Skip to content

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.

rev="post-563" No comments

By Peter Weldon – February 6, 2009

Claiming the work of others as your own.

David Strong’s campaign web site promotes this:

“During his first term as Mayor, David guided our city through the formation of a 10-year financial plan. Winter Park not only enjoys the highest level of service of any city in Orange County, it is the only city in Central Florida with a 10-year financial plan.”

David Strong is referring to the formulation of a 10 year financial projection (far from a plan) that was initiated, undertaken, and completed by City Commissioner Phil Anderson with the help of city staff.

What are they thinking? Or, are they thinking?

Our city would greatly benefit from a REAL PROCESS of a rolling 10 year plan with financial projections tied to strategic priorities. Unfortunately, nothing I have seen tells me that David Strong has any knowledge of or interest in doing such a thing. The only members of the City Commission who seem to grasp what is required are Phil Anderson and Karen Diebel.

Posted in Elections, Ethics.

rev="post-345" No comments

By Peter Weldon – February 4, 2009

I am soooooo right I can do anything I want!

David Strong funded almost 20% of Beth Dillaha’s 2008 campaign for City Commission, offering $9,000 in contributions that were accepted on October 9, 2007, $8,000 from companies he controlled with the balance personally from he and his spouse.

In a City Commission workshop on ethics held November 19, 2007 David Strong said. “I think most of our problems arise in this area [ethics] from conflicts of interest and campaign finance.” Then went on to say, “I think… I think that… campaign finance is.. a.. is obviously a very open book and should be, and I think we need to find a way to make it, um, ….[long pause]…. what’s the right word? ….[long pause]…. I don’t know what the right word is. [pause] We need to make it…[pause]… ahhh fairer, maybe fairer.”

Wait a minute here poncho! The only conflict of interest and campaign finance abuse that has been documented is YOUR financing of Beth Dillaha’s campaign. If you did not notice YOU, David, are a sitting Mayor engaged in purchasing a seat on the City Commission for someone you support. Would this abuse of ethical standards have been any more repulsive if you had paid local developer Dan Bellows $9,000 to support his candidacy for City Commission? The answer is NO.

And then you have the gall to send a letter to the voters the day before the last election rationalizing your hypocrisy. This letter is from a fictitious organization with a fictitious address at the bottom. Ethics? No, self righteous hypocrisy.

Curiously, Beth Dillaha’s opponent in that election (Kit Pepper) is one of the strongest proponents of campaign finance reform in Orange County. Yet, you and Dillaha refused to reverse the campaign contributions when asked. Nothing like an unfair advantage against an idealist opponent, eh?

So David, tell the voters once more about “fairness.” Tell them how you and Beth Dillaha both compromised your principles to get control of city policy.

Posted in Elections, Ethics.

rev="post-430" No comments

By Peter Weldon – February 4, 2009

Sentimental journey to lower service levels, higher taxes, and lost independence.

I attended the campaign forum last evening with both Ken Bradley and David Strong making their case. Ken Bradley is a good man who needs to hone his message of rational, positive, professional leadership. David Strong is lost in his emotions.

I was simultaneously touched and troubled by David Strong’s teary eyed reading of a letter from his father, a former Winter Park Mayor, delineating the responsibility each generation of residents has to nurture our city. True, but not sufficient.

David Strong’s commitment comes not from a passion for leadership but from a deep well of sympathy and sentiment. Our problem is that sympathy and sentiment are not foundation for rational policy.

David Strong’s sympathy and sentiment are at the core of the rampant imposition of draconian policies that each of us will pay for, dearly. He has indulged every loud voice in earshot, bowing to all manner of extreme policies proffered by citizens with little or no experience or proven judgment, while steadfastly (and falsely) claiming himself the bastion of ethical behavior and true Winter Park character.

David Strong’s sympathy and sentiment are at the core of the dogma and devisiveness that characterize recent Winter Park politics. There is no debate on the issues. If you are not “for” David Strong you are not “for” Winter Park. Dangerous dogma indeed.

