Depress ctrl and + keys together to increase text size; depress ctrl and – keys together to reduce
An interesting artist has been leaving small stones on which are different pictures near where Kari and I hang out in Fort Zachary Taylor State Park near where the park ends at the Navy Base. When we first discovered the artist’s “cache” a few days ago in the trunk of an Australian pine tree, just above the several painted stones was a stone on which was painted, “Gift Shop”. Yesterday morning, all of the stones left from the day before were gone. Later yesterday, Kari discovered in the sea grape tree next to which she had parked her bicycle, a stone with Jesus painted on it, with a red heart on his chest, and his palms open with a red dot in the center of each palm. Kari said that painted stone had not been there when she parked her bicycle under the sea grape after she arrived a little after 8 am. Somebody had snuck in and put it there, she said - it was a message. At times yesterday, we found ourselves asking about this or that situation local and national drama: “What would Jesus do?” I said that WWJ might be the title of my post today at goodmorningkeywest.com.
Here is Key West the Newspaper’s most recent take on the Peary Court purchase by the city, as usual, the blue paper (in its editorial musings in reader comments) takes its readers into regions where even angels have feared to tread, but then, if there were no fools, who’d lead the angels?
WORKFORCE HOUSING CRISIS PART III — PEARY COURT
5 Responses to “WORKFORCE HOUSING CRISIS PART III — PEARY COURT”
My own thoughts interjected in bold italics into the two Keynoter (keysnet.com) Peary Court referendum pieces below:
Peary Court subdivision would be a good buy for the city of Key West
By Mayor Craig Cates
Keynoter Publishing March 10, 2016
I would like to address the Peary Court referendum. Peary Court is going to make an impact on Key West’s future whether the Citizens buy it and keep it affordable housing or it’s sold to a developer and offered to the general public for purchase as single-family homes (which could be utilized as either primary residences or second homes).
Er, 157 $2,400 a month 2-bedroom units are affordable for whom? 2,400 a month plus utilities of, say, $150 a month, adds up to $2,550 a month. Using HUD’s 30 percent of income for housing guideline: .30x = $2,550; x = $2,550 divided by .30; x = $85,000+ annual income. I doubt 10 percent of Key West’s so-called work force can afford to live in Peary Court right now.
No one can deny the need for affordable and work force housing in Key West. This is currently the only opportunity for the City to purchase this many (already built) units and this large of a parcel of land, with the capacity to build even more affordable housing units in the future.
Disingenuous? Mayor Cates knows the developers are retaining the right to build 48 “affordable” rental units about 5 acres of the land on which there is currently no housing, and a lot of the land is roads and sidewalks and a park and utility easements. Where are any more units going, which the city might build there? And, we all know, who have been paying attention, including Mayor Cates, that the 48 rental units the developers can build at Peary Court, if the city buys it, although called affordable, actually will be market rate rentals, which end up being transient rentals.
This purchase will pay for itself. It can be purchased without using any revenue from taxpayers. It is a way to impact Key West’s future in a positive way. Land Authority money collected from bed taxes on transient rentals will be used for the down payment and the loan payments can be paid using the income from renting the units. This is a win-win situation for Key West and its residents.
Oh, my, but the per unit cost, $55,000 divided by 157 = $369,000 is well over 3 times what today is being spent to build slightly smaller NEW apartment units in Key West. The Peary Court units are 20 years old. The appliances which have not been replaced are worn out. The units are wood frame and lots of plywood, there is termite damage. There is mold in the units. The developers have not been maintaining the units well because the developers intended to tear them all down and build new, expensive units in their place, plus the 48 new not in the least affordable units, the city GAVE the developers for FREE.
I understand there are concerns and some unanswered questions that we have not been able to answer yet, but we will have all of our questions answered before the commission moves forward with the deal if the citizens of Key West vote in favor of the referendum.
Beg your pardon, Mayor. You should have answered all of your unanswered questions BEFORE you voted to put Peary Court out to referendum, knowing the voters could not answer your unanswered questions, BECAUSE you had not yet answered them yourself. And you STILL have not answered them.
