Skip to content


More Dog Poop.

There is an ongoing theme in the mismanagement of Winter Park. It always seems to involve dogs and their leavings.

Dog lovers love Fleet Peeples Park. An organization was formed in 2001 to support and promote the park as dog friendly. Learn more about Friends of Fleet Peeples Park. With the Baldwin Park area maturing and more dog owners learning about Fleet Peeples Park there has been an increase in usage that has stirred the concern of some, which is understandable.

However, the real issue may prove to be with the people David Strong appointed to the City Parks and Recreation Commission.

A Master Plan for Fleet Peeples Park was approved by the City Commission on April 14, 2008 (see page 41 of the Agenda Packet and page 8 of the Minutes). This plan included breaking up the 23 acre park so that roughly half was available to dog owners (a significant compromise for dog owners). The approval included a requirement for the Friends of Fleet Peeples Park to meet with the Parks and Recreation Commission to “create a set of guidelines outlining the responsibilities of both parties.”

The Friends of Fleet Peeples Park have been trying to meet with the Parks and Recreation Commission to review and agree upon a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) defining responsibilities as required by the April 2008 City Commission adoption of the Master Plan. The Parks and Recreation Commission has continued to put this off and voted last evening not to consider the MOU but instead begin looking for other city parks that may be suitable for dog owners. Consideration of this course of action was not included in the public agenda of the meeting. In other words, screw the dog owners.

It now seems that members of the Parks and Recreation Commission are intentionally undermining the prior adoption of the Master Plan for Fleet Peeples Park to pursue their own agendas (whatever that may be).

This is disturbingly similar to the behavior of members of the Planning and Zoning Commission whose Comprehensive Plan serves their personal agendas at the expense of legal and legitimate rights of the citizens their policies impact.

Why do I focus on what may seem to be minutia? Because it is just more evidence that we have a big management problem. The problem is David Strong and his penchant for promoting people for city boards (let alone City Commission seats) that have questionable credentials, narrow viewpoints, and personal agendas.

A member of the Park and Recreation Commission resigned this morning noting,

“Due to the actions of the board and the conduct of certain members of the board I do not feel that I can effectively serve the best interests of the people of Winter Park nor can I condone the actions taken by this board contrary to the directives of the City Commission and the will of the public at large ie. April 14, 2008 motion to approve Master Plan Fleet Peeples Park..

It is not my wish to specifically call out any member of the board for their actions however I feel that the actions of certain members have been abusive, rude and an embarrassment to the city.

Further, in the meeting of February 25, 2009 certain actions were taken by the board which indicated there may have been collusion and ex parte communications in violation of S.  286.011, F. S.  “The sunshine law” Since I am unable to determine whether these actions were subject to the state statutes I am compelled to resign.”

Posted in Election 2009, Parks, Policy.


Why Ken Bradley should be the Mayor of Winter Park.

Several readers have commented about my critique of David Strong and his friends, noting that I have not yet mentioned why I am supporting Ken Bradley.

I support Ken Bradley because he is a rational, positive, and professional leader and David Strong is not.

I support Ken Bradley because is has a proactive and positive vision for Winter Park where Davis Strong has an paternalistic, isolationist, dogmatic, and negative vision for Winter Park.

I support Ken Bradley because he has the proven professional qualifications to lead a city of 28,000 people with a $150,000,000 annual budget while David Strong has no management experience and has demonstrated poor management judgment in the past three years.

I support Ken Bradley because he understands that the character and quality of Winter Park is best protected and enhanced by continual, thoughtful reinvestment while David Strong believes our character and quality is best protected and enhanced by passing draconian regulations that deter reinvestment.

It is time for Winter Park to free itself from the isolationist dogma of the “One Winter Park” cabal and to vote for rational, positive, and professional leadership.

Ken Bradley released his plans as Mayor as follows:

BRADLEY MAYORAL ACTION PLANS

City of Winter Park, Florida

Dear Friends,

As a fellow resident who has treasured our hometown for more than 40 years, I believe Winter Park is at a crossroads – and not just because the national economy has weakened. Of all communities in the region, ours has been the most revered, envied and even copied. But as you know in managing your home, it does not stay pristine with inaction. And, with great study in the past several years about what shape our City is in, I can tell you that inaction is putting us at great risk, and we must get things moving in the right direction before it is too late to turn around.

I submit to you my commitment to becoming your Mayor with a tangible action plan I believe will help protect and enhance our way of life in Winter Park:

FINANCES: City revenues are too dependent upon our residential property taxes and Mayor Strong has done nothing but disable our ability to grow the commercial tax base.

