This article, originally published by Al Zucaro on BocaWatch.org, is preserved for historical purposes by Massive Impressions Online Marketing in Boca Raton.
If there are questions or concerns with the content please e-mail info@4boca.com.
THE GOOD NEWS – Voters approved “The City of Boca Raton Question” in a 2-1 landslide vote.
THE BAD NEWS – In the aftermath of the election, opponents of the measure are stating that they will now make sure that the new law is followed precisely. This includes the Chamber of Commerce who spearheaded a well-financed campaign against the ballot item and several members of our City Council. Most prominent on the Council in speaking out was Robert Weinroth. Here is a quote from the Palm Beach Post last week:
“The ballot question was not limited to that one parcel of land, (the Wildflower), and we have other things going on our waterfront,” Weinroth said.
The city attorney will have to review current commercial uses at waterfront properties, such as the gift shop at the city-owned Gumbo Limbo Nature Center…”
Really Mr. Weinroth? You telegraph the threat of Gumbo Limbo closure because you didn’t get your way? How petty. You say this with the knowledge that Deputy Manager George Brown and City Staff member Ingrid Allen provided you and others on the Council guidance that small concessions would be permissible if the Council allows it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=y3ii1RvndHs&app=desktop
Amplifying Mr. Weinroth’ threat is Troy McLellan, the Chamber of Commerce President, who, in a published message to Chamber members, writes:
“While we are disappointed with the outcome of the City of Boca Raton Question, we respect and appreciate the Democratic process of the petition initiative. The people were heard and therefore, we will work with our city officials to ensure that, “all city land adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway shall only be used for public recreation, public boating access, public streets, and city storm-water uses only”, just as the question was written.” (Emphasis added.)
The Chamber’s message during the campaign could not have been clearer. They sided with Mr. Weinroth in suggesting that the language of the ordinance as written is too restrictive and will not allow complimentary concessions for the public benefit and may require that any current commercial activity existing on the public’s Intracoastal Waterway lands may be in jeopardy.
HOW DARE THEY….
Any public figure that acts in such a recalcitrant, childish manner puts there political future in serious jeopardy. A word to the wise: Do not test the political resolve of the residents with a continuing defiance to the public’s political directive in this initiative….
THE WARNING – Make no mistake….The Chamber of Commerce and several members of the Council; Mr. Weinroth, Mayor Haynie, Mr. Mullaugh and, to a lesser degree, Mr. Rodgers, have no intention of making this important measure work in the way intended by voters. They have signaled their intent to use the excuse of “restrictive language” in the new law as their cover. Despite their somewhat concessionary statements, they are bitter over an outcome they did not want and resistance will be their “payback”. They are in the business of punishing those who go against their wishes so that it doesn’t happen again.
Retaliation, Intimidation, Isolation…these are the levers, the methods, which are and have been employed for a long time; to wit: Boca Raton politics….go along to get along!
Only Councilmember Scott Singer recognized the benefits of providing and protecting recreational greenspace and attempted further discussion of the Ordinance but was rebuffed by Councilman Weinroth who introduced a motion to place the issue on the ballot when it came before City Council. That motion passed 5-0. Mr Singer also organized and conducted a successful “visionary workshop” that yielded wonderful suggestions as to what can be done on certain waterfront parcels.
That workshop was open to all, including all members of the Council. Instead of attending and learning what the citizens would like as a waterfront amenity, not one other Councilmember made the effort to be there. They simply were not interested in citizens’ opinion. Their minds were made up – end of story.
THE OPPORTUNITY – Whether the Councilmembers in question recognize it or not, the citizens have made a resounding statement. They do not want a Hillstone restaurant on the Wildflower property; they do not want intense commercialization on the public’s Intracoastal Waterfront lands.
Community members have made presentations at City Council meetings as to what is possible for the waterfront property: The residents do want “small scale” commercial concessions; they do want green space; they do want recreation and public accessibility for everyone, and more.