I have my own concerns and questions that need to be answered before I approve a final deal. I have concerns about how much the government should be subsidizing businesses that are in competition with the private sector. I have heard many reasons for people to vote against the purchase of Peary Court. The reality is that this vote will greatly affect our future and the lives of many of our citizens.
Actually, Mayor, you and City Manager Jim Scholl, the former local navy base commandant, knew before the developers bought Peary Court for $35,000,000 two years ago, that it was for sale, and you made a unilateral decision not to tell the City Commission about it, because you did not then think the city should compete with the private sector in the housing market. Had you told the City Commission back then what you knew, you might have gotten out-voted and the city might have acquired, with voter approval, Peary Court for $35,000,000, which would have allowed the city to rent the units far cheaper than the current $2,400 a month the developers are charging.
The reality is there are just over 700 building permit allocations available for Key West until we reach buildout unless the state will allow more in the future, which is highly unlikely. With Peary Court, we do not need to use any of those allocations and the units are already built. Any new units that have to be built will take at least two years.
You have been our mayor since 2009, 4 terms, and are seeking a 5th term this year. I ran against you in 2009 and 2014. I don’t recall you declaring an affordable housing crisis in Key West until recently, although it’s been in Key West since I arrived in 2000. If you truly were concerned about affordable housing, you would have done all you could to get the city to purchase the Simonton Court trailer park, which truly was affordable housing, but is no longer; bulldozed by a developer and now far more expensive housing. You would have done all you could to get the city to purchase Peary Court back when you heard it was for sale before the current carpetbaggers bought it.
There are people with no reason to not move forward on projects or ideas other than their distrust of people in general. Like the idea that the purchase of Peary Court will make the current owners a lot of money, and this is somehow a ploy. Isn’t that the very definition of what an investor does? One who provides (or invests) money or resources for an enterprise, such as a corporation, with the expectation of financial gain.
Ah, but Mayor, you know the city’s negotiating team agreed to the developers’ asking price even before you knew the city even had a negotiating team. You know there were no negotiations. You know the developers were vulnerable, after having been unable to get three different redevelopment plans through the city’s Historical Architectural Review Commission. The developers are trying to make a killing, $20 million for the existing 157 units and the 3 units that burned down, and $12 million off the 48 free building rights you and the city commission gave them, because there were no negotiations; because the City Commission, on which you sat, caved to the developers.
Investors invest to make money. They take the risk. Sometimes they hit a home run and sometimes they strike out. The investors that purchased Peary Court made a great investment at a time that our real estate market was at a low.
Yeah, and you knew Peary Court was for sale and you didn’t want the city to buy it from the Navy, and here we are with you not saying nothing about that.
The data collected to this point shows this will be an investment that will yield a profit. This purchase will help us preserve our citizens’ quality of life by providing an almost immediate solution to keeping our workforce in Key West.
Actually, Mayor, the propaganda being put out by City Commissioner Jimmy Weekley, who was on the city’s crack negotiating team with City Manager Jim Scholl and Key West Housing Authority Director Manuel Costillo, and the PAC Jimmy created to try to mesmerize the voters into voting YES for the city to NEGOTIATE to buy Peary Court for not more than $55 million, the city will do all it can, if it gets favorable mortgage financing, to reduce the rents at Peary Court down to where there is almost no profit. But then, you also know, so far, only one of over 200 lenders approached by the city, responded to the city’s request for Peary Court financing proposal, and that lender’s response was for the loan to be secured by the city’s treasury and general assets, and not just by Peary Court and its rents. You also know no financing the city might somehow acquire will be fixed for the term of the mortgage, but after 5 or 10 years, the lender will be able to change the interest rate. The financing does not even exist at this point in time, and if it ever does exist, it will not likely be favorable to the city making money off of Peary Court, and also paying for all of its maintenance, repairs and replacing old appliances.
Regardless the outcome of Peary Court, we will continue to move forward with the affordable projects at our Stock Island property, Poinciana Housing complex and at the Truman Waterfront.
Can’t wait to see that happen, but how will you move forward, if you use $10 million of the tourist tax fund to make the down payment on Peary Court, and you spend $57 million you will have to pay back from taxes to turn Truman Waterfront into a non-revenue producing public park, instead of into a revenue producing affordable city housing project, which pays for itself? Use the City’s allotted ROGOS for new actually affordable rental housing. Don’t give a single one of those ROGOS to a developer, ever.