  • Broaden the tax base through commercial investments within Fairbanks, Denning, 17-92 and Lee Road corridors leading to at least a 65% residential / 35% commercial mix of property tax revenue by 2012.
  • Immediately and permanently trim up to $3 million in non-essential, City government expenses including litigation fees and duplicate services.
  • Establish General Fund Reserve targets at 10% by 2010 and increasing every year by 1% thereafter.
  • Eliminate “double-taxation” or user-fees for Winter Park residents. Create a sliding scale of use for Winter Park residents / businesses versus those outside the City.
  • Pursue bond refinancing at the appropriate time to lower interest costs within the City.

COMMISSION: We must change the way City governance operates to assure the voice of all citizens are heard, decision making is streamlined, time is not wasted and progress is made on key City strategic initiatives.

  • Commission meetings will begin at 3:30 PM and end at 7:00 PM with a set agenda including a priority on the current financial standing of the City.
  • Commissioners will come prepared to make decisions on all matters before them; staff will be directed to bring Commissioners up-to-date on issues, contracts, obligations prior to meetings.
  • Citizen input will be solicited not just at Commission meetings but throughout the week before through e-mail, on-line surveys and comments. These comments will weigh equally in Commission decision making to those who are physically present.
  • Commissioners and City officials will conduct town hall forums monthly throughout the City on various dates and times to become more accessible to Winter Park Citizens.

COMMUTER RAIL: As Mayor I will fully support the “will of the voters” by implementing a SunRail stop in Winter Park at the current Amtrak station and:

  • Work with our County, State and Federal delegations / leaders to fully fund SunRail and assure its approval.
  • Create additional forms of transportation to connect with Sun Rail west to 17-92, Fairbanks, Denning and Winter Park Village and east to key economic centers.

ETHICS REFORM: The current Ethics Advisory Board of the City has been meeting for nearly a year without any recommendations for approval. As Mayor, I will ask immediately for recommendations on the following:

  • Limit seated elected officials to providing only up to $500.00 once from themselves, immediate family or any entity they are part of to any candidate for office on their same board.
  • Create the Conflicts of Interest policies so before any vote impacting Citizens, Commissioners will have to declare their own personal conflicts and recuse themselves from voting if any conflicts appear.

INVESTMENT: We must broaden the tax base through commercial development create new, much needed investment in the Fairbanks, Denning, Lee Road, 17-92 corridors. To achieve this we must:

  • Complete the “form-based codes” process to define streetscapes and neighborhood design to let property owners know what they can do.
  • Develop minority investment programs in Winter Park including assisting in building minority-owned, Winter Park based businesses.
  • Seek a permanent extension of the CRA “life” and utilize CRA funds for the purposes legally created for their use.

PARKS and RECREATION: We must keep the Park in Winter Park and keep our parks funded and citizen accessible. I will:

  • Fully support Fleet Peeples Park as an “off-leash”, premier dog park for Central Florida.
  • Define and fund several parks as premier destinations within Central Florida including Central Park, Mead Garden, Fleet Peeples Park and Showalter Field.

PARK AVENUE: As I have done in the past as President of the chamber, we need to convene the Merchants, Landlords and City to approve a strategic plan for Park Avenue that will:

  • Create incentives for Landlords to keep shops fully occupied within the Central Business District.
  • Create 40 new, ground level, convenient parking spots immediately.
  • Encourage tourism for Park Avenue.
  • Fully support side walk dining throughout the downtown district
  • Create consistent hours for establishments within the Central Business District.
  • Maintain the Post Office in its downtown location and let lapse the “Carlisle” option.

PERFORMANCE: City operations must become more performance based so Commission decisions and staff actions can accomplish our strategic plans. We must:

  • Establish measurable performance standards for all key City services and City goals including the time from permitting to permit, time from project submittal to approval.
  • Establish and manage the City on key measurable performance standards such as, average age, Park Avenue occupancy rate % and taxable values.

UTILITIES: We must manage these resources carefully and:

  • Implement programs to reduce water and electrical consumption by 5% by 2012.
  • Seek at least one new, renewable energy source by 2020 to provide up to 10% of the City’s electrical needs.
  • Prepare for new sources of water called for by 2013.
  • Keep electric utility rates affordable for residents.

WINTER PARK 2020: We must plan for the future, not just react when forced to. Together we must create a vision for Winter Park through the year 2020 to:

  • Create the healthiest City in the central Florida. Establish Winter Park as a “blue zone” where life expectancy to 100 is achievable.
  • Assure Winter Park schools are consistently “A” rated.
  • Support the continuum of life centers already established within Winter Park e.g. Mayflower, Winter Park Towers, Plymouth.
  • Assure the critical institutions of Winter Park – worship places, museums, Rollins College and healthcare institutions are amongst the top facilities in the nation for excellence.

Please see my entire Action Plan on my campaign website

www.BradleyforMayor.com

or contact me with your ideas or concerns.

Respectfully,

Ken Bradley
PO Box 531
Winter Park, FL 32790
(407) 645-1110

Posted in Election 2009, Policy.