Had the opposition attended Mr. Singer’s workshop their vision as to what is possible and desired may have been awakened. Now is the time for the Council to truly serve the citizens and make the new law “work” as intended instead of being a roadblock to what can be a significant legacy for generations.
THE CHALLENGE – Mayor Haynie made this Facebook post on November 5th:
“The fur is flying in Boca! Many mistruths being posted all over. There is so much more that unites us, than that which divides us. Let’s all take a deep breath. We are #OneBoca.”
Is #OneBoca simply another Haynie empty campaign slogan made by a politician up for reelection?
Mayor Haynie has a defining opportunity…She can take steps to unite us by embracing the will of the electorate and taking the lead toward creating a collaborative effort for the purpose of a waterfront experience with small scale concessions and visionary amenities.
Mayor Haynie can embrace the residents’ will by joining with Councilman Singer and advance the proposition that the City Council should, and must, move in a positive direction. That the City Council should stand up for the residents’ wishes even in light of the opposition’s threats of legal action….and if there is an actual legal challenge, then Mayor Haynie and Councilman Singer must stand for the proposition that the City Attorney explore, identify and defend the residents’ rights under the City Charter; the residents’ right to their self-determination of this city’s future.
Imagine the possibilities.
THE OTHER OPPORTUNITY – Voters have an opportunity also. They can hold the Council accountable for its actions towards the spirit and intentions of the new law.
That is how the process works.
As many residents have now discovered, residents do have a voice at the ballot box. If this Council chooses the path of resistance to the residents’ wishes, the choice is obvious ….
Replace them with ‘resident friendly’ voices. Those voices that put the interests of the resident in the number one position over those of the special interests led by the Chamber of Commerce and the developer community.
Next Election – March 2017. Vote for your ‘resident friendly’ candidates. You will know who they are…..It will be obvious…
Your voice is your vote….Thank you for letting your voice be heard!
Excellent commentary. Those on the City Council who are tone deaf had better unplug their ears. Follow Mr. Weinroth and you will find yourself retired in 2017. He is not only deaf, but blind.
Humm..how long has Gumbo Limbo been there..and the gift shop?
I’d say Grandfathered in !
RE: “THE WARNING – Make no mistake….The Chamber of Commerce and several members of the Council; Mr. Weinroth, Mayor Haynie, Mr. Mullaugh and, to a lesser degree, Mr. Rodgers, have no intention of making this important measure work in the way intended by voters. They have signaled their intent to use the excuse of “restrictive language” in the new law as their cover. Despite their somewhat concessionary statements, they are bitter over an outcome they did not want and resistance will be their “payback”. They are in the business of punishing those who go against their wishes so that it doesn’t happen again.”
To the author, Al Zuccaro .. What are you talking about? Please tell me A) How you know what the voters intended by their yes/no, and what you think their intention was // B) Why you think I am “opposed, to a lesser extent”, to what the voters intended?
Also, since you personally have such an interest in this property, maybe you can lend your voice and opinion on how YOU would interpret, under their voter approved wording, which of these would you approve? (Other readers, feel free to chime in too).
A) Site used for full use restaurant with a public promenade along the waterfront (ie: Hillstone, what was proposed)
B) Site used as smaller restaurant, with public use walks, promenade, and small outdoor park space (ie: smaller restaurant and bocce court).
C) Site used as majority open park space, with a smaller restaurant (ie Shake Shack, ~50% grass and park settings)
D) Site used as primary open park space, with a small cafe or coffee shop onsite (ie 80% park, small coffee shop).
E) Site used as primary open park space, with no fixed structures for food truck or temporary vendors (ie 100% park, vendors/food truck in parking).
F) 100% park, no commerce (ie: rutherford park).
As an East Boca Resident I voted for the usage restriction, but for me options D or E above are what I would like to see. I also feel we need to re-do the Palmetto/5th Ave junction to allow good traffic flow however that land will be used.