So I ask the citizens to think long and hard on their decision and then vote. If you give the commission the authority to move forward with the purchase, we will do our due diligence and make the best possible deal for the people of our great community.
Given the city’s Peary Court “negotiating” and “due diligence” record so far, I ain’t feeling all warm and fuzzy inside about any negotiating and due diligence the city will do if the voters pass the Peary Court referendum. But then, I you let me do the negotiations for the city, if the referendum passes, then I might feel more warm and fuzzy inside. I used to be a real estate lawyer. I represented lots of home buyers and home sellers. I represented some real estate firms and some contractors. I closed a lot of loans for mortgage companies. At one time, I was a nationally recognized expert I that field. To start my serious negotiations with the developers, if the referendum passes, I would tell the City Commission to vote to put the city’s new homeless shelter on the now empty city transit property across Palm Avenue from Peary Court, which would immediately and drastically reduce the value of Peary Court regardless of whether the city acquired it from the developers. The rents at Peary Court would fall, regardless of who owned Peary Court. But this is the city of we are all created equal members of one human family, so what the heck if the new homeless shelter, which the city has no other place to put it and not piss off a lot of voters, is plopped right next door to the carpetbaggers’ investment, Peary Court. Using that approach, which I imagine would really please the homeless man Jesus, I bet I could buy ALL of Peary Court, including the 48 new building rights, for $40 million. And even if I didn’t pull that off, the carpetbaggers would be screwed; no way they turn Peary Court into an upscale housing project with the city’s homeless shelter right across the street. The carpetbaggers would be lucky to hold the Peary Court rents where they are. What buyer, other than the city, would want to acquire Peary Court with the city’s homeless shelter right across the road? Rhetorical question.
Mayor Craig Cates
Key West
Election Day arrives Tuesday, thousands in Keys have already voted; schools tax and Peary Court purchase on the ballot
BY GWEN FILOSA
gfilosa@keynoter.com March 11, 2016
Monroe County voters hit the polls Tuesday to help Florida select presidential nominees and, closer to home, decide on a Monroe County School District tax extension while Key Westers will determine whether the city can be allowed to buy a $55 million subdivision from developers.
Polls open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Early voting, which ends at 5 p.m. today, proved popular. As of the end of Thursday, just over 18 percent of registered voters had cast ballots, according to Monroe County Supervisor of Elections Joyce Griffin.
Of the 9,674 people who voted early, 6,122 sent in absentee ballots while 3,552 took advantage of early voting hours at one of five polling sites.
Monroe County has 53,350 registered voters …
In Key West, a simple majority vote is needed Tuesday to send city leaders into negotiations with developers to buy the 157-unit Peary Court complex in Old Town for up to $55 million.
Originally built in the 1990s as military housing, Peary Court evolved into rentals for civilians, owned by both the Navy and Southeast Housing, a subsidiary of Balfour Beatty, until the private partner unloaded it in 2013.
Led by City Commissioner Jimmy Weekley, proponents say Key West can plunk down $10 million from its Monroe County Land Authority funds as a down payment and mortgage the rest, paying off the debt with the rents collected.
Critics, however, wince at the price tag for the same property White Street Partners, led by Everett Atwell, picked up for $35 million in 2013.
Weekley has said Peary Court, where two-bedroom town homes rent for about $2,400 monthly, is a must-have for the city to preserve workforce housing.
“I am hearing some positives,” he said. “We’re doing everything we can think of to get the message out.”
Some of what you are doing, Jimmy, is seriously creative, bordering on being misleading, or even untrue.
Three commissioners said they will vote for the purchase while Commissioner Margaret Romero has opposed it from the start, saying there is too little information available to make a $55 million decision.
“I don’t want to try to influence people either way,” Commissioner Sam Kaufman said, opting not to disclose his vote. “I want to be an advocate for more affordable housing either way.”