Central Park Obsession

There can be no doubt that the historical city plan for Winter Park is the foundation of our unique character and charm. Central Park is the center of that plan, built around the railroad station by design, providing a central focus that defines the commercial core of our city.

David Strong and his most vocal supporters believe that somehow, downtown redevelopment of any kind threatens this history. I don’t get it. Winter Park has gone through multiple generations of change and yet, Central Park remains the well protected focus of our city. The buildings along Park Avenue have been constructed across different eras. The variety of scale, fascade, and even quirky character of the various buildings along Park Avenue define a unique, eclectic environment. Nothing has ever been done to encroach upon Central Park.

Exactly how far do we have to go and how much do we have to spend to “protect” Central Park? What are we “protecting” it from? (I am looking for answers here.)

David Strong got rid of the post office redevelopment by asking the investors how much it would cost to make them go away (not by negotiating a more acceptable redevelopment). He came back with a number of $5,300,000 and claimed he could raise that money privately. No luck. The money did not show up and the investors sued the city. The final tab was a $4,000,000 settlement we are still paying for. How much money was actually raised through donations? The running total is now $356,529.81, of which $100,000 comes from David Strong’s mother (and none from David Strong). The city has also recorded $1,303,325.00 in non-binding pledges (some of which have restrictions that will never be met).

The original story was that the donations would be used to buy out the investors. Now the story is that donations will help defray the cost of building new facilities for the United States Postal Service so we can have an additional one acre of green space.

I would be very happy if David Strong would simply pay for all of this himself so we can have another acre of park space downtown and be done with it. Sadly, however, I believe you and I will be paying a ridiculous amount for this folly if David Strong is re-elected.

David Strong said he is seeking re-election because he has “more work to do.” This work includes finding a way to buy the existing post office property at our expense. In his mind, the $4,000,000 of our money he paid to stop the post office redevelopment is just a down payment on a city commitment to build new postal facilities and assume control of the current post office property so it will never be redeveloped.

He has already said he does not believe the voters will agree to the cost of this. His only other option is to sell the one remaining piece of city owned land worth something. This is the 5 acre parcel on Denning Drive that, in a good market, has been represented to be worth as much as $10,000,000. When this property is sold in a down market and the money used to get us one acre of new park space the city will have no meaningful reserves left (our utility reserves support our bond rating which has already been downgraded by one rating agency).

Last summer I developed a scenario where we could have both more parking and more park space for roughly the same price as buying the post office property and building them new facilities. You might find this of interest, not for the specifics of the scenario, but for the revelation that buying the post office property is ridiculously expensive for what we get in return.

I understand the emotional attachment to the history of our city. I also understand that effective leadership requires objectivity.

Posted in Elections, Parks, Policy.


More park and more parking.

I wrote the following letter to the City Commission last July.

I offer it to provide perspective on David Strong’s obsession with having the city buy the current post office property.

__________________________________________________________
July 8, 2008

Dear Mayor and Commissioners,

Certainly the Carlisle saga has been a painful process for all and the $4 million spent to make the project go away was substantial. We are seriously considering spending an additional $7 million in taxpayer funds to build new postal facilities for the United States Postal Service (USPS) in order to acquire the existing 2 acre post office site, and making this commitment without a vote of the citizens.

I ask you to consider the consequences and another approach. There are two issues, the park expansion plan and the method of financing that plan.

Issue #1 – Park Expansion.

USPS decision makers must pursue a fair and just value for any land they give up if they are to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities. The appraisal of the current 2-acre post office site completed as part of the Carlisle settlement process values the land at more than $7,000,000. Recent communications with the USPS indicate they are flexible with commitments built into the existing contract. However, by the time they get finished with their assessment of fair value and by the time we get finished with the architectural designs for any new facilities we prefer as a City, it is likely we will have a commitment of taxpayer funds over $7 million if we go down this road.

The current “preferred” plan involving acquisition of the post office property for an estimated $7 million gives us control of only 1 acre of new land for added park space with 1 acre being a retail postal facility. By adding the southern acre of the post office property to the Carolina Avenue right of way and Parking Lot B (both already owned by the City) we realize a potential 2.5 acres of new park space. Note that this plan leaves Parking Lot A on the South side of Morse Blvd. as a surface parking lot.

The consultants studying the alternatives (ZHA) estimate the cost per space of underground parking with park above to be $30,000 to $35,000 per parking space. If we leave the post office as is, green all of Lots A and B (as well as some or all of the Carolina Avenue right of way) with park above and underground parking below we can realize as much as 2.9 acres of new park plus 250 or more parking spaces at an estimated cost of $7.5 million to $8.75 million.

Why would we spend $7 million to control one additional acre of land that would enable us to generate 2.5 acres of new park space with less parking when we can spend about the same amount and realize as much as 2.9 acres of new park space AND 250 or more underground parking spaces?

Issue #2 – Financing.