Posted in Elections, Policy.

rev="post-482" No comments

By Peter Weldon – February 4, 2009

“Forward” is the new “Backward”

David Strong’s first campaign mail piece has the headline:

“Let’s Continue Moving Forward.”

This is a bizarre, cynical, and disturbing act of propaganda.

Is exposing our city to a $25,000,000 liability and spending $4,000,000 of our money to make the post office redevelopment project go away “moving forward?”

Is virtually wiping out our general fund reserves by spending the $4,000,000 of our money to make the post office redevelopment project go away “moving forward?”

Is voting to increase our millage rate while our property values have fallen as much as 30% “moving forward?”

Is voting to decrease the value of our property “moving forward?”

Is voting to impose “super-majority” control over redevelopment “moving forward?”

Is claiming that services won’t be cut after voting to eliminate $3,200,000 in city spending “moving forward?”

Is financing the election campaign of a like minded anti-growth militant “moving forward?”

Wake up Winter Park! We can protect our character and improve the quality of life in Winter Park but we need practical, rational, positive, and professional leadership.

Posted in Elections, Ethics.

rev="post-414" No comments

By Peter Weldon – February 3, 2009

Misrepresentation

David Strong’s campaign Web site says, “Winter Park remains financially strong, even as Central Florida has entered uncertain economic times.”

This is complete baloney. Our general fund reserves had to be bolstered by the $1,000,000 sale of land owned by our water company and the cancellation of over $500,000 in previously approved capital projects (among other “adjustments”). Our reserves would be $5,500,000 higher and would have been available to soften the shock of the economic downturn if David Strong had not mismanaged the post office redevelopment controversy.  Currently, revenues and spending (and thus service levels) are falling faster than projected in the original 2009 city budget (see below).

David Strong’s campaign Web site says, “In 2008, David guided our city through $2 million in budget cuts, without reducing our quality of life or the city services upon which you depend.”

This is complete baloney. David Strong did not guide anything. He had no choice in the matter. The $2 million in budget cuts were in part State mandated, and also influenced by the state-wide voter approval of Amendment One in January 2008 that raised most homestead exemptions by $25,000, thereby lowering expected property tax revenue. Further, on January 26, 2009 David Strong voted to reduce 2009 budgeted spending by an additional $1.2 million [PJW Edit February 25, 2009: the reduction was $800,000 not $1,200,000]. Why? Because he was forced to by falling city revenues. Note also that the additional $1.2 million spending reduction does not include possible further reductions in property tax revenue resulting from the economic downturn.

THE REALITY IS THAT CITY REVENUE IS FALLING WHILE SPENDING AND RELATED SERVICES ARE FALLING TOO.

David Strong’s campaign Web site says, “In 2008, we have eliminated $2 million from our city expenditures without reducing any services,” said David, “and, at the same time, we have reduced  property taxes for the majority of our residents.”

This is also complete baloney. “We” did not reduce property taxes for the majority of our residents. Any decrease you may have realized is a direct result of  State mandated cuts and voter approval of Amendment One in January 2008 that raised most homestead exemptions by $25,000. The relevant fact is that David Strong voted to increase our millage rate at a time when our property values have fallen as much as 30%. Click here to understand why David Strong voted to increase your millage rate.

Posted in Elections, Ethics, Money, Policy.

rev="post-392" No comments

By Peter Weldon – February 3, 2009

Super-Duper

History of super-majority voting in Winter Park:

Since 1971 – Any rezoning request denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a super-majority vote of the City Commission to approve.

Since 1991 – (same as 1-1.1.5 below) Any proposed amendment of this Comprehensive Plan denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall not become effective except by a super majority (4 votes) of the City Commission.

Several new super-majority voting requirements have been added to the Comprehensive Plan finalized in February 2009 as detailed below.