My goodness, Sam, my friend and my lawyer, that is so much secret ballot political chicken shit, not telling the voters how you voted on Peary Court, that it might take Waste Management several years to haul it all the way to some mainland land fill. Every commissioner (including the mayor) should publicly disclose his/her vote on Peary Court, after foisting onto the voters whether or not to decide whether or not they should give the mayor and the commissioners the power to NEGOTIATE to buy Peary Court.
Commissioner Billy Wardlow said he, like many others, is conflicted. “It’s going to be close,” he said. “Everybody’s in limbo on it.”
Limbo don’t sound particularly fetching; it sounds like a crap shoot.
Mayor Craig Cates has no reservations about voting.
“We need affordable housing and this is an opportunity to use bed-tax money for a down payment,” he said. “The rents will pay for it and we’ll have the option to expand more units in the future.”
Commissioner Clayton Lopez said he will also vote yes.
“I understand all the negatives,” Lopez said. “I fully understand them, even though people keep hitting me over the head with them. What I keep coming back to is, what happens if we don’t do it?”
Lopez envisions developers wiping away the 157 units to replace them with luxury homes — the type of plan White Street Partners once had.
Not if the city puts its new we are all created equal members of one human family, red, yellow, black or white, rich or poor, Jesus loves me this I know homeless shelter across the road from those 157 upper middle income apartments.
I’m going to leave this next one alone, but you can feel free to copy and paste it somewhere else and interject your own thoughts and email that to me and I will publish it, if I get it by 7 a.m. tomorrow morning …
Today’s Key West Citizen (keysnews.com):
ROMERO RAISES PEARY COURT CONCERNS
Mayor calls concerns ‘misinformation’
BY MANDY MILES Key West Citizen
Days before Key West voters decide whether to approve the city’s $55 million purchase of Peary Court for affordable housing, one city commissioner is raising concerns about the city’s exposure to unknown costs associated with the property.
But what Commissioner Margaret Romero considers legitimate misgivings after meeting with local utility officials, Mayor Craig Cates sees as an attempt to derail the voter referendum, which Romero has long opposed, Cates said on Friday.
“I think the referendum’s going to be close, due to the nonstop spreading of misinformation,” the mayor said on Friday, when asked whether he shares Romero’s concerns about electric and water utility costs, and the amount of land the current owners will keep if the referendum passes.
“I don’t see any reason for concern,” Cates said, comparing doubts about the Peary Court proposal to the city’s purchase of the properties surrounding Key West Bight in the mid-1990s.
“This is just like when people were against the city buying Key West Bight, and look what we’ve done down there,” Cates said. “We’ve preserved the waterfront, created the Historic Seaport and are operating successfully down there.”
Land logistics
The Peary Court purchase proposal states that the city of Key West would get the existing 157 townhouse units, the right to build another three units that were destroyed by fire a few years ago and the land underneath all 160 of them.
If the referendum passes, according to the Housing First political action committee supporting the purchase, the current owners would keep about 2.2 acres on which they would build 48 new units that would be permanently deed restricted for affordable housing.
The current owners are a corporate investment group known as Peary Court Holdings, LLC, which, according to county property records, paid $35 million for the former military housing community in 2013.
“It’s a win-win because that’s another 48 units being built on the property for workforce housing,” Cates said, adding that Peary Court Holdings will retain the 2.2 acres of land formerly occupied by Keys Federal Credit Union. The credit union building has since been demolished.
“But there is no guarantee the current owners will build the ‘new’ 48 units or if they will sell it to others or what they will do,” Romero wrote in a Feb. 25 email to constituents in which she outlined her continuing concerns. “I have seen nothing to obligate the current owners to build the 48 units — only discussion they have the ability to build them on property that they would retain.”
The actual footprint and location of the land they would keep if the referendum passes is another question mark for Romero. “It is still unspecified exactly what the current owners will retain,” she wrote on Feb. 25. “It is unknown if the owners will keep play areas, open space, ‘common areas,’ parking spaces, stormwater retainment ponds, etc.”
Power for the people
Romero, who has publicly stated that she will vote “no” on the Tuesday referendum, met last week with officials from Keys Energy Services and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority. She left those meetings with more concerns than confidence. “There’s already a disagreement between the current owners of Peary Court and Keys Energy Services over an easement the current owners were supposed to give to Keys Energy, according to a 2013 agreement,” Romero said. “The owners haven’t granted the utility that easement yet.” The local power company needs an easement — or right to use — a long, narrow strip of land along Palm Avenue that contains a row of power poles and power lines that is situated inside the Peary Court property line.