The current “preferred” plan requires selling the remainder of currently unused City land, primarily the 5 acre site on Denning Drive. This course of action dramatically limits our City’s flexibility to respond to emergencies and future opportunities. How will the City respond to hurricanes as we experienced in 2004 and to other emergencies in the absence of cash reserves and available assets such as the Denning site? The total cost of the hurricane clean up of 2004 exceeded $18,000,000 of which most was eventually refunded by FEMA but the City had sufficient reserves at the outset to respond quickly and effectively. Those reserves do not exist today.

Revenues that support City government and services have declined while mandates from the State have forced spending cuts. Further mandates from both the Federal and State governments can be expected with unknown but certainly costly consequences (especially water and environmental mandates). Prospects for increasing City revenues in the coming years are extremely limited due to falling or stagnant real estate values, Save Our Homes credits on the revaluation of new home purchases, State mandated limitations on the City Commission’s flexibility to vote tax increases, and practical limits on increases in fees and taxes that would unfairly penalize consumers of City services, water, and electric.

In addition, the recent action of the City Commission to rescind the Comprehensive Plan means it is unlikely there will be investment in Winter Park commercial real estate sufficient to meaningfully impact our commercial property tax revenue for at least several more years. On top of these realities we are facing an inflationary environment for fuel and other essentials that will put upward pressure on City salaries and operating costs at a time when revenues and prospects for revenue increases are tightly constrained.

Faced with these constraints, prospects for rebuilding our General Fund Reserves to provide for emergencies and opportunities are extremely weak. This conclusion is supported by the planning analysis prepared by Commissioner Anderson which projects it will take 5 years or more to rebuild our reserves to levels that existed before we paid the Carlisle developers.

Please note that I am not judging the payment to the Carlisle developers or the decision to rescind the Comprehensive Plan as being “good” or “bad.” I only point out the consequences of these actions in the context of financial reality and note the related effect on our City’s flexibility to respond to emergencies and opportunities in the coming years. This is not about imposing a point of view. It is about making the right long term decision for Winter Park.

Accordingly, it is important that any City Commission decision to invest in expanding the park between New York Avenue and the railroad track be ratified by a citizen vote agreeing to finance the investment so we can retain existing City financial and asset (land) reserves and related flexibility.

Now for the good news.

I don’t know anyone who thinks it is a bad idea to expand central park between New York Avenue and the railroad track. The challenge is how to do it right.

The essential question is how do we expand central park while meeting the needs of differing constituencies, addressing financial realities, and anticipating future needs? I suggest a path to an outcome the vast majority of Winter Park residents can embrace.

A Plan that works:

  • Let the option on the post office land lapse or negotiate an extension well into the future.
  • Refuse any park grant monies that may be awarded by the Florida Community Trust and pay any monies then due to the Carlisle developers.
  • Turn all City owned land between the railroad tracks and New York Avenue known as parking lots A and B and some or all of the Carolina Avenue right of way into park, providing as much as 2.9 acres of new park space.
  • Create underground parking for 250 or more spaces in the Lot A and Lot B areas on either side of Morse Blvd.
  • Fund the plan with a voter referendum.
  • Re-initiate the HOPE park donation fund for this revised plan.

This revised plan meets the needs of both park advocates and parking advocates, while being financially responsible.

  • It gets the City as much as 2.9 acres of new park space AND 250 or more underground parking spaces for about the same price as the current “preferred” plan which nets us 2.5 acres of new park space and a reduction in parking.
  • It assures the pedestrian and park character of central park is expanded by greening Lots A and B.
  • It provides public parking essential to the economic viability of Park Avenue while assuring parking is adequate to support the continued appropriate redevelopment along New York Avenue as an extension of Park Avenue as our commercial core.
  • It provides a charitable funding vehicle that park advocates and parking advocates can both support. I will personally commit $50,000 to this revised plan and work to solicit charitable funds from all sources, getting park advocates and parking advocates working together toward a common goal. The more money we can raise the less money will need to be borrowed, increasing the likelihood of passage of a bond referendum taken to the voters.
  • It retains the City owned Denning Drive property for later use, keeping this significant asset as part of the City’s effective reserves available to deal with emergencies and opportunities.
  • It eliminates the financial risk inherent in consuming all unused City owned land to build new facilities for the USPS at a time when the prospects for rebuilding our cash reserves are extremely weak.
  • It gives the City breathing room to adapt to the very real financial pressures we face.
  • It puts responsibility for major City investments where it belongs, with the voters.

I hope you agree that it is time for the emotions that have driven recent events to subside and for reasoned judgment to come forward. Please seriously consider a revised plan that reconciles the priorities of differing constituencies while giving us both more park and parking for the same price as park alone, and that addressed financial realities, reduces financial risk, and provides flexibility for the future.

Sincerely, Pete Weldon
700 Via Lombardy
Winter Park, FL 32789
Phone: (407) 645-1002

Posted in Elections, Parks, Policy.