These new super-majority voting requirements are intentionally designed by David Strong and his friends to prohibit re-development. No one willing to put their money at risk to improve commercial property will even evaluate Winter Park under these circumstances. These new rules will likely result in law suits against the city for forcing a reduction in property value. These new rules are likely to reduce the market value of significant commercial property in Winter Park, which will lead to lower assessed values and lower commercial tax revenue. This isn’t JUST about NOT redeveloping, it is about lowering the market value of commercial property. Guess who is going to make up the difference?

If these rules stand you can count on nothing happening in Winter Park for a long time to come. Why? Because David Strong and his friends don’t want anything to happen. What are the consequences?

No new investment means no growth in real estate valuation.

No growth in real estate valuation means higher taxes and/or lower service levels.

Remember, our superior quality of life is paid for with tax dollars of one sort or another. No dollars, no bike paths, no park improvements, no tree replenishment, no park acquisitions. The greatest danger is that the voters will eventually have to choose between significantly higher taxes or consolidation of various public safety and other city services with Orange County or neighboring cities. You might want to put this scenario in the context of our current financial situation to understand the reality of it all.

Policy 1-1.1.3: Require Public Notice Prior to Creation or Expansion of CRA or CDD. Prior to the creation or expansion of any Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) or Community Development District (CDD), there shall be a public notice requirement to all households in the City to inform residents of the proposal, the need for such action and the plans or actions contemplated as a result. , and shall require a super majority (4 vote) of the City Commission for approval.

Policy 1-1.1.5: Amendment to this Comprehensive Plan. Any proposed amendment of this Comprehensive Plan denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall not become effective except by a supermajority (4 vote) of the City Commission.

Policy 1-2.6.2: Conservation (CON). The FLUM shall designate lands that are natural and coastal resources as “CON.” It is the intent of the “CON” land use designation to provide for the long-term protection and preservation of environmentally sensitive natural resource systems. The Conservation Future Land Use Map designation is designed to indicate the specific areas, of wetland floodways and the 100-year flood plain, for the Howell Branch Creek areas between Lakes Sue and Virginia and north of Lake Maitland that shall be conserved in their natural condition so that the physical and biological functions of the land may be optimized. No development other than structures that benefit the general public, such as boardwalks or access way for maintenance, are permitted on this land and/or stream front wetland floodplain areas. Access is limited so that these areas may also serve as a safe haven area for wildlife. The City shall have the option of obtaining a conservation easement from the property owner(s) to protect sum lands. The only exception and intensity of use potentially permitted (by conditional use requiring a supermajority vote of the City Commission) is a boardwalk or gazebo for the passive enjoyment of this natural area provided the construction and use is non-intrusive and non disruptive to the primary purpose as a natural conservation area.

Policy 1-3.2.2: Maintain the Character and Vitality of the CBD Environs. The City shall maintain the character of the Central Business District (CBD), including the Park Avenue Corridor as one of the premier downtown retail shopping districts in Florida, by reinforcing attributes that underlie its ambiance and special character, including its pedestrian scale, the relationship of its buildings and their orientation to the street, the eclectic mix of architectural styles, the open space vistas of Central Park, and the predominance of small distinctive specialty shops. The Comprehensive Plan shall impose a two story and 30’ height limit throughout the Central Business District for any property designated non-residential as depicted on the Central Business District Future Land Use Designated Area map located in the Definitions section of this Comprehensive Plan. These height restrictions may be exceeded to a maximum 3 stories and a 40’ height limit if the development is approved by a supermajority vote (four votes) by the City Commission as a Conditional Use and conform to the Maximum Height Map. The maximum floor area ratio within the CBD shall include private parking garages which are either at grade or elevated in calculations of floor area. Subterranean parking garages and public parking garages may be excluded from floor area calculations. Third floors approved by conditional use in the CBD must be setback on street frontages equal to their height on a one foot setback for each one foot height of the third floor.