Romero is concerned, “and this is pure speculation,” she said on Friday, “that the current owners may want to retain that easement land … so they can charge Keys Energy Services fees for the utility’s transmission poles being on their property.”
Keys Energy spokesman Julio Torrado said Friday that the utility has a legal, signed and executed agreement with the current owners for that easement. “We haven’t pushed the issue,” Torrado said on Friday, adding that utility officials assume the current owners are waiting to see if the referendum passes, in which case the city as the new owners would be responsible for carrying out the agreement and granting the easement.
“If the referendum doesn’t pass, then the current owners will either grant us the easement or litigation would be pursued,” Torrado said.
Romero has additional concerns about the Navy’s initial installation and maintenance of the power lines and electrical equipment at Peary Court. Unlike the rest of the city, where power lines are overhead, Peary Court’s power lines run underground, as installed by the Navy.
“The underground lines that go from transformer boxes to individual homes will be the responsibility of the purchaser to inspect, maintain and repair,” Romero said, adding that “Keys Energy is not responsible for their inspection or maintenance and their current condition is unknown.”
Cates dismissed her concerns as a “nonstop” attempt to torpedo the purchase.
“Anytime anyone purchases a property, it’s their responsibility to maintain the power lines going to the property and other utility equipment,” Cates said. “I don’t think that’s any reason for concern.”
But other electrical equipment at Peary Court is in need of upgrades that will result in an eight-hour power outage Wednesday for all Peary Court residents, Romero said.
“Might this cause one to wonder about the condition of the underground, low-voltage wires?” said Romero, who also met with aqueduct authority officials last week about the cost of water at Peary Court.
What about water?
There’s only one water meter for the whole neighborhood, Romero said, and the average water bill runs about $17,000 per month.
“Apparently, residents are charged a flat monthly fee for water of about $50,” Romero said, multiplying $50 per month by 160 total units, which comes to just $8,000.
“The $9,000 difference is being paid every month by the current owners,” she said. “So it would be up to the new owners (the city) to either eat the difference or recoup it from residents if the referendum passes.”
Benefit or burden?
Cates shares the sentiments of City Commissioner Jimmy Weekley, who is spearheading the Housing First political action committee to encourage voters to approve the Peary Court purchase.
“This is our chance to preserve more than 160 units of affordable housing for our workers,” Cates said.
Despite the continuing disagreements between Romero and the mayor, the vote tally on Tuesday will determine whether residents view the Peary Court purchase as a benefit or burden.
mmiles@keysnews.com
Below is a link to pretty good coverage on The Donald’s recent experience with Americans exercising their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly to oppose his and his followers’ same rights, which led to some ruckuses and perhaps gained Bernie Sanders a bit more traction and, for all I know, drove legions more voters off the fence into the The Donald’s camp.
How Bernie Sanders Supporters Shut Down Donald Trump’s Rally in Chicago
My lady Kari is still pulling for Trump.
I’m figuring it don’t matter who wins in November, America is even more screwed, but Trump will take America to its much needed prayer meeting with Jesus, faster.
sloanbashinsky@outlook.com
It’s just another development for Pete’s sake, so nothing special or what we really need. It’s not a “good deal. ” Commissioner Romero is correct. The resolution earmarking “profits to an affordable housing trust fund” is clearly a marketing ploy to convince the voters that “this is a good deal.” Some City officials are asking us to worship this sacred cow of Peary Court “in the name of affordable housing.” It’s not what we need to buy.
There is likely going to be no profit from Peary Court, nor should there be. The idea is to keep the rents low but they are not as proposed. Or will rents charged be higher to subsidize other projects thus defeating the whole intent? It reminds me of a Ponzi scheme. They are already poised to remain close to market rate, so we simply wind up with an expensive “moderate ” class enclave – for 55 million dollars, and we don’t even control the whole property since White Street Partners will retain some unknown portion (at least until they find some other naif to foist it off on.) What effect does having their 48 units (in the middle or scattered about) have on the rest of the property if the City buys in? I see disputes, tension, and lawsuits ahead with this. It’s the poison pill that should kill this deal.