These are NOT the only alternatives, as a restroom building with a food truck hookup-adjacent location would be yet another alternative. No fixed restaurant building is the bottom line for preserving green space in property. How hard can this message be for all 5 of our deaf city council members?
There were 13,960 NO votes against the waterfront amendment. But I bet that the majority of those voters were duped into thinking that they were voting to SAVE the city from even more rapacious development. Take note please: Haynie, Weinroth, Mullaugh, Singer and Jeremy Rodgers.
Hyperdeveloped South Florida doesn’t need another rare piece of land which could be “returned” to primarily green space, to be developed!
All remaining green space should be protected anyway
That would only raise the value of existing developed parcels
Hillstone can have the corner where 3 Forks and Philippe Chow tried to establish!!
People WILL GO TO HOUSTONS!!
The city should buy the oldMaxwells property too and add it to the wildflower parcel
This isNOT EAST BROWARD!
Agree 100%.
If Mr. Weinroth, Mayor Haynie, Mr. Mullaugh and Mr. Rodgers, have no intention of making this important measure work in the way intended by voters – then they should resign. It seems that they have forgotten that they work for the citizens of Boca Raton.
I would go for D through F.
Commissioner Earl Starkoff had a great idea he put forth at the Nov 14 Beach and Park District meeting. He sees no reason for the Wildflower property to sit fenced and unused while the debate continues, and will continue for some time over just what the interpretation and restrictive language of the City waterfront land usage means. Mr. Starkoff says take down the fence, get rid of the asphalt and plant grass. Add some picnic tables and allow the voters, residents and visitors to our City enjoy this great location NOW.
City Council members, what say you?
There is no question that the Waterfront Ordinance may be interpreted anyway P&Z and City Council deems appropriate. The problem with this idea comes when a party believes they have been injured by the interpretation. We have heard from many proponents of Ordinance 4035 how the CRA is not following the letter of the law of 4035. We only need to look at what is happening with the 770 Palmetto Park Road project as an example when the interpretation does not follow the “plain language” of the Ordinance. Excerpt from BocaWatch blog: After a lengthy review, the Circuit Court found that the ‘plain language’ of the City Code Section 28-302 did not include ‘museum’ as a listed use within the meaning of a ‘place(s) of public assembly’.
Mr French, I agree profusely, people will go to Huston no matter where they are.
Mr Rodgers, I like #E…an open park space, with venders ability in the parking areas. We the people would like a park along the waterway. Silver park is way too small. Let’s have an open park for art fairs, concerts, the boat parade. We did not move to Ft Lauderdale for the simple reason that Boca felt like a small town. Not so much, lately. The prole spoke and respect that. Tonja Widiger
First I, and the citizens of Boca, need to give a great big THANK YOU to Boca Watch and Al Zucaro for all the effort on the Green Space ballot initiative and going against well funded propagandists…
With the exception of Mr. Weinroth I hope the remainder of the council would think better of going against the residents.
If they do I think it would be political suicide, which would not be a bad thing..
Isn’t the Gumbo Limbo Gift shop a 501 status or something of the like? I am not sure but it has to do with donations and I don’t think its classified as Retail. I am not a lawyer so don’t quote me on this.
Mr. Weinroth is one man. WE ARE MANY!
I believe Gumbo Limbo is a 501c Status. Don’t quote me I am not a lawyer. If it is, it would not fit the retail criteria.
Are you soft on councilman Singer?/the vote was 5-0 to be uncooperative with the residential referendum. Is this another joint effort of the city manager and chamber of commerce to stifle the residents and hold council members hostage to the campaign treasury?
I am opposed to any development east of A1A
Ride down Palmetto and you see the future of BR as envisioned by the current Mayor. Enjoy the slow drive, congestion and crowding it’s all part of the experience. If this is what you prefer, vote for her again. If not, make your voice and vote known or STFU.