|
Institute's private meetings ended in unworkable plan
It was a good
idea. Bring in a nonprofit organization with no ties to local politics
and local developers to advise the city of Key West about obtaining the
best public use of Truman Waterfront, a prime piece of real estate
obtained by the city during a downsizing of the local Navy base.
But as it
turns out, the Urban Land Institute's independent perspective was
undermined by its limited knowledge of local history.
The city and
its citizens already had developed a vision for the property —
originally expected to be 40 acres, but pared down to 33 when the Navy
withdrew the Outer Mole Pier due to post-Sept. 11 needs.
In fact, the
city and citizens spent years in public discussion deciding they wanted:
access to the waterfront, continuation of the boardwalk, as much
preserved in green space as possible, nautical- and island-themed shops
with affordable apartments upstairs for the workers or owners, a
community center, a marketplace for Bahama Village-made crafts, a
transportation hub off the water to allow buses and taxis and trolleys
to drop people off to create a pedestrian-friendly area, a marina, a
ferry dock and a replacement for the recreational fields lost when the
Navy build housing at Peary Court.
What they did
not want was another gated, high-priced development on the waterfront —
for the same reason the city bought the Key West Bight, to keep
businesses local, preserve the community's waterfront access and keep
out private developments that block that access. And the private,
upscale development of Truman Annex on the neighboring piece of
waterfront property, which the city tried to get from the Navy but went
to auction instead, left a bad taste in the community's mouth.
The one
unresolved question is how does the city pay for the project — and it's
a multimillion dollar question.
At a Last
Stand-sponsored forum Oct. 30, Doug Bradshaw, who took over management
of the Local Redevelopment Authority for Naval Properties when Bill
Harrison retired, told the packed house that it would take the city 20
years to fund the project. He said the city was going to consider a
developer as a partner, and that the Urban Land Institute was going to
come in and help the city look at the options.
However,
Bradshaw assured all assembled, the city already had a zoning plan, its
conceptual plan. Between that and Navy restrictions on the area, no one
was going to be surprised by the process, he seemed to be saying.
And Mayor
Jimmy Weekley promised he'd start a series of public meetings in a few
months on building the Truman Waterfront dream.
Meanwhile, the
Urban Land Institute experts came down, met with a group of people
mostly selected by the project's organizer, the Rodel Foundation,
following guidelines provided by the institute. The experts floated a
plan to fund the city's parks and community center by selling a few
acres of the waterfront property. Some of the discussion, apparently,
went so far as to say the community's chosen uses for the valuable
waterfront property were inappropriate and that its value should be
better used — read sell some of the waterfront to a private developer
for a gated community-type thing — to pay for city projects in other,
more appropriate areas of the city.
Why somebody
involved in this process didn't explain the history of this property to
the Urban Land Institute at the outset is a viable question. Why anybody
invited to the closed-door meetings with Urban Land Institute experts,
who also sat through the hours and hours of public discussion, didn't
mention that the land-sell theory would never fly is another viable
question.
Nonetheless,
here we are with a $20,000 — paid by private donors, including The
Citizen — recommendation that won't happen. Sure, the city could sell a
couple of waterside acres to somebody — no need to even speculate on who
at this point — to build upscale condos, then use the profit to build
parks and an assisted-living center and a community center.
But the city
and citizens, during years of public discussions, had already ruled that
out in the community's vision for the land.
So, the city
still must figure out how to pay for what the community wants to do.
It's not an easy riddle to solve. The Urban Land Institute experts
offered a suggestion for making it happen that is unacceptable.
That 33 acres
is owned by the city, which means owned by the hard-working taxpayers of
the city, and those constituents want parks, access to the waterfront
and small-scale commerce.
Now, let's
keep the momentum by holding public meetings — as the mayor suggested —
to figure out how to do it. |