A Brief Conversation with Sara Whiting, member of the Winter Park Planning and Zoning Commission.

Sara Whiting sits on our Planning and Zoning Commission. I don’t know her well but I do know her as a thoughtful and serious person. Here is a recent email thread between us on the subject of the Comprehensive Plan.

_______________________________________________

Peter, I embrace change, if it is for the better!

The idea of 2.3 story maximum came from the citizen’s survey. Sun Trust is great, and look across the street- it has a 2 story building with a huge setback across Park Avenue from it.  I think one thing that brings character to Winter Park is the personality of development, the diversity in heights and setbacks and facades.  There’s my comment on entire district changing over time.

I think the CRA has been a success. I do question the increase in Operating and Maintenance expenses of the proposed Community Center, and the request for 1/3 the required parking spaces by the Community Center, in an area of town where parking is a complaint.

Again, I appreciate your passion for Winter Park!
Sara

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Peter Weldon <pweldon@earthlink.net> wrote:

Sara,

Thank-you for sharing your thoughts in more detail.

Sorry for the typo… the code structure that was rescinded was something called the Planned Development Overlay. I happen to agree that this should have been rescinded. This code structure, in part, allowed the scale of the buildings and parking that have proven to be so objectionable to many. With this gone we were left with the pre-existing rules that were already very restrictive.

For example, the one parking space per 250 square feet requirement as a practical matter made 3 story buildings along Park Avenue highly unlikely. So what is the reasoning behind lowering the height limit along Park Avenue to two stories? This is down zoning. Is there something wrong with the SunTrust center in your view? How does the SunTrust center detract from the “excellence” and “character” of Winter Park? Do you remember what was there before?

The previous codes allowed up to four stories in various parts of what is a newly defined “Central Business District.” P&Z policy recommendations restrict all of this to three stories and THAT is only available with a super majority vote of the City Commission under your rules. This is down zoning. As a practical matter no one is ever going to reinvest in anything in the CBD because it is uneconomic to do so under the rules you are putting through. This reduces the value of the existing properties. Why? What is really to be gained here? There are already many 3 and 4 story buildings in the CBD. What is the value of reducing the property values and diss-incenting any redevelopment here? I do not equate “excellence” and “character” with the imposition of codes that reduce property value and deter reinvestment. And of what use are super majority voting requirements? This is just an effort to legislate personal preferences beyond your tenure.

Sara, I thought this was an interesting statement, “If a zoning district is allowed higher density, it will be applicable to all properties in that district, not just the one. Therefore the character of that entire district will change over time.” You seem to presume that change is a bad thing in all cases. Further, you are not “allowing higher density” in the CBD and CRA. You are in fact REDUCING EXISTING DENSITY. The assumption you seem to be making is that REDUCING EXISTING DENSITY adds “excellence” and “character.” No, it will add nothing. Nothing will be redeveloped. Nothing will happen (except maybe law suits brought against the city). Property values will go down along with tax revenues and “excellence” and “character” will prove a pipe dream.

The commercial core of downtown Winter Park achieved some measure of excellence and character through reinvestment, not through zealous building codes. It was the Park Avenue property owners who agreed to pay the cost of rebuilding the Avenue in the 1990’s, bricking the street, widening the sidewalks, improving every element of the streetscape. It has been the CRA that has financed $3,500,000 in low cost housing, a planned $10,000,000 community center, and millions more in social programs primarily for West side residents, not to mention reinvestment in improving central park and various streetscape projects. All this was accomplished by encouraging specific redevelopment that was both economic for the investor and beneficial for the city. Do West New England Avenue and Hannibal Square lack “excellence” and “character?” If your answer is “yes” please tell me what you would like to see there and explain how it gets paid for.

Winter Park needs a commercial redevelopment plan, not a do nothing zoning plan. The key is targeted use, compatible design, and quality architecture, not lower height limits and rules that deter risk taking.

Here is one statement I agree with, “to maintain (and improve) the property values throughout our entire town, we must maintain the character and excellence in our town.” I share your objectives of “excellence” and “character.” The observable reality is that it takes reinvestment to realize these objectives and the new land use restrictions in the Comprehensive Plan will set us back decades in this quest.

Sincerely, Pete Weldon

From: sara whiting [mailto:sswhiting@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:00 AM
To: pweldon@earthlink.net
Cc: MayorandCommissioners; Jeffrey Briggs
Subject: Re: Land Use

Peter,

Thanks for the comments.

–I don’t know what “Planned Development Overall” was rescinded.
Many have been discussed, nothing passed that was rescinded that I recall, from the current Winter Park Zoning Code of 1971 and Comp Plan of 1991.  Perhaps you are thinking some ideas discussed were passed?  Please tell me what was rescinded. Thanks!

Winter Park is planning to ADD a “Planned Development” component, increased development potential in 4 areas of the city – W Fairbanks, Orange Ave, Wymore, “Holler blocks” of Fairbanks.

