 11:04 AM

A team of Philadelphia lawyers would not have found the six feet issue. You are doing much more than keeping the potato so hot that polictiians and offiicals keep tossing it. Your rear guard actions will be compared to Nat Forrest's efforts to protect the remnants of the Confederate Army after Nashville. Fifty years hence, at the inaugeration of the new mooring field, A Brick Monument will be unveiled to remind all of the great and glorious Anchorage Battle.

#7 vstroleny

vstroleny

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 27 July 2007 - 08:13 AM

Well, I guess the city has a plan or a dream. After 2 meetings this week for the public - in front of city boards there seems to some confussion. After everything is built, I wonder who will be the manager of the Coconut Grove Sailing Center? There must be at least two people who want that position.