Coconut Grove Waterfront Master Plan
Posted 10 February 2006 - 01:10 PM
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.
Posted 06 April 2006 - 08:28 AM
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.
Posted 06 April 2006 - 09:18 PM
Posted 04 May 2006 - 03:58 PM
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.
Posted 26 July 2006 - 07:19 AM
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.
Posted 29 July 2006 - 11:04 AM
Posted 27 July 2007 - 08:13 AM