So I don’t see where Winter Park has down-zoned commercial.

As an aside, since you stressed the effect on our revenues on this point, residential property tax revenues in Winter Park are four times greater than commercial. From the purely statistical basis regarding effect to our property tax revenue, ensuring our overall residential property tax basis stays healthy is four times as important as commercial property tax revenue stability.

–And your second point, on how will we maintain revenues by devaluing our properties. Your prediction of properties’  future values doesn’t include the variable of how the overall city’s character affects an individual’s property value. In other words, your prediction is as if one property is allowed higher square footage, but all other properties of that class weren’t. Which as you know is not a fair way to operate zoning. If a zoning district is allowed higher density, it will be applicable to all properties in that district, not just the one. Therefore the character of that entire district will change over time.

This is the fallacy I see with the several arguments over future commercial property valuation – to maintain (and improve) the property values throughout our entire town, we must maintain the character and excellence in our town. All arguments I have seen focus on one property’s value, forgetting that as a community, what one person builds affects the value of its neighbor, and its neighborhood!

I hope this gives you some insight into my personal thoughts.

Again, I enjoy discussion, and appreciate your insight and your compassion for Winter Park!

All the best, Sara

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Peter Weldon <pweldon@earthlink.net> wrote:

Sara,

Well, I hope you and the other P&Z members know what I think by now. I don’t know exactly what you voted for along the way to where we are today but I think someone on P&Z needs to start asking some questions loudly and publicly.

Why, after rescinding the Planned Development Overall is it appropriate and necessary to down zone hundreds of millions of dollars of taxable properties throughout the city? (The city tells me that there is $265,000,000 of taxable assessed value alone in the newly defined CBD as of January 9, 2009.)

How does down zoning our most valuable commercial real estate protect the character and quality of Winter Park?

How are we going to keep our parks maintained, buy new park land, maintain tens of thousands of trees on city right of ways, keep first class public safety, etc. etc. by devaluing our property?

Sara, please don’t dodge the bullet here. Put your hand up, ask the right questions, and demand satisfactory answers.

I have been sufficiently vocal. It is time for P&Z members to justify their policy recommendations in rational, professional terms.

Regards, Pete Weldon

Posted in Development, Policy.


More Misrepresentation

David Strong recently sent out an email that continues to misrepresent his record. He continues to take credit for projects and accomplishments he had little or nothing to do with and continues to tell an incomplete story about taxes and city reserves.

David Strong Claim: Reduced city spending by $2 million in response to reduced revenues caused by the economic downturn.

Reality: Original 2009 budgeted city revenue was reduced by $2,000,000 as a result of State mandated reductions and the passage of Amendment One in January 2008. The City Manager letter that introduces the 2009 budget makes this clear (see page 8 of the PDF file). On January 26, 2009 David Strong voted for an additional $1,200,000 in 2009 budget cuts related to the economic downturn [PJW Edit February 25, 2009: the vote was to reduce spending by $800,000 not $1,200,000].

David Strong Claim: Completed the street scape of Orange Avenue, enhancing its beauty and promoting the economic health for adjacent business owners.

Reality: This project was initiated long before David Strong was elected in 2006.

David Strong Claim: Began placing electric lines underground to reduce power outages and increase reliability.

Reality: This project was initiated long before David Strong was elected in 2006.

David Strong Claim: Expanded the number of events in Central Park, creating a lively, vibrant atmosphere for our merchants, residents and visitors.

Reality: David Strong has nothing to do with approving events in Central Park (this is done by the Parks and Recreation Board). The “vibrant atmosphere” seems to have resulted in more and more empty store fronts along Park Avenue.

David Strong Claim: We accomplished these achievements without diminishing city services or increasing taxes for the majority of our residents.

Reality: The $4,000,000 the city paid to make the developers of the post office redevelopment “whole” (David Strong’s word) led directly to actions needed to re-establish the general fund reserves.

  • David Strong did initiate a study of all the city’s land holdings and initiated the sale of a parcel on University Boulevard held by our water company. The proceeds of $1,000,000 were then transferred to the general fund to shore up reserves.
  • David strong did vote to cancel $500,000 in previously approved capital projects and return this money to the general fund to shore up reserves.
  • David Strong did vote to increase the fee the city gets from our water company from 13.3% to 15% of non-sewer revenues to shore up reserves by close to another $400,000. See the 2009 City Budget.
  • David Strong did vote to increase the 2008-2009 millage rate, increasing taxes on every property owner in Winter Park to generate about $400,000 more general fund revenue to shore up reserves.
  • The end result is that general fund reserves shown at year end 2008 for accounting purposes were generated by diminishing other city assets. Smoke and mirrors anyone?

David Strong Claim: I have proven that I can guide our city through tough economic times. We have trimmed the budget. We have increased our reserves and lowered the taxes for most of our residents.