Policy 1-3.8.9: Preserve the Pedestrian Scale and Orientation of the CBD and Restrict Building Height. The City shall preserve the pedestrian scale and orientation of the Winter Park Central Business District Boundary Map, as defined in the Definitions section of this Comprehensive Plan, by limiting development for any property designated non-residential to two stories in height (30 feet) or three stories (40 feet) (including any mezzanine levels) on a case by case basis via conditional use and by requiring an supermajority (four votes) of approval by the City Commission for any third floor. The pedestrian orientation is also protected by prohibiting new drive-in businesses within the C-2 zoning locations east of Virginia Avenue. Approvals or other variances for more than three stories are prohibited. Third floors approved by conditional use must be setback on street frontages equal to their height on a one foot setback for each one foot height of the third floor. Properties designated low density residential and properties limited to two stories on the Maximum Height Map are not candidates for the 3 story and 40’ height conditional use.

Posted in Development, Money, Policy.

rev="post-407" No comments

By Peter Weldon – February 3, 2009

Your property is about to be devalued.

In August 2008 David Strong, Margie Bridges, and Beth Dillaha voted to reduce the maximum residential Floor Area Ratio to 38% in the Comprehensive Plan (see page 10, here).

What’s the big deal?

The big deal is that:

  1. The existing maximum Floor Area Ratio is 43% for lots less than or equal to 11,600 square feet. The 43% ratio is only available if the second floor side setback is increased to reduce the mass of the home and its relationship to neighboring homes.
  2. This new rule will reduce the buildable square footage of renovated and new construction on over 60% of the residential lots in Winter Park.
  3. The vast majority of architects and designers doing business in Winter Park believe that Floor Area Ratio is NOT the controlling factor influencing the apparent mass of a home.
  4. Square footage IS directly related to the market value of both your lot and your home.

What is going on here?

On it’s face this is dangerous policy that threatens our property value and tax base for no reason other than to satisfy anti-growth dogma promoted by David Strong, Beth Dillaha, and Margie Bridges.

Winter Park should continually review residential building codes in an effort to improve the quality and character of our neighborhoods. However, legislating a Floor Area Ratio in the Comprehensive Plan is dangerous overkill that needlessly puts our property values and tax base at risk.

Posted in Development, Money, Policy.

rev="post-369" No comments

By Peter Weldon – February 1, 2009

Beth Dillaha: Hypocritical. Unethical. #2.

Beth Dillaha, 2007 Campaign Pledge:

“In the absence of state or City reform, I’ve implemented my own concept of campaign finance reform. ‘One voter, one contribution.’ Corporations do not have the right to vote, nor do LLC’s. They should consequently not have the right to financially influence an election or public policy in direct proportion to the size of their checkbooks. Accordingly, I will accept no corporate or LLC contributions … only individual contributions. In addition, I am placing a limit on contributions of $250 per person as opposed to $500.”

October 9, 2007: Beth Dillaha accepts $8,000 in campaign contributions from 16 companies controlled by David Strong.

The first day of qualifying for the January 29, 2008 election was October 9, 2007.

Beth Dillaha’s opponent in the January 29, 2008 election was Kit Pepper, a candidate who ran also in 2007 and who, on both occasions, committed not to accept campaign contributions from companies and held to that commitment.

Beth Dillaha accepted nearly 20% of her campaign funds from David Strong “to get elected.”

So let’s see…Beth Dillaha compromised her principles “to get elected,” running against an opponent who made the same commitment and stuck to it. Beth Dillaha sure seems awfully motivated “to get elected.” I wonder why?

Are Beth Dillaha’s actions hypocritical and unethical? Here are the definitions you need to decide.

… and what was David Strong thinking?

Posted in Ethics.

rev="post-298" No comments

By Peter Weldon – January 30, 2009

Beth Dillaha: Hypocritical. Unethical. #1.