I MIGHT support buying PC, but I want it ALL, and not at that price, from these people, so that it is honestly affordable housing.
Then again, the way the commission got hornswoggled and wiggled into letting rents go to such unacceptable levels Citywide by ordinance, and now suggesting lowering the remaining ROGO requirements for AFFORDABLE housing makes me wonder? Saving those ROGOS for the well-heeled maybe? And so now after 25 years of whining, we’re not winning anything new, just blowing 55 million on something that we don’t need (a surplus of moderate, market rate units which we have now.)
Its just another big development , it’s nothing more. And it’s already there and it IS housing – just not affordable to most Key Westers. We also probably lose a million (?) in property taxes if its developed in some other acceptable way which may never happen. The present owners are collecting rents based on a price almost half the 67 million they asked of the City. That’s a cash cow for them, Let it stay there. YOU guys OWN IT, not us, thank you very much. We can’t afford it.
Wonder what Balfour got from the sale versus the Navy’s take of the deal. The Navy should never have sold it in the first place BTW. Did the Navy get anything? The Navy could have excessed the LAND to the City or the City buying ONLY the buildings from Balfour with the Land Authority money and maybe Balfour continuing their housing lease as is until those 20 year old buildings aren’t worthwhile . They were already renting to civilians. . Easy and beneficial to all parties . But NOooo..! Easy neighborly and creative solutions could have been found, but it was all so secret, eh? Our biggest problem was ignored by the people who should have been prepared and told this was in the works for a few years, but never discussed – as most any commissioner will admit. WTF? The City Manager was told in an” Ethics Advisory “that he could only talk about it in a “behind the scenes manner.” .What kind of ethics, transparency, is this? Serving two masters I mean. That sounds unethical to me.
How can there be any profit unless the rents are close to market rate, given that there will be a 45 million mortgage and ongoing maintenance and administrative costs on buildings that will probably not survive a 30 year mortgage?
As to maintenance and administrative costs, the ones propagandised in the City’s proposal are absurdly lower than other Housing Authority properties, so one may expect a few unpleasant surprises to eat into the purported “profit” when the City has to further tax it’s citizens. Who pays for replacing the three burned units? Other surprises?
If it’s such a good deal then why form a PAC which doesn’t really have all the information that any intelligent voter would require? And why don’t we have that info? It’s pie in the sky. Do you trust PACs? Hope not. The last one didn’t do too well with widening the channel and didn’t have the truth or facts on their side either.
Hmmm, Ask yourself, “What would Trump do”? Laugh at us I think. It’s not a “good deal.”.
Sincerely,and good luck.
Harry Powell
Amen, Harry.
Pritam Singh, er, The Donald would split his sides laughing if he owned Peary Court and sold it to the city in this way.
The former Aspen, Colorado city manager, who spoke at the local Democratic Party’s workfarce housing forum, told the audience the only way Key West can solve its truly acute workforce housing crisis. Do the same thing Aspen did. Or, rather, do what Aspen’s wealthy residents did. They created an affordable housing fund out of their own pockets, which was used to build the affordable workforce housing Aspen needed.
That glaring ELEPHANT aside …
What mortgage financing?
It’s a farce to say Peary Court is affordable housing, when 90 percent, or more, of the city’s workers cannot afford to live there. The real backers of this referendum, the Key West lodging industry, developers, Realtors, the Chamber of Commerce, the Tourist Development Council, want the city to buy and furnish housing for middle class workers, instead of paying their employees a living wage. Isn’t that communism?
Shameful, these two referendums.
Shameful the stories told about how Jimmy Weekley and City Manager Jim Scholl and Housing Authority Director Manuel Costillo “negotiated” the $55 million price tag. The developers told the city’s crack negotiating team that they wanted $67 million for all of Peary Court: $12 million for the FREE “affordable housng” building rights the city had GIVEN the developers, and $55 million for the rest of Peary Court. Castillo told the developers the city could not earn rents on building rights, so the developers said, okay, we’ll sell you the existing 157 units and the three units that burned down for $55 million, and we will build the 48 new “affordable” units on land we retain at Peary Court, which was said to be where the old credit union was located, 2-plus acres, but actually was more land than that spreading through Peary Court, and everyone knew the 48 new units would be effectively market rate rentals, called affordable.