Reality: see above facts. Here are the things David Strong has actually “guided:”

  • Make the developers of the post office redevelopment project “whole.” Cost: $4,000,000.
  • Sell city land to shore up reserves. Cost: $1,000,000.
  • Take more money from our water company. Cost: $400,000.
  • Cancel capital projects. Cost: $500,000.
  • Increase property taxes. Cost: about $400,000.
  • Approve a Comprehensive Plan that down zones hundreds of millions of dollars of commercial real estate. Cost: $???,???,???.
  • Jeopardize the city’s participation in the Central Florida commuter rail initiative. Cost: $???,???,???.

Let’s stop going backwards and set Winter Park on a rational, positive, and professional course by electing Ken Bradley Mayor of Winter Park. Priceless.

Posted in Election 2009, Elections, Ethics, Money, Policy.


Stay away from the fumes.

The One Winter Park folks have gotten great millage out of a gas can full of accusations that their political opponents are being influenced by owners of commercial property. David Strong is the darling of those who claim anyone running for office against him must be under the influence of commercial property owners because that candidate accepts campaign contributions from people who own commercial property in Winter Park.

Did you know that many contributors to David Strong’s campaign own commercial property in Winter Park? Did you know that David Strong is a Winter Park commercial property owner? It is interesting to note that both Margie Bridges and Beth Dillaha have the same base of financial supporters as David Strong, including these same property owners.

Look up these names: Strong, Colado, Murrah, Frazee, and Rosenfelt on sunbiz.org, ocpafl.org, and on the Winter Park campaign finance reports. You will find they all own significant commercial real estate in Winter Park and they all sent in campaign checks to David Strong, Margie Bridges, and Beth Dillaha. Similarly, you will find the names of several other Winter Park commercial property owners on the campaign finance reports of their opponents, names such as Battaglia, Bellows, and Holler.

Hmmmm. How could it be that one candidate is under the influence of commercial property owners but their opponent is not, even though both candidates accept campaign contributions from commercial property owners? Could we have an hypocrisy and ethics problem here?

I find this all interesting because I ran for City Commission last year and raised over $40,000 without ever being approached to vote a certain way or give anyone preferential treatment. I stated my views and invited all those who supported those views to help me in any way they could. This is exactly what really happens folks, for all candidates. Oh, and I did not accept any money from any companies. Yet, the day before the election a letter was delivered city-wide from someone named Lee Maynard denouncing the campaign contributions I had received from some people who own commercial property in Winter Park and implying I was somehow influenced by these contributions. Is it a surprise to you that Mr. Maynard is a Director of One Winter Park?

Well, I am afraid the gas can full of hypocrisy and slander is empty. Please don’t allow yourself to smell the remaining fumes.

Posted in Elections, Ethics, Money.


Huh?

David Strong’s second mail piece of this mayoral campaign promotes the headline, “You Plan Ahead to Make Big Decisions. Let’s Keep the Mayor Who Plans for the Future of Winter Park.”

That all sounds real nice Dave, BUT;

  • What are the big decisions?
  • What is the plan?
  • How much will it cost?
  • How long will it take?
  • Who is going to pay for it?

Posted in Elections.


Let’s thank David Strong for his service and elect Ken Bradley Mayor of Winter Park

First, you need to know that I do not have and never have had any business dealings involving Winter Park commercial property. The only property I own in Winter Park is the home I live in. My only interest is the pursuit of rational, positive, and professional governance for Winter Park.

If you take a minute to get past ethics issues, campaign misrepresentations, and propaganda you will see there is a fight going on in Winter Park that is unnecessary, expensive, and dangerous. The fight is between owners of property in Winter Park and a group of extremists led and indulged by David Strong.

Read about the history of slander in Winter Park, and then read this letter from a law firm representing some owners of Winter Park commercial property. Who is threatening whom?

As the letter linked above makes clear, the rules that guide redevelopment in Winter Park (the Comprehensive Plan) have been re-written by David Strong and his Board appointees so as to lower the value of both commercial and residential property. We already have strict rules governing commercial redevelopment in Winter Park yet David Strong is working to effectively “down-zone” hundreds of millions of dollars of Winter Park real estate. Any redevelopment of any significance already requires majority City Commission approval under previous zoning. The new rules require a super majority City Commission vote, or in addition, formal amendment of the Comprehensive Plan (a long and risk prone process) to get any financially viable downtown redevelopment approved. No one in their right mind will pursue any investment in this environment.

This is not about preserving the character and quality of Winter Park. This is about undermining the legitimate interests of every Winter Park citizen for the sake of an extreme, myopic agenda.

This is not about huge office buildings and apartment complexes being built in Winter Park. This is about further restricting already restrictive building codes to LOWER property values and deter redevelopment activity. [Edit February 11, 2009: This is not meant to imply that David Strong is trying to reduce property values although he has never indicated his intent in this regard. I am stating that lower property values are expected to result from policies he supports and votes for.]