Beth Dillaha, Fall 2007 Campaign Pledge:

“Individuals elected to our City Commission are delegated a serious responsibility by the voters, and must gain and maintain the trust of those voters. When differences arise, such officials must have the ability to subordinate their personal philosophies to those valued by the citizens, who they represent. I can, and will, do that.”

Beth Dillaha, Fall 2008 campaign position on Commuter Rail:

“In March [2007], the citizens approved a commuter-rail stop in Winter Park, and I fully support the citizens.”

Beth Dillaha, January 2008 candidate forum: When asked if elected would she vote to support the commuter rail agreement with Orange County she responded, “It’s a done deal.”

Beth Dillaha letter published in the Orlando Sentinel, election day, January 29. 2008:

“With regard to commuter rail, this project was unanimously approved by the mayor and commissioners two weeks ago, and the design for the stop in Central Park is currently under way. In fact, citizens have an opportunity for input regarding the design of the stop and can visit www.cityofwinterpark.org for more information.”

Beth Dillaha 2008 campaign brochures: “Winter Park voters are smart.”

March 24, 2008: Beth Dillaha is sworn in as a City Commissioner.

April 2, 2008: Beth Dillaha email to Paula Dockery, State Senator from Lakeland:

“I am newly elected to the Winter Park City Commission. Commuter Rail was very hotly contested here and became a political issue with strong backing by the local Chamber of Commerce, realtors and developers. In fact, a PAC was formed to push it through. This became so hotly contested that the citizens, not trusting the City Commission at the time, managed to collect enough signatures to get the issue on the ballot and to the voters of our city.” [PJW: The PAC was formed in direct response to a few citizens who worked to get a referendum with the intent to kill commuter rail. Not the other way around.]

…later in this email…

“As an elected official, it is my duty to support the passage of the Commuter Rail referendum and we (the city) are looking at a design for a “stop” in our Central Park. However, I voted against the measure recognizing – as you have – that this represents a huge taxpayer burden with no real benefit.”

Understand what is going on here:

Beth Dillaha laid out a set of laudible principals in 2007, then compromised those principles and intentionally mislead the voters of Winter Park about her position on commuter rail (that’s a nice way of saying she is a liar). She played the voters for fools and began pursuing her personal anti-commuter rail agenda immediately after being seated as a Winter Park City Commissioner.

April 6, 2008: Beth Dillaha email to Paula Dockery, State Senator from Lakeland:

“The majority of our City Commission does not support Commuter Rail.” [PJW: How does she know this?]

“I walk a fine line since there was a referendum here on Commuter Rail. It narrowly passed and passed for reasons I mentioned. The majority of citizens do not want a rail stop In our historic Central Park.” [PJW: But wait, she got elected in part by saying, “In March {2007}, the citizens approved a commuter-rail stop in Winter Park, and I fully support the citizens.”]

… and then the pièce de résistance from the April 6 correspondance:

“At a time when our state government is slashing its budget including funding for education, I find it appalling that the state would spend this kind of money on an unnecessary project that may benefit 9000 individuals in Central Florida at the expense of the rest of the state. We already have severe water shortages from the unchecked growth in Orange County and have established an unsustainable region in the state. This topic makes the newspaper on a daily basis. How we will be able to double the population here with the help of Commuter Rail and intensive densification and maintain any quality of life is something I can’t quite understand.”

There you have it. The ultimate hypocrisy wrapped in complete disregard for her fiduciary responsibility. Beth Dillaha intentionally hid her beliefs and agenda from the voters. Beth Dillaha treated her election as a means to impose her personal militant anti-growth agenda not just on Winter Park, but indeed, on the entire State of Florida! Unbounded righeousness ready to serve us all. “… officials must have the ability to subordinate their personal philosophies to those valued by the citizens.”

Really.

Are Beth Dillaha’s actions hypocritical and unethical? Here are the definitions you need to decide.

Posted in Ethics.

rev="post-272" No comments

By Peter Weldon – January 30, 2009