Had the city really negotiated, instead of agreeing to the developers’ asking price, the city should at the very least gotten ALL of Peary Court for $55 million, including the FREE 48 building rights the city had GIVEN the developers.
Better, the city should have gotten ALL of Peary Court for $45 million, which would have reduced the purchase money mortgage by about $10 million, producing something close to actually affordable rental housing for perhaps 50 percent, or more, of the city’s workers. Costillo said at that meeting, the biggest concern he had was all the appliances at Peary Court might have to be replaced: stoves, refrigerators, dishwashers, air-conditioning units, etc.
I wish you could have been at the city commission meeting last year, when I asked Jimmy Weekley what was the developers’ starting asking price?, and he said he did not remember. It was at Jimmy’s later public meeting in the ferry terminal that Costillo explained the “negotiations”, which I reported above. It was at that meeting, where a couple living in Peary Court, the husband said he had been a home builder, told of the many problems in just their unit.
At the recent public meeting hosted by Jimmy Weekey’s PAC in the Senior Citizen cafeteria, a Peary Court tenant told of the huge mold problem in her unit, determined by a mold inspector. Michael Miller, a local architect, who sat on the city’s Historical Architectural Review Commission, as its chairman, when HARC was denying the developers’ plans for Pear Court, lived in a Peary Court unit. He told me the developers were not maintaining the units and they were full of mold.
Over 200 lenders denied the city’s financing request for proposal, nearly all by not even bothering to make a reply to it. One lender made a county financing proposal, which would put the city’s treasury on the line for repayment of the mortgage, which the referendum wording does not allow.
The referendum is like spaghetti thrown against a wall, hoping some of it will stick, but it isn’t spaghetti – it’s crap, and it never should have been voted by the mayor and city commissioners to go to referendum. Only commissioner Margaret Romero voted against it going to referendum.
“Buy High – Rent Low!”
– Wall St. Proverb
Harry Powell says it best… “I MIGHT support buying Peary Court, but I want it ALL, and not at that price, from these people, so that it is honestly affordable housing.
If the City is willing to spend 55 Million dollars on workforce housing then why buy 157 2 bedroom / 1 bathroom, 20-year old units at Peary Court at $350,000 each? Ocean Walk will be building 41 three bedroom/2 bathroom and 39 1- bedroom / 1-bathroom units for an average price of $83,750/unit. With 55 Million the City could build 656 units on land it already owns! 157 units at that $83,750 would cost under 13.2 Million. Is this really about workforce housing or is it about owning a nice piece of real estate in Old Town?
CITY CHARTER:
“1.08 – Approval by electorate required for annexation of any real property.
Annexation or acquisition by any means, of any and all real property may only be by a vote of the electors of the City.”
Does this mean: The voters must authorize the City Commission to NEGOTIATE a purchase contract for real property [what is happening] or does it mean the ACTUAL transaction must be approved by the people?
How can the people give their “approval” of the “real property acquisition” if they don’t know exactly what that transaction will look like? The description of the property in the ballot is not specific [it could legally mean the City is buying just the buildings and the land “containing” the buildings — ie the footprint beneath the buildings – it is extremely vague – what DO voters think the City is proposing to buy? Are they voting based on a false assumption?].
Likewise the price is not specified. The referendum just says 55 million is the cap. Essential components of a real estate contract are entirely missing because the referendum does not propose the City will acquire all of Peary Court and there has been no showing of what acreage the City is proposing to buy.
Is the ballot legitimate when it asks the people to “approve” something without telling them what, exactly, they are approving? Any vote by the people at this stage can not reasonably be characterized as a vote “approving” a specific acquisition of real property – unless our charter provision is interpreted as meaning little more than the voters must give the Commission a thumbs up to negotiate the purchase of some unknown acreage over on White Street for up to $55 Million. Don’t believe that is what was intended by the voter initiative that created that charter provision.