If you read the proposed land use rules in context you can only conclude they are born from resentment and a desire to seek retribution for some sin or other fixed in the minds of those making up the rules. These new rules have in fact been “made up.” There is no social or financial basis for them, only the personal opinions and biases of the “community volunteers” working tirelessly to impose their agendas at your expense.

Unnecessary: Making already restrictive rules MORE restrictive is equivalent to shooting ourselves in the foot. It LOWERS property values and DETERS redevelopment. Do you really care whether a three or four story building is built downtown so long as it is architecturally compatible? If so, why? (Please let me know.)

Expensive: David Strong has already cost us $4,000,000 stopping a redevelopment project and he is working to spend millions more of our money without a citizen vote to force through the acquisition of the existing post office property. We all need to understand that risk NOT assumed by private investment in Winter Park redevelopment transfers risk to us, the residents of Winter Park. We also need to understand that redevelopment serves social purposes and finances our quality of life (our successful Community Redevelopment Agency is an example of what can be accomplished).

Dangerous: David Strong and those indulged by him and supporting him are the single most divisive set of personalities I have ever come across. The continued dissension, resentment, righteousness, and conflict nurtured by this small group, combined with the continued distraction and expense of law suits (more are coming) about redevelopment can only further harm our city. Bad decisions and economic conditions have already contributed to a $3,200,000 reduction in our city budget just this year. More pain is on the way and David Strong will only continue to make things worse.

We need to support economic renewal. Nobody who cares about Winter Park believes economic renewal means high rise apartments and office buildings with huge parking garages. It does not. It simply means we pursue economic activity with common sense and a focus on having redevelopment finance an improving quality of life and sustain our ability to keep Winter Park unique and independent.

STOP THE DAVID STRONG MADNESS BY VOTING FOR KEN BRADLEY FOR MAYOR

It is time to thank David Strong for his service and to elect a rational, positive, and professional leader as Mayor of Winter Park. Your vote for Ken Bradley is a vote for a positive future for Winter Park.

Posted in Development, Elections, Money, Policy.


Redevelopment is good for Winter Park

There has been lots of screaming and yelling about redevelopment over the past several years. How about understanding the real impact of redevelopment on our quality of life and financial security? Look no further than the Winter Park Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA).

Our resident anti-growth militant Beth Dillaha has referred to our CRA as “a slush fund for developers.” Let’s explore that conclusion.

A CRA is a defined geographic area where incremental property tax revenue from both the City and County must be reinvested within that same area. Winter Park’s CRA area is roughly bounded by Webster, 17/92, Fairbanks, and Interlachen. Click here for a map. BE SURE to drive through the CRA and let me know if you find any of the redevelopment objectionable.

The Winter Park CRA began realizing incremental tax revenue in 1998. Between 1994 and the 2009 budget the assessed value of property within our CRA has risen from $194 million to $675 million and has generated over $15 million in incremental tax revenue. ALL that incremental tax money has been or is being reinvested within the CRA boundaries. In addition to current project spending the CRA borrows against future revenues to finance projects such as the planned community center in Hannibal Square. The expected incremental tax revenue for 2009 is over $3.2 million. Click here for the details.

Look again: In the past 15 years the CRA has generated almost a HALF BILLION dollars in taxable assessed value, has generated over $15 million in tax revenue, and is expected to generate millions more before the CRA is set to expire in 2027.

How has that money been spent? Good question. Here is a schedule from the City detailing CRA spending from 2002 through the 2009 budget. These projects and the spending are approved by the City Commission.

NOTE that the great majority of actual and planned CRA projects are providing SOCIAL support. SOCIAL funding is over $17 million while economic funding is just over $12 million. If you live in Waterbridge, Brookshire, Lakemont, Killarney, Orwin Manner, Timberlane Shores, etc. you might just be a bit jealous when you see this detailed list.

Summary Breakdown of CRA Program Spending 2002-2009 Budget

S = Social Spending       E = Economic Spending

Social Programs and Community Support

1,890,722

S

Business Programs and Promotions

610,378

E

Affordable Housing

3,475,244

S

Streetscape Improvements

6,198,852

E

Capital Projects – Heritage & Community Centers

10,647,966

S

Capital Projects – Welcome Center & Related

1,882,276

E

Capital Projects – Parking Enhancements

2,000,781

E

Capital Projects – Parks & Rec.

1,057,245

S

Capital Projects – Misc

709,248

E

Misc Studies, Matching Grants – Social

204,250

S

Misc Studies, Matching Grants – Economic

761,054

E

So, is the CRA a “slush fund” for all those greedy developers, or it is a wise an prudent long term investment that benefits Winter Park and especially West side residents? The facts are clear as is the blind dogma of those who so stridently oppose redevelopment in downtown Winter Park.

Posted in Development, Elections, Money, Policy.